Advertising vs. Culture
Understanding the difference when it comes to brand strategy...
This is my last article of the year. 🌈
Thank you to everyone to who took time to read our newsletter in 2023. More to come next year - things are getting spicy in the world of consumer, so there is more to write about in 2024! Disruption, community first brands, Web3 becoming more mainstream, AI commerce taking shape, Tiktok domination and more!
If I had to sum up the shift in consumer behaviour and brand strategy in 2023, the biggest area of tension I see is how a brand anchors itself in society. Will they focus building a brand through traditional frameworks or through more progressive cultural frameworks. Everything else is a marketing decision.
Brands are a construct. There are academic institutions that study brand strategy and report on brand effectiveness. Brands are measured using performance funnels and NPS scores. This hasn’t changed for at least two decades.
This year, I noticed the academic institutions incorporating more current thinking in their reports suggesting there are shifts and the old methods finally need updating. When Byron Sharp and Mark Ritson are on LinkedIn all day - you know times are changing!
As consumer behaviours and expectations evolve, brands face growing tension between traditional advertising frameworks focused on reach and recall versus culturally-rooted brand building centered on authentic connections.
While classic structures still prove effective for established brands, cultural relevance is increasingly vital, especially for lifestyle categories. Savvy brands blend both approaches, while others risk alienating new generations overly reliant on one model.
Platforms like Tiktok and YouTube and changing the brand playbook where consumers are in control or at least influence part of the brand strategy formula.
Brands like Cortiez build from the bottom up ( for the people, by the people ) are inventing their own go to market strategy. Well known brands like LVMH are diversifying their IP - spreading into F&B, travel, entertainment - building brand worlds.
The consumer brand ecosystem is divided into two camps - classic brand building and culturally led brand building. As a CMO sitting across multiple brands, I see this divide more than ever - new brands are embracing community and culture. Traditional brands are still relying on SOV and market share. Who is right?
To answer this question - we need to look at how a traditional brand framework can be adapted for a culturally led brand building approach.
This hierarchical framework (see figure 1) is engineered for broadcast communications that repetitively hammer home brand promises, shaping consumer perceptions through consistent messaging. Common proof points include awareness, consideration and preference lift, fuelled by reach-driving media investment. Legacy CPG brands frequently rely on variations of this structure given their functional nature. Examples like P&G, Coca-Cola and Nike demonstrate its continued potency. Promises are repeated and consumers build memory structures - for example: “Colgate, I know this toothpaste will whiten my teeth the fastest”. A walk down the grocery isle is full of packaging design techniques to influence preference.
Ultimately, how can you develop a culture surrounding baby powder and cereal. Some would argue that is possible - I think DTC businesses demonstrated that we do not need a lifestyle attached to every product we purchase. I am perfectly happy having a functional relationship with my dishwasher soap ⭐️.
Meanwhile, lifestyle brands focused on identity and self-expression demand deeper consumer bonding. As figure 2 shows, cultural resonance stems from the brand's ethos, social impact, unique voice and active relationship with its community. Sub-components like representing diversity, promoting sustainability and engaging key influencers externalise these drivers. Goop, Glossier, Supreme and Peloton lean fully into culturally-rooted strategies while Nike balances both frameworks.
Selling non-essential goods = selling desire. To help shape this thinking, I took the traditional brand hierarchy and adapted it for a culturally led brand strategy. It is important to understand the distinction between the two:
Cultural Ethos: Instead of a brand promise, define the core principles and beliefs that the brand upholds, which resonate with the cultural group it aims to engage with.
Cultural Narrative: Replace the positioning statement with a narrative that tells a story about the brand’s role within the cultural context it exists in. This story should align with cultural conversations and societal shifts.
Cultural Impact: Instead of a value proposition, focus on the tangible impact the brand has on the culture. This could be through innovation, community involvement, or enhancing cultural practices.
Cultural Identity: Describe the brand’s unique cultural characteristics, including its voice, style, and the communal or social movements it aligns with.
Cultural Dialogue: Key messaging should be about opening and maintaining a dialogue with the cultural community, not just broadcasting a message but engaging in two-way communication.
Cultural Footprint: Finally, the proof points should demonstrate the brand’s footprint within the culture. This includes collaborations, cultural initiatives, or contributions to cultural events that show the brand’s commitment and influence.
If we compare each framework - you can see how they co-exist and operate independently. The traditional ladder focuses on structured messaging pushed outward en masse for memory retention while cultural scaffolding centers on co-creation through shared principles and inside jokes.
The first risks feeling outdated or inauthentic if not updated while the latter can alienate less embedded consumers unable to crack the code.
Smart brands recognize when to deploy each, such as Nike using advertising to spread its mission but streetwear partnerships to strengthen its cultural roots.
Neither works universally - deodorant requires different tactics than streetwear after all - though both prove most durable when blended together.
Brand building has bifurcated between repetitive awareness driving and cultural co-creation, forcing CMOs to reevaluate dated frameworks.
As Generation Z sharpens its BS detectors, marketing must feel less artificial and more aligned with personal values. But classic structures still provide a strong base, especially on newly launched products.
Ultimately brands must gauge where they land between functional utility and cultural resonance to design appropriate strategies. With consumer behaviors in flux, no one-size-fits-all approach exists, requiring agile teams and perspectives.
✌🏻