livingbrands

How much longer for disposable fashion?

There was an article in the Evening Standard last week, praising the delights of Primark. I was reading over someone's shoulder, so can't be certain. But one of the subheads went something along the lines of "so cheap you can wear it once and chuck it".

Now I'm all for affordable clothing (many genuinely can't afford the inflated prices of 'brand' clothes - this isn't some middle class snobbery...I hope!). And, personally, I'm positively allergic to high price 'labels'. But am I alone in thinking that shopping at Primark is like being addicted to some kind of fashion crack. Because no one (really, it's true) needs that many clothes, or to change them that regularly.

It's psychologically damaging, and just serves to reinforce the need, need, need...want, want, want...buy, buy, buy cancer destroying our society from within.

And have you ever stopped to think about the damage being done elsewhere. I don't want to point the finger without knowing the facts. But the clothes can't be that cheap just because they're rubbish quality bought in large quantities. Someone somewhere is bearing the brunt.

And yes, I'm sure it's all perfectly legal. But the law is ripe with shades of grey when it comes to human rights - as Dr Who said the other week, when told that us Brits don't have slaves: who do you think makes your clothes.

And even if the labour practises of Primark (and the other low cost retailers - it's not just them) are above board, even best practise (I wouldn't want to pre-judge!), what about the environment?

Those clothes we wear once or twice and chuck are using up nonrenewable resources at a rapid rate...and putting rubbish back in return. Because most people do still chuck clothes when they are 'out of fashion', or even if they're just board with them, rather than recycling in some form. Where other markets are (if only superficially) trying to be 'sustainable', fashion is careering in the other direction.

It can't last. A change will have to come. And not just in what we wear. Across the board we will have to switch from the suicide path of 'more, more, more' fuelled by cheap disposability.

But the alternative path of sustainability has many components - it's not just about businesses having a socially, morally and environmentally positive perspective. Or us complaining that they don't. We have to change our own lives - we can't have our cake and eat it when it comes to consumerism and 'doing the right thing'.

What was it the Ghandi said - be the change you want to see in the world. Culturally and psychologically, people need to change. We need to discover the joys of contentment; a sense that enough is enough. But that ain't easy, given the the cultural thrust of the last 50 years.

Which is why those of us involved with brands and comms have our part to play in helping change happen. Because, like it or not (and despite all the liberal hand wringing we now take part in), we have been (and remain) a big part of the problem.

Search for the hero inside

Back in the early 70s prof Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University conducted what is now a famous (or rather infamous) psychological experiment: he wanted to see what made 'ordinary' people turn bad en-mass - the kind of behaviour seen everywhere from Hitler's Germany to Abu Graib, and all points in-between.

He placed college students in a mock 'prison', some as guards, some as prisoners, and left them to self organise. The experiment had to be stopped after only 6 days because nearly half the prisoners had emotional breakdowns as a consequence of the sadistic treatment they had to endure.

Zimbardo, who (rather spooky given his chosen topic) is a dead ringer for the old-school Master from Doctor Who...

...has since termed this tendency for unexpected collective evil the Lucifer Effect, an idea he develops further in a just published book.

I can't claim to have read it, but in the book he apparently posits that the mirror of the Lucifer Effect should also be true; that, in similar mass terms, we should be able to create conditions that frees the latently heroic in people - the collective Hero Effect. Which seems, to me, a much more interesting idea, and maybe where he should be focusing his future efforts.

We can see this almost spontaneous mass heroism stimulated by a common cause (the Jubilee 2000 human chain around the G8 to the marches against the war in Iraq) or when faced with large scale catastrophe (9/11 and the 7/7 bombings). But the key question is, how do you cultivate the hero when these catalytic conditions don't exist?

In previous generations we might have looked to the classic institutions to do this. But the school system doesn't seem well placed to deliver, for all the 'citizenship' lesson and teaching 'respect'. And joining the army or going to church are now minority activities, and ones often discredited for those on the outside. Nor, in our culture of fear and 'cotton wool kids', is such inspiration likely to come from within the family (most will be looking to keep those heroes locked up tight). There are plenty of self help books out there of course. But most of the heroes in these are essentially individualistic and selfish - the 'hero' lets you achieve what you want for yourself, rather than for the good of others (which is the effect Zimbardo is talking about).

How do you get everyone being heroic then? Pained as I am to suggest it (but obviously where I was going to end up given the nature of this blog), maybe the most likely candidates are brands, given the popularist power they wield. Nike, for instance, is already encouraging people to be heroes, albeit in the world of sport. What if they took that ethos into other areas. And I'm sure their are other likely candidates. Any thoughts?

When enough is enough

A maybe naive (but I would like to think positively idealistic) build/variation on my recent 'lefty' post, inspired a little by some of the comments that one received.

In thinking about whether free market proponents (or businesses in general) really practise what they preach, one thought that struck me (maybe simplistic - happy to hear a well argued alternative) is that many rely on what I shall call 'lazy competition' to succeed. Businesses don't really compete with each other in a 'red in tooth and claw', survival of the fittest sense. It's often more a case of (latent...because they won't see it this way) collusion, where they rely instead on out of control consumerism (and the ability to 'infect' developing countries with the same disease) to grow markets so that everyone 'wins' - you don't have to be fit to survive you just have to be playing the game.

But there are still losers (there always are), and that's those of us doing the consuming - all that 'extra' income we 'enjoy' because of economic growth is spent as quickly as we earn it, on things we don't really need, which provide limited (if any) incremental utility. And, of course, the environment doesn't do too well out of this arrangement either, as we eat up nonrenewable natural resources and replace them with, well, rubbish.

So what's the answer? I can't say that there's an easy one. Or rather one that doesn't involve apparent sacrifice (at least as defined by the economic rules we are currently slaves to). But maybe what we need to do is start looking for different models to work by, built around more socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable levels of growth (reminds me of this, which I wrote a while ago, comparing collaborative 'ecologies' to competitive economies); strategies of 'enough' rather than 'more' - because when you have enough, more rarely makes you any happier. In fact, it probably makes you less.

Yes, incomes would be lower, which I guess would be the main counter argument, but so would overall consumption - so net we may end up better off! Particularly as most of us, in the West at least, are now well beyond the 'enough' point, and into the diminishing...even negative returns of 'more'.

In this model, companies would also have to get back to proper competition (which is no bad thing, if harnessed in a social constructive way) - the 'free market' kind where you have to properly earn the right to receive my money…a right many good companies have earned (but a right too many have simply 'stolen' by being on the materialist consumerist gravy train of growth). This would be a 'people first' not 'company first' world where failure to earn my trust and respect would mean something more significant than succeeding less.

How do we get to this point? Again I don't know. For me (and I think this is where it gets very personal), I see it as an almost spiritual question, something that requires a paradigm shift in how we view the world, and our place in it. Others will have equally valid points of view, and effective strategies for change, and I would love to hear them.

But change will have to come, because where we are heading is unsustainable, self-destructive, and (irony of ironies) doesn't even really deliver the benefits to us the 'consumer' that we think we're buying into.

The free-market paradox of company structure

(charles.hope)

As a bit of an old fashioned lefty, I've never been a big fan of unfettered capitalism and the uncontrolled free market, particularly where global trade is concerned (or any point, in fact, where the 'strong' meet the 'weak').

My problem is that, for all the theoretical purity of the arguments in favour of economic freedoms, what works in a textbook rarely works in practise.

Because the sad fact is that, ultimately, we all have a worrying tendency to be be selfish and self-serving. And in the free market, this tends to mean the survival of the fittest (for which read richest, most powerful etc.) in all the worst ways, rather than a case of 'floating all boats' (to quote an oft-used free market platitude). Basically, it's a system which favours those with the ability/power/resources to 'play' the system, breaking the 'natural' rules of markets in the process and bending (sometimes ignoring) those imposed by governments. All of which means that those at the bottom of the pile suffer as a consequence.

The problem is that, for me at least, this is all gut feeling (even if I know I'm right!) - I'm not a professional economist with all the arguments to hand. But because the free market meta-narrative is now so all pervading, and intertwined with that of 'democracy' and 'individual rights' (but not, obviously, 'personal responsibility'), everyone 'knows' it is good and right. And that to argue otherwise means you're a communist or some old school 70s trade unionist (and look what happened back then).

Which is why a small point in one of John Grant's recent posts on economics and the environment leapt out at me. In it, 'green' Economist Herman Daly draws a parallel between the freedoms nation states are expected to offer businesses to aid the workings of the market, and the controls those same companies impose on their own work force.

The argument was so simple and so obvious - a Homer 'doh' moment. Because if we are so convinced of the power of the market, why don't we run our businesses along similar lines - insisting on freedom of all information and all resources (rather than just that which we view as essentially disposable/easily replicable), and letting people within the business decide for themselves what they want to 'make', 'buy' and 'sell' (it's the 'freedom' we want to impose on developing nations after all…albeit heavily influenced by our view of what they should be 'free' to do). Because if markets work, clearly they must work everywhere. Otherwise there is an exception that proves the rule - that markets don't work perfectly.

But obviously businesses aren't run in this way. Many of the most successful are, in fact, as totalitarian and centrally planned as during the worst excesses of Stalinist Russia. And even the most modern and flattest in structure will have rules a plenty for people to abide by. It's just that when it comes to how these companies operate at a macro level, all the importance placed on control (strangely!) goes out the window. And the expectation becomes one of freedom (to do what I want and damn the consequences to others) all the way. Funny that.

So next time you're confronted by this attitude, ask the person in question when they're going to start running their own business along similar lines, if the free market is such an efficient and effective model.

If nothing else, it should make for an entertaining conversation.

P.s. just in case anyone wants to fire back the hypocrisy argument, I see no contradiction with holding this view and working in advertising ;-)

Harder problems make for better inventions

A bit of a cheat, as I've already written about this over at J1ST. But it seemed to fit here as well. And it's an easy way to bulk out the blog when you're busy!

How to take renewable wind power to the third world? That was the challenge Shawn Frayne set himself. Big turbines are, well, very big…and very expensive. Even small turbines are pretty pricey, given the engineering involved.

The answer first came to him at school when watching a film on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (this Wikipedia link includes a great film). So unstable was said bridge, that it used to oscillate in the wind, turning it into a bit of a tourist attraction as people came to ride the wave (until, sadly, it collapsed in 1940, taking all its passengers with it).

Anyway, the idea of wind based oscillation stuck with Shawn, and he has now turned it into a potentially very cheap and very efficient means of energy generation. Watch the film here, which explains everything very well. Or read the website.

Just goes to show you're never too young to have great ideas, and that harder problems make for better inventions.

Tell it like a diary

Seems Kate Nash has got a big following amongst teen age girls, primarily because she's seen as one of them, living their lives and speaking their language.

As an article about her in Q says, her songs "speak to her overwhelmingly female teenage audience in a way that only an overwhelmingly female teenage audience can understand". Or as a couple of 15 year olds put it: "she's a normal girl you can relate to…her songs are really true…and funny…and some of them are just random…it's like a diary"

Shows the power of good storytelling when it comes to engaging people.

And as with the way Lily Allen was embraced, maybe Kate represents a new kind of role model for a generation of young women who have been fed the myth of footballers wives: that the only way to be successful is via vacuous celebrity and manufactured glamour.

As she says about Girls Aloud: "they're like dolls…they're fembots". So there may be hope for the sanity of the world yet!

Is corporate consistency important?

We all understand the importance of brands being open, honest and consistent (or at least not contradictory). After all, it's so easy for people to find out the 'truth' nowadays, you don't want to be caught with your trousers down.

But what's easy for brands (in theory - obviously a lot haven't even got to this point yet, which is another story entirely), is not always quite so straightforward for the businesses that own them. Particularly if those businesses have a wide range of brands, in very different markets with very different audiences.

Case in point: Unilever. It has two brands that are often held up as perfect examples of great brand building, because they are very open, honest and consistent in what they say, and how they behave : Dove and Lynx/Axe.

The problem though, as Russell wrote about recently, is that whilst these two brand are brilliantly consistent, they are in danger of saying inconsistent things about Unilever. This is particularly true from the perspective of Dove, which has taken a stand against the very objectification of women that Lynx's seems to be embody.

Does this inconsistency matter? I don't know. I guess I have always felt a little uncomfortable about Lynx at a personal level (even whilst respecting the brand), so for me I would probably say yes...a bit. But I also recognise that a business like Unilever doesn't, and can't really operate with the corporate consistency of (say) an Innocent, where the company is the brand.

And you might even argue that Dove and Lynx should in fact be seen as separate 'businesses' that happen to be 'owned' by the same 'investor', and on that basis look at Unilever as one step removed. Plus, you obviously have to take the whole Lynx thing with a big pinch of ironic salt.

But when films like this start turning up (thanks to PSFK), you do have to wonder whether there might be problems ahead.

So back to the beginning: if you can find out everything about anything, what happens when enough people with a point of view start to join the dots between very different brands and the businesses that own them? How important is corporate consistency then?

A what a day helps you work, rest and play?

If you said Mars, you are probably 1) British and 2) someone who recognises the value of a good endline.

A few months ago there was an article in the Guardian dissing 'catchphrases', which I disagreed with on a whole heap of levels.

Mars wasn't one of the examples they featured. But they might well have done. So I was interested to read in this morning's Marketing Week that, after a succession of highly memorable alternatives ('Must be Mars' anyone? Or 'Pleasure you can't measure'?), Mars are returning to the line that made them famous.

Albeit with a slight variation - 'Work. Rest. Play longer'. Because, apparently, it will be reintroduced first on the Mars energy drink, which lets you exercise for up to 50% longer (hmmm, not completely sure that sounds believable).

Anyway, going back to their roots just makes sense to me.

The fame of our long standing brands was mainly built when you really did get a lot of bang for your advertising buck. Which is why their advertising properties remain so front of mind to this day: they got firmly lodged in people's brains, and in popular culture (sometimes even for those who weren't there the first time round). And once rooted in this way, these properties are hard to shift (it's all in the nueroscience), particularly given the fragmented media environment we now have, and the lack of large scale, culturally impacting oomph this means.

So rather than try and update these brand by doing something completely different (because brands can't stand still; they have to move with the times), surely it makes more sense to build on the (mental) foundations that already exist, presenting/reinterpreting these in a new and relevant way?

The geography of lost childhood

We've been having a lot of conversations with one of our clients recently about the loss of childhood: the paradox where kids today are forced to grow up too quickly on the one hand (comsumerism, sexualisation and all that), and barely allowed out of the house on the other, for fear that something non-specifically awful will happen to them.

For whatever reason, kids are no longer allowed to be kids in the way they once were. Which has to be a concern.

Now I'm completely aware that this is probably a very middle class POV. And that 'childhood', in the way we now know it, is a pretty recent invention. I may even be looking at things through rose tinted specs (although my life was quite clearly different to Josh's).

But I don't care. Parents need to chill (me included - life out there isn't THAT bad). And kids need the opportunity to see there's more to life than a parasitic relationship with a Playstation (and, yes, I have read Steven Johnson's book, and broadly agree that some 'bad' things can be good for you - but just get out and get some fresh air as well will you).

All of which may make it sound as if I've switched allegiance from the Guardian to the Daily Mail. I haven't. But, it's a nice segue way into this article that appeared recently in everyone's favourite bastion of Middle England conservatism (thank's to Lee and his regular dose of Delicious links, for serving this up).

Relatively free of the usual rabid Mail-isms, it has at its heart a very simple thought (and a great map): how does the right to roam of an 8 year old today compare with 3 previous generations of the same family at the same age.

Rightly or wrongly, literally or only in our heads, it does show how much the world has changed. And traditionalist that I am, with a bit of a liking for the Great Outdoors, I think that's sad.

Any value in authenticity?

Tom Asacker has written an interesting piece on the value to brands of authenticity. In it he suggests our striving to build 'authentic' brands (in that 'real' sense, where backstory, rich heritage, passionate commitment etc. are key) is a wild goose chase, as most people in most instances don't really care that much.

Is it cheap; does it work well; does it look good? These are what most of care about: being 'authentic' is just a bit of window dressing.

As someone who, in consumer mode, considers authenticity to be quite important, this is a challenging assertion. Maybe Tom is wrong. But my gut and experience says probably not. Which just goes to show how careful you have to be not to impose your own beliefs/desires on to the brands you work with.

But whilst authenticity may not carry weight with everyone, what does seem to be increasingly important is honesty and integrity - you can be 100 years old or invented yesterday, premium quality or instantly disposable, but people don't really care as long as you're true to yourself...and don't pretend to be something you not.

Which reminds me of another article I read recently in Fast Company. It covered similar territory, although came to a more positive conclusion about authenticity. And at one point had the following to say: "the opposite of real isn't fake...it's cynicism". Which I think possibly sounds cleverer than the meaning it contains. But again, the point is one of honesty: there's nothing wrong with being fake, as long as you are open about it. If you're cynical, and try to dress up your fakeness in authentic clothes, you will merely breed cynicism on the part of your consumers, who will see right through you.

But back to Tom. His article cites the (imaginary?) example of green Easy Cheese to dramatise the distinction between authenticity and integrity - as a Brit, I'm guessing this is cheese that you squirt. And here I'm going to diverge slightly from what he says, not so much in the conclusion (I think we come to the same point), but in the use of 'authenticity' and 'integrity' as these apply to the green squirty stuff. It may be semantics, but to my mind he has them wrong way round.

Anyway, my take would be this: that in the world of cheese, green Easy Cheese is anything but authentic (in that 'proper' artisanal way most would understand the word). But it is very true to itself - it has integrity, and builds the holistic brand...which is a fun, disposable, squirty cheese after all, so why shouldn't in be green.

Which has, in its own way, a degree of authenticity about it. And maybe that's the answer: honesty and integrity today delivers authenticity tomorrow, even if people can't see it now. Take Marmot. Here's a product that was only ever the by-product of the brewing industry. It was a waste product...and many have always thought it tasted as much. But in being true to itself over the decades, by maintaining its integrity, it now has real authenticity as well - for those who care!

And actually, if you look at all the usual authenticity suspects (Harley, DMs, whatever it is for you - authenticity is in the eye of the beholder), they often come from quite inauspicious beginnings. But they stuck to their guns, retained integrity and gained authenticity over the years (again, for those looking for it - and, for many brands, there are more than enough people willing to pay through the nose for the privilege).

So, yes, Tom is right. Don't get hung up on authenticity (unless it is there already). Worry more about brand integrity and a product that delivers. But I think he is also wrong (possibly), as authenticity (in the sense of having heritage and a 'real' story) should follow on as consequence of this...eventually at least. And some people WILL value it.