Categories
Podcast

19: Systems In Flux: Birth of the New Spiritual Consumer

For the fourth and final episode in our series on Systems In Flux, we’re talking about seemingly new emerging forms of spirituality, and how new spiritual brands are positioning themselves to take advantage of our collective movement towards wanting to be both categorized but at the same time free from conventional binary definitions.

Everything is being catered more and more to us as individuals—and religion seems to be shifting in that direction, too. Part of that shift is the way we understand what religion is in the first place, and our youngest generations are pushing us further toward newly remixed ideas of spirituality that borrow from a wide range of traditions.

Allegra Hobbs is a journalist who’s explored the phenomenon of the Enneagram. The Enneagram is a newly-revived derivative of the teachings of the Bolivian-born philosopher, Oscar Ichazo, that practitioners believe can lead to improved self-awareness.

She found that the Enneagram and other categorizing devices like it have also seemingly crossed over into the mainstream because we find ourselves in a perpetual state of isolation and alienation—something Rachel Lo discovered as she developed the dating app Struck, which helps match people based on their astrological signs.

This episode explores what these new forms of spirituality mean and how they’ve come into the mainstream with the emergence of a new spiritual consumer, and while discussions about spirituality can be challenging for a number of reasons, our conversations ended up revealing surprising potential implications for equity and inclusion in everything from how we find meaningful relationships to how we conceptualize our work.

Podcast Transcript

MAY 13, 2021

60 min read

Systems In Flux: Birth of the New Spiritual Consumer

00:11

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. For the fourth and final episode in our series on Systems In Flux, we’re talking about seemingly new emerging forms of spirituality and how new spiritual brands are positioning themselves to take advantage of our collective movement towards wanting to be both categorized but at the same time, wanting to be free from conventional binary definitions.

Everything is being catered more and more to us as individuals and religion seems to be shifting in that direction, too. Part of that shift is the way we understand what religion is in the first place. And our youngest generations are pushing us further toward newly remixed ideas of spirituality that borrow from a wide range of traditions. Allegra Hobbs is a journalist who’s explored the phenomenon of the Enneagram.

01:00

The Enneagram is a newly revived derivative of the teachings of Bolivian-born philosopher Oscar Ichazo that practitioners believe can lead to improved self-awareness. She found that Enneagram and other categorizing devices like it have also seemingly crossed over into the mainstream because we find ourselves in a professional state of isolation and alienation—something Rachel Lo discovered as she developed the dating app Struck, which helps match people based on their astrological signs.

This episode explores what these new forms of spirituality mean, and how they’ve come into the mainstream with the emergence of a new spiritual consumer. And while discussions about spirituality can be challenging for a number of reasons, our conversations ended up revealing surprising potential implications for equity and inclusion in everything from how we find meaningful relationships to how we conceptualize our work. First, Allegra breaks down the history for us. What is an Enneagram anyway? And how did it capture the imagination of some of the world’s most powerful leaders and institutions today?

02:00

Allegra:
So, the Enneagram as it is currently used is a system of typing people into nine basic personality types. And you are dominant in one. That does not mean that that is all you are, you theoretically contain parts of each personality, but you’re only dominant in one type. And that type is all about what fundamentally motivates you.

02:30

What is the core motivating factor? So it is not based on behavior, you cannot tell a person’s type based on the way they behave. It is all about what motivates them at a fundamental level. So for example, I am Type Four or dominant in Type Four. And my core motivation is, according to the system, to establish an identity for myself.

03:00

So I guess when it comes to exploring the history of the Enneagram, it’s important to note that this is all based on a wisdom tradition that serious practitioners will tell you is ancient and somewhat mysterious. Like the exact origins of the wisdom tradition itself are disputed, but we can pretty precisely pinpoint when that wisdom tradition started to become the personality typing system that is in use today.

 

03:30

There was a philosopher named Oscar Ichazo, who was the leader of a non-religious human potentialist movement that was based in Chile in the 1970s. He crafted the Enneagram into a system for understanding how essence, which he posits is perfect and in oneness with the cosmos, becomes distorted into what we would call our personalities, which are the nine types. It’s not that you’re your personality, it’s that your personality is kind of a mask, or is this distortion of your core essence. So the work of the Enneagram is all about tearing down that personality to get back to the core of who you are, so learning your type is the start of the journey and not the end in itself.

04:30

So he kind of started with that philosophy and established these nine types. His work was then expounded on by a student of his named Claudio Naranjo. And then some Americans came to Chile, discovered the system, they passed it on to a group of Jesuits in the United States. And that is how it came into the hands of a Franciscan friar named Richard Rohr, kind of known for his work in meditation and quiet contemplation. He has kind of a retreat in New Mexico. And then he wrote the  first book about the Enneagram from a Christian perspective in 1990. And it was literally called The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective. So this is something that’s kind of been out there for a few decades in the Christian world, but not anywhere near mainstream. But Rohr kind of became the entry point for a lot of other Christians who were curious about the system.

05:30

One of them was Suzanne Stabile and she was a pastor’s wife. She journeyed to Rohr’s center where he was teaching the Enneagram. She absorbs the wisdom of the Enneagram and she co-wrote a book with an Episcopal Priest named Ian Morgan Cron called, The Road Back To You. And it was published in late 2016. And that was the book that changed everything.

05:50

Jasmine:
It’s interesting that that book is called The Road Back To You because the words read like self-help to me.

06:00

And I know that you’ve written that a lot of people who have really embraced the Enneagram, Christian or otherwise, they tend to be quite young. They are into self care and wellness. They are open to therapy, possibly astrology, things like that. You talked about Christianity, the Christian system, which you’ve written posits that, “We are inherently flawed,” but you’re describing the Enneagram system is we are inherently perfect. And our personalities kind of mask that perfection. I’m sensing a tension between these two systems, or I guess you could even call them brands. Is there a tension there?

06:32

 

Allegra:
There is a tension between the Enneagram and a certain strain of Christianity. And I think that’s important to specify because whether or not the Enneagram comes into conflict with Christianity, kind of depends on who you ask, because there are many ways of practicing the faith of Christianity. But what I did find is that the way American evangelicalism is often practiced can be traced back to the teachings of John Calvin, a philosopher out of the Protestant Reformation.

07:00

And he taught a doctrine called total depravity, which is pretty much what it sounds like, which is that every effort by a human being is tainted by sin. And it is only through faith that we escape our fate of eternal damnation. So here’s a quote from John Calvin that I cited in my piece. “Our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil that it can never be idle. The whole man from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot is so deluged, as it were, that no part remains exempt from sin, and, therefore, everything which proceeds from him is imputed as sin.”

07:47

If you look at American evangelicalism, it stems from this Calvinist teaching and this Calvinist understanding of sin nature and human nature. So there is a sense among a lot of American evangelicals that, “You are bad at the core, and it is only through the grace of God that you even have a hope of salvation, but any efforts that you personally make to better yourself are fundamentally flawed because we’re sinful at our core.” What the Enneagram teaches is that at your core, is this kind of perfect essence. 

Oscar Ichazo believes that we are in essence, in perfect oneness with the cosmos and that we become distorted and lose that perfection when we fall from essence into ego. So the Enneagram is a significant departure from that kind of Calvinist American evangelicalism which is still pretty prominent because it teaches you that you can, through your own efforts, work your way back to this fundamental goodness at your core.

09:00

When you contrast that with this message that, “You’re bad, bad, bad, that you’re sinful at your core, and you need to move away from yourself,” it’s really striking.

09:12

Jasmine:
Why do you think this has entered the spiritual mainstream at this point? Because this is quite recent, it’s been around for a long time, but like you said, in 2016, it was a turning point and it feels like more of a movement now than anything else. Why do you think that is?

09:27

Allegra:
Yeah. I think that for one, something I’ve found in reporting this piece, there is a trend of younger Christians who are really jaded by the showy megachurch type of Christianity. These charismatic pastors holding religious services in sporting arenas. It strikes a lot of younger people as disingenuous. And so there’s actually a really interesting trend of younger Christians moving towards more liturgical traditions and being more open to meditative practices and quiet contemplation, and the Enneagram kind of falls in line with those trends.

10:09

If you look at it the way it’s supposed to be followed and supposed to be studied, the Enneagram is practiced as this life long journey to better understand yourself and your place in the world. It’s very serious work to the people who practice it. And it is often taught in tandem with quiet contemplation. That’s the way that Franciscan friar Richard Rohr taught it.

10:32

So when you look at it that way, it’s kind of an intentional departure from the more surface level glitzy, aesthetic brand of Christianity if that makes sense. The other thing, the evangelical world is more open to influences outside of the explicitly Christian, which is a fairly new phenomenon. If you look at the history of evangelicalism in America, you see a resistance to things like yoga, which some believed was satanic. You see the Harry Potter books were kind of approached with fear and trepidation and kind of moral panic because evangelicals believed that it would impart witchcraft and on a more serious note, the evangelical church has been exclusionary and even outright hostile to marginalized groups that it felt were not in line with their moral teachings specifically the LGBT community. All of that has changed in recent years.

11:37

Jasmine:
As I was surveying this, and even my personal experience with Enneagram and talking to some of the people that I know, a lot of people are introduced to the Enneagram through totally non-religious routes. You could easily embrace this and never feel, or know about the religious context. What are some of the spectrum of brands that have emerged around the Enneagram from religious to non-religious that might give us an idea of just how big this is?

12:07

Allegra:
Yeah. So the first example that comes to mind and the most prominent kind of in the influencer brand sphere is definitely Sarajane Case. And she runs an Instagram account called EnneagramAndCoffee. At the time I wrote my piece, she had half a million followers. That’s pretty significant for this little kind of personality typing system that a few years ago was relatively unknown. 

And she kind of has built herself into a brand around the Enneagram, if that makes sense. Her Instagram account is quite personal. It trades both in serious spiritual work and advice for people who are looking to explore the Enneagram and fun, more topical means that are Enneagram adjacent if that makes sense.

12:59

A lot of this does in fact, live on Instagram. There’s one Instagram account that I find funny called Rude Ass Enneagram. It’s mostly screenshots from TV shows that people love like New Girl. And it’s kind of like, for example, it will show what character, maybe what type, or it’ll have memes using screen grabs or quotes from these TV shows, making fun of each Enneagram type in a good natured way.

 

13:30

And that’s the kind of content that people online who are into the Enneagram seem to like, and there’s a lot of accounts along those lines. Sarajane’s is a little bit more earnest if that makes sense, because I asked her, there are some people who are serious practitioners of the Enneagram who may view these meme accounts and these brand accounts kind of cynically because for them, this is a serious spiritual practice. When I asked Sarajane, how she reckons with that and how she sees herself fitting into this world, she basically told me that she hopes that her Instagram account will be a starting point for people who are seriously interested in exploring the Enneagram. 

She doesn’t just do the Instagram account to her credit. I mean, she’s kind of launched this whole platform where you can do Enneagram workshops with her and more deeply explore the system if you choose to. So it doesn’t just end at memes.

14:28

Jasmine:
I saw that she also has a five day summit that looks pretty comprehensive as well. You’ve written in the past that, “To be human is to categorize.” And it’s really obvious when you look at something like the Enneagram or astrology, but where else do we see this kind of need to categorize in our everyday lives?

14:46

Allegra:
Yeah, I’d also noticed that beyond personality typing systems that Buzzfeed quizzes are really popular right now. 

People love these deeply individualized and digitized ways to better understand themselves and to do so publicly. And you see that also with the trend of people sorting themselves into Harry Potter house, like if you look at a Harry Potter fan’s Twitter account, it’s not uncommon to have one’s Myers-Brigg type in the bio and then Gryffindor or Slytherin or Ravenclaw or whatever. 

15:25

Jasmine:
Right, right.

 

15:27

Allegra:
There seems to be a real desire for people to use a shorthand to say, “This is who I am.” And the Enneagram helps build that space in a way. If you’re familiar with the Enneagram and someone tells you, “I’m a Type One,” you immediately have at least the beginning of an understanding of them or what motivates them and the same for Myers-Briggs and the same for Harry Potter Houses and to a lesser degree and in a more, perhaps less serious degree, Buzzfeed quizzes and things of that nature.

16:00

Jasmine:
So on the serious side of things, I’ve noticed that all kinds of personality typing systems, but also the Enneagram are being used increasingly in a business context. I mean, I was talking to the CEO of a big public company who was telling me that they had just taken their own Enneagram test. They were a little bummed to learn that they were a Type Two or something like that. And it’s just so interesting to me that we’ve seen things like this crossover into business, things that maybe had a religious origin or a non-scientific origin, certainly a non-business origin and they’ve they’ve crossed over and they cross over into so many other parts of our lives too. How does this kind of thing happen? How do we lose the origins of typing systems like these and start applying them in seemingly unrelated places?

16:51

Allegra:
Right. I think that with any typing system, and in any mode of spirituality, any strain of spirituality, that kind of crossover is inevitable. Or I don’t want to use the word warping because that has a distinctly negative connotation, but, but it is essentially a warping of the original intention of the thing.

17:15

So the Enneagram may be intended as its serious practitioners will tell you to be a serious spiritual discipline that lasts a practitioner’s lifetime and ultimately serve the purpose of allowing you to understand yourself better and to understand your place in the world and how you relate to others better. That is the purpose of the Enneagram. But any time there is an opportunity to do so systems like that will be shoehorned into other purposes. I think that there’s just a real desire to use whatever tools we have in our arsenal to  improve ourselves, improve our workplaces.

18:03

I think that modern life can be quite alienating and the current trends for these ultra personalized systems of bettering ourselves or better understanding ourselves, or maybe in response to that. And so I’m not surprised that people are using it in a work context, because I think the modern workplace is a really strange one to navigate. I think that perhaps there is more depersonalization and there’s more remote working and we’re more dependent on technology. I can see how if a manager thought, “This is a way that I could make my team function better and I could improve morale, then I’m going to do it.” And I think that’s why workplaces try to use Myers-Briggs to improve the workplace. And I imagine that’s why they’re using the Enneagram.

19:08

Jasmine:
When you take a step back to look at all of this, how do you think the new consumer’s sense of spirituality is changing and how will it continue to change into the future?

Allegra:
So a wonderful journalist named Tara Isabella Burton wrote a book called Strange Rites about this new kind of a religious spirituality that she observed taking hold in the culture. She observed the companies that were selling wellness products or fitness dads like SoulCycle were using pseudo-religious language to do so. And so nothing was explicitly religious, but this kind of vague a-religious spirituality was running through all of these things. And she also made a few observations in general about American adults and the kind of consumer that might be interested in these products.

 

20:03

So she found that a quarter of American adults are religiously unaffiliated. And for those born after 1990, that number climbs to almost 40%. She also found that three-quarters of those religiously unaffiliated people still believe in a kind of higher power. And she called these people faithful nones. And then she also found that 27% of Americans consider themselves spiritual, but not religious.

 

20:31

So it’s a weird consumer landscape, right? Because on the one hand, people are becoming less religious, people are attending church in fewer numbers, but on the other, you still see a pretty significant bend towards spirituality and a desire for something deeper. She also observed that people are taking what she calls an intuitionist approach to religion rather than an institutionalist approach. So taking bits and pieces from different traditions that they feel serve them. And so I think you see that with the Enneagram, right? And you see that with the way a lot of young adults now are approaching Christianity. 

You take what serves you, whether it’s astrology, a meditation app, the Enneagram, and you leave the rest. She kind of made the observation that there’s a sense that everything is ultra personalized, catered to the individual and digitized. So you see that in the way your Netflix queue is personalized, you see that in the way that we look for love on Tinder. So there’s this expectation that we should be able to meet our spiritual needs in a similar way. Why would we force our beliefs into this category, into doctrines and creeds that we feel don’t really serve us when we could instead cobble all of these different systems together and walk away with a strain of spirituality that we feel serves as a person?

22:19

Jasmine:
We have a strong desire to find a shorthand that explains who we are in business and in life. But there’s another interesting place where our new consumption of spirituality is starting to show up and it’s in our dating lives. Rachel Lo is the founder of Struck, a dating app based on astrology. And her work is a perfect example of how our new consumption of spirituality is creating a world of new brands. What’s most interesting however, is how these new brands are opening us up to new kinds of user experiences, regardless of whether you’re a believer or a skeptic.

 

22:59

Rachel:
So our philosophy when we were building the app was authentic human connection. So when I was living in San Francisco after college, I used basically every dating app under the sun. And for me, it was actually a decently enjoyable experience. I met a lot of cool people, I made some friends, I dated a couple people, but I noticed that my friends didn’t have the same experience. And what really felt like it was lacking was this lack of authenticity when they were meeting new people on dating apps.

And something I realized was that through my growing interest in astrology, I found that my conversations with friends and even strangers around astrology were often so much deeper than random conversations about your job or what you did this weekend, which is usually the bulk of the conversations you have on dating apps. And so I felt like there was this really amazing opportunity to combine the two and help people just connect that much more deeply, that much more quickly through the vocabulary of astrology.

 

24:10

Jasmine:
I think that’s really fascinating and something that maybe people miss it first, just as you described it, the fact that if you approach dating through an astrology lens, it seems to kind of force a different level of authenticity you don’t normally get on a dating app. And I think I’ve even seen this in your interviews where you say that you see astrology is a great tool for speaking about your emotions in a language that a lot of us weren’t taught to communicate in. What did you mean by that? What is that language?

 

24:30

Rachel:
What astrology does, I kind of call it “therapy with training wheels.” What it does is it just provides this existing framework and existing language that people feel is a lot more approachable than something like therapy. I don’t think it’s a direct substitution, I don’t think astrology can completely displace something like therapy, but I do think having those pre-existing words and phrases is really helpful, like saying, “I have a tendency to think about myself a little too much at times because I’m a Leo,” right?

Just acknowledging that fact, I think wouldn’t normally happen in conversation. And one thing I love to talk about is even people who are skeptics, even someone who is adamant that astrology is fake and not empirical, you can still have a really good conversation with that person if you use astrology as the tool.

25:31

So an example of that is I might say to a die hard engineer, “Hey look, you have in your chart that you’re a Mercury in Cancer. So you might cry a lot. You’re very soft-spoken, you might be passive aggressive,” and they go, “Wow, that is so wrong. I’m actually extremely assertive. I don’t cry. I express myself in a very assertive way.” At that point, you still had a conversation about how that person views themselves, how they communicate. And that, again, wouldn’t normally happen if you didn’t have this framework or the pretense of astrology there.

26:11

Jasmine:
That’s so interesting. So obviously it’s forcing these more intimate conversations. I tried the app and I found that for some reason it felt more intimate. It felt familiar, not the app itself, but the people as I was going through my matches and understanding how their astrological profiles fit into the identity or who I was looking at. I think I could fall in the diehard engineered camp. Right? But I’m not above seeing the tremendous value in starting these dating conversations from a really emotional place.

I’m just curious, how are people using the app? Are you seeing any interesting behaviors or are you seeing them move in a certain way that they wouldn’t in other dating contexts?

27:00

Rachel:
Yeah. So what we see is that the people who come onto our app are sort of self-selecting to begin with, right? They tend to be more open-minded, tend to be more empathetic, tend to be more heart on their sleeve in some ways, because they are willing to put it out there that they’re into astrology and they have XYZ traits about them. Another thing that we developed into the app was forcing people to choose their priorities. And that it doesn’t really even have a lot to do with astrology, but we were writing this idea that again, those people who are into astrology are more self-aware or at least more introspective and would be more willing to interrogate what it is in life that they want. 

And so these are categories like financial stability, which is a huge driver for some people and not at all for other people or spending time with family, which I know sounds crazy for those people who are really close with their families, but for some people that really isn’t a priority either. And so we wanted to force those conversations upfront as well. And so I think that’s a lot of where this sense of familiarity comes from is these people are amazing users just being really open and honest about who they are and craving that more authentic connection too.

28:13

Jasmine:
Something else I was kind of struck by was… At least with my matches, they seemed like a very diverse crowd of people. All kinds of different jobs, all kinds of different backgrounds and stories. And I think in my one data point anecdotal experience, I didn’t see that on other dating apps when I was actually dating in the past. Do you think that’s unique to your app and is it part of a function of how you’ve built this thing?

28:42

Rachel:
Yes, absolutely. And I am so glad you said that, it’s something I take a lot of pride in. So the team that built the app is incredibly diverse by Silicon Valley standards and just corporate standards in general. It was mostly women and a lot of women of color, a lot of women who built the app. I say a lot, but there weren’t that many of us anyway. 

But proportionally, we made up the whole team. So I think when you have a diverse team building a product, it’s inherently going to be serving a diverse population. So, that’s something we’re really proud of. I also think there’s something about astrology that’s really powerful for people who feel overlooked, which obviously tends to be underrepresented people, minorities, that kind of thing.

29:27

So I think there’s a real reason that people of color and queer communities really are the driving force behind the popularity of astrology. And I don’t think they get enough credit for that either. And I think it’s that astrology makes you feel really seen in a way that you might not be seen in a predominantly white community that you’re used to growing up in.

So to answer your question, I think astrology kind of self filters for that type of person. And one thing anecdotally, we’ve heard from some of our users is, this is the first dating app a lot of people have used, which is interesting because you think in today’s world everyone’s tried a dating app at least once. But it sounds like for a lot of people, this aligns more with what they want to get out of a dating app. And so they’re finally willing to take that leap and try it out, which is really amazing and sort of bolstering to hear.

30:24

Jasmine:
When you said the word ‘seen,’ that was the exact word in my mind too. And I’m curious to know what your experience was growing up and how that influenced the way that you created Struck.

30:34

Rachel:
Yeah, absolutely. So I grew up in an extremely secular household and I think part of that is my parents immigrated maybe already having that mentality to some degree. And that’s part of why they immigrated thinking that America was this amazing equalizer kind of country. But I also think that part of it may have stemmed from them wanting to assimilate more quickly. And they felt that by embedding themselves in the science culture of the US that would be a way for their kids to assimilate more quickly. So I was raised like super, super science focused. Actually studied mechanical engineering, material science at Berkeley. So I have a very, not just technical background, but technical rooted in the physical world. The exact opposite probably of something like astrology. For a long time I rejected any sort of spirituality because I felt like there was such a bias against that. Buddhism and those types of religions, if you want to call it a religion we’re the butt of jokes for a long time when we were growing up.

And I think now it’s a little bit more in Vogue and so it’s easy to forget that kind of thing, but I really didn’t want to be seen as this Chinese kid who went to the temple and prayed with incense to my ancestors. Right?

32:00

Because that was just such a foreign thing to people, but basically long story short, in my mid 20s, I had sort of a quarter-life crisis of identity, which I think a lot of people did, especially around the 2016 election. And suddenly I think a lot of especially first generation immigrant kids were like, “Wait, I’m not white actually.” And I know I had that experience too, and it just really shook things up for me. And I realized how much I had been sort of forcibly and actively suppressing that side of my cultural heritage in favor of almost using science as a religion which I could talk forever about.

32:47

Jasmine:
Yeah. Well, also just being a kid and not having a model for living between these two different identities, it’s a lot. Of course, it makes sense to just choose the one that is being offered to you. And a lot of people would relate to that. So let me ask you when the Indian Matchmaking [show] came out and I think all of us had this awakening to like, “Wow, astrology is so fundamental to so many ancient cultures.” I think we started to see it a little differently. We were all home-bound anyways, and that was the one week where we all watched on Netflix. What happens for you and the app? Did you guys see anything? Was there any new interest in Struck?

33:30

Rachel:
That’s such a funny question. First of all, I do want to acknowledge, of course I glossed over that obviously South Asia is still hugely important for astrology. They practice Vedic Astrology, which is a little bit different, but I would say probably in the modern world, they take astrology maybe the most seriously as a culture and a society. As far as the show, I know the show is very divisive as well in the South Asian community from the people I’ve spoken to. So also acknowledge that, but in the context of Struck, what’s really funny is we had obviously been developing this app for months and months at this point. And when Indian Matchmaking came out, we actually went semi-viral in India.

Jasmine:
Oh wow.

34:20

Rachel:
A bunch of articles were written about us. But they were saying things like we were copying Sima Aunty. They were saying that we built the app to ride this wave of Indian Matchmaking, which was a really interesting take. I can see why they might’ve thought that, but it was just kind of a funny anecdote. So there’s a decent number of people in India I think that actually know that we exist. We had requests from people in India, which I was surprised about for us to launch there, because from what I’ve heard from a lot of younger Indian people… And this is very, very generalized and very anecdotal, but from some of my friends and people who have reached out, I was under the impression that the younger generation was a little bit more skeptical. And as younger generations do, they always want to reject what their parents were into or believed. So I was surprised to see that we did get some demand there as well.

35:18

Jasmine:
Yeah. You mentioned that you have interest in other countries. Are there any other places where people are reaching out and asking you for the app?

35:25

Rachel:
Oh yes, absolutely. So Latin America is a huge, huge astrology center. So…If you haven’t seen Mucho Mucho Amor on Netflix, I can’t plug that film enough. It’s a documentary about this amazing astrologer Walter Mercado, who did a lot of work to bring astrology to the mainstream. So Latin America has been huge. Also Europe and Australia have been really big requests as well. And I think that’s just a side effect of the growing popularity of astrology in sort of the Western world for the same reasons that it’s becoming popular in the States.

36:08

Jasmine:
Right. So let’s talk about the brand for a bit. I kept thinking as I was researching before this call, how you were able to build a brand that really honored what astrology is, but still made room for your tagline which says, “Skeptics welcome.” What were some of the brand decisions that you made that helped you find that balance?

36:29

Rachel:
Yeah, definitely. I think at its best astrology can be this really welcoming tool for connecting people for all the reasons we’ve talked about. And I think what it boils down to is just like a culture and a brand that’s built on top of respect. So I really believe that people with different views and opinions can get along with one another, as long as there’s a mutual respect between the two. We welcome people who are skeptical with open arms for the reasons I said earlier, which is that you don’t necessarily need to believe in astrology to reap some of the benefits of astrology so long as you are not going to be a person who puts down other people who do believe in it. As long as you’re willing to have a dialogue and listen to what that person has to say and are respectful of their thoughts and opinions, I think there’s definitely room for people like that on our platform.

Jasmine:
Why do you think we’re in a place right now as a culture where astrology and so many other ancient systems are getting mainstream acceptance? Why do you think that’s happening right now?

37:39

Rachel:
That’s such a loaded question and I love it because I talk so much with my friends. One thing that I’ve been thinking a lot about is the idea of subjectivity. And something I find really refreshing about astrology when you actually talk to those in the know, including professional astrologers, they consider astrology just as much art as it is science, right? So there’s often this false argument happening from the science side of things where they’re saying, “This is not an empirical science, so therefore it’s not real,” et cetera. And from the astrology side, I’ve heard the argument… Well, there’s not really an argument against that. It’s just an ability to embrace this thing that does have subjectivity involved, just like art does. Right?

38:28

And as far as, why now, I think collectively, especially we’re seeing this in Gen Z, like we’re realizing that binaries don’t exist and I know some people might roll their eyes at that, but I really think that’s true.

As someone who grew up very invested in science, I had some realizations like the idea of Schrodinger’s Cat, which if you don’t know what that means, it’s basically the idea that you have this metaphorical or theoretical cat in a box and you close the box, is the cat alive or dead? Well, it’s actually both dead and alive in coexistence at the same time. And if you told that to someone like a really young kid they’d be like, “What? That is insane,” right? It’s such a weirdly faith-based argument for a very scientific concept. So I think we realize now science isn’t black and white, medicine is not black and white. Medicine has so many subjectivities and biases built into it.

Science has biases built into it as well. And so I think we’re entering a world where things are just much more nuanced on the whole. 

So Gen Z is like, “Gender’s a construct.” A lot of Gen Z believes that nobody’s truly straight, right? Everyone’s a little bit heteroflexible or queer or whatever the case is. So I think we’re just at the beginning of that, right? It feels like with 2020 in our rear view mirror, we’re really headed in a new direction.

 

40:01

Jasmine:
So I think where a lot of this conversation is coming to is, you look at a lot of people in our generation who feel like they’re scientifically minded like myself, but also embrace spiritual things that maybe don’t seem to jive with that scientific mindset. So this idea of like two seemingly opposite things existing in the same person, two very different truths existing in the same person. I think a lot of us carry that within us. Where do you think that’s coming from?

 

40:32

Rachel:
I really think that’s kind of this fundamental human thing. I used to wonder the same thing, honestly about really devout Christians who were scientists, because I was like, “How can you hold these two things at the same time?” But this is really nothing new. I mean, even if you look at the development of modern psychology as one example, Carl Jung was a noted fan of astrology and even he had this idea of synchronicity. It’s this idea of meaningful coincidences. So even though he was in cahoots with Freud and these other guys who were building this new branch of science and medicine, he was very insistent that there are coincidences in our world that kind of go beyond just pure statistical chance. And he didn’t really know what to chalk that up to, but he called it synchronicity and just said, “There are these in our lives that we can’t ignore that have some meaning in them.”

41:38

And the last thing I’ll say, I actually was having a really amazing conversation last night with another founder. And I think he typically would skew sort of on the skeptic side of things, but we were talking about astrology and he said, “I’m a very mathematical person and I’ve had a lot of conversations about astrology.

 

And while I may not believe every piece of it, what I’ve basically decided is that astrology and a lot of these…” Maybe he wouldn’t say synchronicities, but he was basically describing synchronicity. So, “A lot of these meaningful coincidences are things that we as human beings with all of our flaws have just not discovered yet, right? There’s this truth that we only know as much as we know, and people are absolutely very far from perfect, and we have so much to discover.” And he was saying that he felt astrology may point to some of these truths that we just haven’t discovered yet. And I really liked that.

Jasmine:
So coming back to the app, now that you’ve created this world that really lets people see themselves, it lets people connect in a different way. It started a very different kind of conversation. It’s tapped into a sea change that may have already been happening in people. Where do you see the brand going?

Rachel:
Yeah, I mean, for us, what’s really important is to continue to make people feel welcome no matter what their background is. And you kind of spoke on the diversity of the users on the app, and we want to definitely keep that going. We want people to feel welcome on our app where they may not feel welcomed elsewhere. And I think we want to continue honoring where astrology comes from and its roots because they do go so far back and we owe it to so many people that came before us for getting us to this point. And so as a brand, I think those are really important principles for us.

43:40

And ultimately that same underlying thread that started this project is something I don’t want to let go of, which is trying to improve the authenticity of the connections that we make, because we are at a point where people are just so depressed and anxious and lonely, and it just feels so paradoxical because we have the world at our fingertips. So it’s an ambitious goal, but I want to see if there’s a way where we can reign in what we’ve done this far and bring us back to a place where we can make more of those authentic connections with other people.

Jasmine:
Thanks for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you liked it, go ahead and share it with someone you think would appreciate it. And don’t forget to rate and subscribe too. And a friendly reminder that you can always sign up for our newsletter where you’ll get all of our latest brand strategy thinking, articles, videos, and podcasts. Just go to conceptbureau.com to subscribe.

 

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

18: Systems In Flux: A Unified Theory of Culture, Branding, and Human Behavior

For the third episode in our series on Systems In Flux, we’re talking about the invisible systems that make a culture tight or loose, relaxed or rigid. The culture in your state might be loose, while the overall culture of your country may be tight. The culture at your school may be relaxed, but at your fancy gym, is in fact quite rigid. Every single culture and subculture falls along the tight-loose continuum, and it affects people’s perceptions of threat, how they relate to each other, and how they consume. This in turn affects every kind of brand, including international brands, political brands, lifestyle brands, service brands, and CPG.⁣ ⁣ Michele Gelfand is the author of ‘Rule Makers, Rule Breakers’, and her life’s work has been spent researching something extremely fascinating - how tight and loose cultures form in the first place, and if and how they can actually be changed. She’s also one of the most interesting people we’ve had the privilege of interviewing.⁣ Once you understand the concept, it will not only reveal a new perspective on the world of business and branding, it will also reveal the deeper logic beneath the many seemingly illogical things in the world that may have been on your mind lately.⁣

Podcast Transcript

APRIL 28, 2021

60 min read

Systems In Flux: A Unified Theory of Culture, Branding, and Human Behavior

00:12

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I am Jasmine Bina. For the third episode in our series on Systems in Flux, we’re talking about the invisible systems that make a culture tight or loose, relaxed or rigid. The culture in your state might be loose while the overall culture of your country may be tight. The culture at your school may be relaxed, but at your fancy gym, it’s in fact quite rigid. Every single culture and subculture falls along the tight-loose continuum and it affects people’s perceptions of threats, how they relate to each other, how they consume, and, of course, the narratives that shape the businesses and brands that form within that culture. 

00:48

Michele Gelfand is the author of Rule Makers, Rule Breakers. Her life’s work has been spent researching something extremely fascinating, how tight and loose cultures form in the first place and if and how they can actually be changed. Of all the studied cultural phenomena out there, this is perhaps one of the most important in helping us understand the world in this very moment and, as we love to discuss on Unseen Unknown, why the world works the way that it works. Tight and loose cultures are systems that have been especially in flux over the past few years. Once you understand the concept, it will not only reveal a new perspective on the world of business and branding, it will also reveal the deeper logic beneath the many seemingly illogical things in the world that may have been on your mind lately.

01:38

Michele:
But I have a story about how I accidentally discovered cross-cultural psychology. I was pre-med and I was at Colgate University. I left to go for a semester abroad to London and I remember really being totally shocked when I got to London in terms of the differences in… I remember calling my father, Marty from Brooklyn, and confiding in him how much culture shock I was having. Among other things, the idea that people were just going from London to Paris or to Amsterdam just for the weekend. My dad said something that really changed my life. He said, “Well, imagine like it’s going from New York to Pennsylvania.” I’m like, “That’s a great metaphor.” Actually, the next day, this is a true story, I booked a trip from London to Egypt and it was really there in Egypt when I was traveling around and thereafter around the world where I recognized just how powerful a course culture was.

02:29

So I came back to Colgate and I luckily was able to find a class on cross-cultural human development taught by Caroline Keating who was telling us about all her work on Africa on visual illusions and how they’re not universal. I went to the University of Illinois, worked with Harry Triandis. From then, it was history. I’ve just been spending my life in studying this invisible, powerful force that affects us all.

02:53

Jasmine:
Define for us how you delineate between tight and loose cultures. What are the differences? How are they formed?

 

03:01

Michele:
All cultures have social norms or unwritten rules for behavior. We’re socialized from a young age to wear clothes when we leave the house, most of us, to not steal people’s food off their plates in restaurants, or not to sing loudly in libraries or in movie theaters. We implicitly learn the codes of our cultures in terms of following social norms. What I’ve been focusing on is the idea that groups vary in how strictly they adhere to social norms. Some groups very strictly adhere to norms. They’re tight in our language. Other groups are more permissive. They’re much more loose. 

03:38

Basically all cultures have tight and loose elements, but what we can see from our research is that you can place groups on a continuum in general from tight to loose. For example, cultures in our data that veer tight include places like Singapore and Japan and Austria. Culture that veer more loose include places like Spain and the Netherlands and the US and Brazil. It’s important neither is intrinsically good or bad. It really depends on your vantage point. Tight cultures provide a lot of order, a lot of discipline. Loose cultures are the bastions of creativity and tolerance.

04:14

So it’s really something to really understand in terms of why these cultures evolved the way they do. Why might some cultures be tighter or looser? That was really the subject of our first study on tight-loose. What was fascinating is tight cultures on the one hand and loose cultures on the other weren’t united by any obvious features. They didn’t share the same geography or the same religion or tradition. They didn’t share differences in wealth either. But they did share something really pretty profound. Tight cultures in our data tended to have much more collective threat in their histories. That threat could be from Mother Nature, like think about Japan having chronic natural disasters, or it could be from human nature. Think about places that have had constant invasions of their soil or have had high population density where there’s potentially a lot of chaos. Or even pathogen outbreaks.

05:12

When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. When you have chronic threat, you need stricter rules to help coordinate and to survive. That’s not to say that all tight cultures have had a lot of threat or all loose cultures have been on easy street, but in general, tightness tends to evolve from having a lot of collective threat. So that’s a big picture summary. In the book, Rule Makers, Rule Breakers, I talk a lot about how we can analyze our many different contexts through a tight-loose lens, whether it’s nations or states, organizations. Even our own households and our individual mindsets. 

05:44

Jasmine:
Yeah. I’m glad you mentioned that because I’m wondering, how powerful is threat really? Does it take much of a threat to create a tight culture or does it take very little?

05:57

Michele:
Yeah, I mean, it’s a really important and fascinating question. In fact, prior to COVID, I would have had a different answer to this question because a lot of our research in the laboratory, like if we bring people into the lab and we activate threat, like fake threat, we talk about potential terrorist attacks or we talk about population density increasing or other types of threats, we see quickly people tend to like rules more. They want rules. They have this intuition that having rules helps in these kinds of contexts, whether they understand that consciously or not. We saw that with the Boston Bombing for example or 9/11. We saw that immediately we accept more rules and, again, the intuition that rules can help coordinate during these kinds of contexts.

06:41

But what was fascinating is that last March in 2020, I was starting to get really nervous about whether or not the US, with its great amount of looseness, is going to be able to tighten up as quickly as other cultures that have experienced a lot of chronic threat. Looseness is great for, like I mentioned, for things like creativity and innovation and tolerance, but there’s a real question whether these cultural traits are a mismatch during times of collective threat. So I started studying this, partnering with computer scientists, seeing, well, is it the case that loose groups tighten up less quickly? Is it the case that this affects their ability to contain the disease in terms of cases and deaths?

07:23

Sure enough, what we found in a paper we just published in the Lancet, is that loose groups across 57 countries had five times the cases and almost nine times the deaths as tighter cultures. This was controlling for many different factors that could be important in predicting these variables. Things like population density, like average age, wealth, inequality. Tightness-looseness predicted above and beyond these variables. What was really fascinating from my point of view was we found that loose cultures were far less fearful of COVID. Not just in the first 100 days of the virus, but also throughout COVID-19 up until the day that we were analyzing this data, which was mid-October, whereas tight cultures had far more fear. It was on the order of 70% of people on average in tight cultures were very scared of getting COVID, whereas only 50% in loose cultures were.

09:15

Jasmine:
So would you go so far as to say that tight or loose cultures can actually affect your perception of a threat?

09:22

Michele:

Well, yeah, because when you’re in a context that’s had a history of a lot of threat, it becomes something that’s chronically accessible in the population is what I would say. If we in the US were constantly invaded by Mexico and Canada throughout our history, if we constantly had chronic natural disasters or chronic pathogens, then we would have this cultural preparedness to know that sacrificing liberty for some constraint temporarily is important, that it saves lives. 

09:55

Jasmine:
How do the people that are raised in tight or loose cultures relate to the idea of authority? Because you did mention in the book how different cultures create different kinds of authority.

10:06

Michele: 
Yeah. Well, I think that in general in loose cultures, you socialize from an early age to question all sorts of rules. You look at the bookstore, mainstream American bookstores. They’re all about breaking the rules. If you live in a context where there’s less threat, those codes really make a lot of sense. But if you live in contexts where there’s a lot of collective threat, then following the rules is going to be more important and transmitting those kind of values and norms to kids is going to be more important. This also applies, by the way, even within our country.

10:39

In some of our research, we’ve been looking at differences across social classes. You can think about people in the working class having a lot of threat, like chronically having to worry about slipping into poverty, into hard living. Chronically living in neighborhoods that are more dangerous and being in occupations that not only have more structure and less digression, but that are also more dangerous. In our research, we can see that working class families, parents think rules are much more important than middle and upper class families where there’s a cushion, there’s a safety net. If you do something wrong, you’re not going to be in dire straits. I mentioned this is socialized very early. We can see this even among three year old kids in our laboratory who are playing with puppets who start violating the rules. It’s the working class kids in our data that are much more likely to protest when the puppets starts breaking the rules. 

11:32

So it’s not as though rules are not important in any social class or any culture. They are, but it’s the matter of how much they are negotiable.

11:38

Jasmine:
Yeah. This idea of how if there is chaos in our lives or lack of control, people are pretty willing to give up a lot of liberties for a strong hand that would actually promise some idea of normalcy.

11:54

Michele:
Totally. That is totally right. In fact, we just published a chapter on culture and populism that applies exactly what you said. You’re a great psychologist, Jasmine. This is a perfect hypothesis, that when people feel threat, whether it’s perceived or it’s actual, then it makes sense that they want stricter rules and stricter leaders who are going to deliver that kind of structure. We know from the election dynamics that this was found to be the case. So before the 2016 election, we were measuring in the US how much threat people perceived from ISIS, from immigration, from other threats. Sure enough, people who felt a lot of threat, they felt the US was too loose and they wanted a stricter ruler like Trump. This was also replicated in France during the Le Pen election. 

 

12:42

Michele: 
It also helps to explain some puzzling phenomenon. Like why were people in Iraq welcoming ISIS in some areas? It sounds ridiculous to Americans. In fact, when we look at some of the data being collected on the ground during that time, my colleague Munqith Dagher was measuring people’s sense of security, their sense of normlessness in some of these areas. Sure enough, the places where ISIS took over rather quickly felt like there was just a sense of normative breakdown whereby you’re yearning for some kind of order. 

13:16

The same thing applied in many ways to Arab Spring. Once Mubarak was taken out, this very strong man, things tended to go to the opposite direction. They went to extreme normlessness and chaos. You heard people shouting freedom in the streets of Cairo, but in fact, it quickly became obvious that there was very little coordination, a lot more crime, a lot more disorder. Sure enough, in our data, people who felt that things were getting too loose, they wanted another autocrat. They wanted the return of the Muslim brotherhood or Salafi government. This is a common pattern that we often miss in foreign policy, that when we see a place losing control of their norms, having no order, they yearn for extremists and autocrats to fill that void. It’s not the only reason why that autocratic recidivism, we can call it, happens, but it’s certainly culture is an important part of that story.

14:13

Jasmine: 
You also expand on this a little bit in your whole chapter on America’s warring states. Because I think I, like many people before they read this book, if they just heard of the concepts tight and loose, they might confuse tight and loose for conservative and liberal. But they’re not the same, are they?

14:30

Michele:
That’s right. I mean, conservative is really a mindset and preference for stability and traditions. Certainly conservatives probably would like to live in contexts where there’s stricter rules. They even, in fact, probably are able to enforce them more. But you certainly could find loose domains among conservatives and you can find tight domains among liberals. So environmentalism is really a very tight domain for liberals. It’s something that’s become an ultra rallying point around having stricter rules in this context. It’s not the case among conservatives. I think we can think about, zooming into any context, what domains are tight, what domains are loose, why might that be the case, and then, of course, thinking about how to negotiate those.

 

15:19

Jasmine:
Yeah. So I want to start applying this to branding a little bit. Let’s talk about this in a brand context. When it comes to political brands, is there anything that ever beats the threat story?

15:31

Michele:
Well, I don’t know… I’m not a branding researcher, but I can say that threat is certainly a primal response and we don’t always realize it’s affecting us. Like I mentioned, in our laboratory research, we can easily manipulate threat, activate fake threat, and we see pretty quickly people have this tightening response. That is to say that they start desiring stricter rules, stricter leaders. They start becoming more focused on order and discipline to the sacrifice of creativity and tolerance. So we see this in the laboratory. It’s not, obviously, long lasting because it’s just a rinky dink prime in the laboratory, but clearly, I would say, when it comes to using threat messaging, it’s a mixed bag when it comes to trying to get people to change their behavior

16:20

Like for example, if people are just told that COVID’s really threatening, unless they feel that they have some kind of efficacy to deal with it, they might withdraw completely and it might backfire. A lot of research in psychology will suggest that. So I think when we use threat as a messaging technique, particularly to deal with a collective threat, we need to really couple it with strong sense of empowerment that we can do this. That said, I think it’s a fascinating area.

16:46

I just wrote a paper on tight-loose and consumer behavior. Some of the things we talked about for example were that brands in tight cultures that have a lot of threat might have more stability, tradition, reliability, formal types of themes whereas cultures that veer looser might have more risk-taking, creative, informal types of themes. Anecdotally, we can see some of this even in the same industry. Like Harley Davidson is like, “Oh, let’s screw it. Let’s ride.” Real loose kind of mentality. Whereas Suzuki is more about performance. Performance above all. Even in the banking industry, I’ve seen, anecdotally again, we don’t have a lot of research on this, but I’d put some money on this, that, no pun intended, but American banks like Chase, they emphasize innovative banking features. You look at places like in India, India Core Bank, it’s more about safety, security.

 

17:39

So I think that branding also is something that really reflects these cultural codes. We probably expect to see much more variability in loose cultures in the kinds of brands that people try and see if they work and try to differentiate ourselves from our competitors with different types of brands where I think you’d see a lot more homogeneity in branding in tighter cultures. That’s my speculation. I say we put some money on it and get some research done on this because I think it’s a really important topic and I’m fascinated by it. The paper, Tight-Loose and Consumer Behavior, is on my website for anyone that’s interested in it.

18:14

Jasmine:
Oh, yeah. For sure. We’ll link to it in the show notes for this podcast.

 

Michele:
Awesome.

 

18:18

Jasmine:
So this idea that in the US, unlike other cultures, we don’t have very strong parenting norms so oftentimes parents feel very lost. I, as a parent myself, have experienced this firsthand. It seems to have created massive room for industries that teach you how parent and some of the most lucrative portions of that industry are based on threat stories. When I think of baby-safe foods, baby-safe clothes, baby-safe toys, nontoxic. Things that I’ve spent a fortune on because it is a very, like you said, primal cultural reflex. I mean, this might just be a primal human reflex, trying to keep your children safe. But do you feel that loose cultures like ours specifically do create these kinds of branding opportunities? I see branding opportunities where businesses and organizations are stepping in where the culture can’t answer a problem.

 

19:17

Michele:
Yeah, it’s such a fascinating question because in tighter cultures, we know that there’s just stronger situations in the sense that people are co-oriented to what’s the right way to do things, have a shared reality around things. Think about the military. That’s a tight organization where people are socialized. They have strong socialization so that people co-orient to the same reality. That’s really helpful during collective threat. Loose cultures have much more variability in how we train people to think and what we value. So that creates a space for lots of different narratives to fill and way more variability on what’s the right or wrong way to do things that, in tighter cultures, there’s a much more restricted range of how we think about things like parenting.

20:01

I would say that I’ve seen it on both ends of the spectrum. Some of the branding’s all around tightness for parenting, like you mentioned. The kind of expensive schools that all these kinds of threatening toxins and… Basically helicopter-like parenting. Ultra tight types of parenting. But you also see the flip side, which is more of the kind of movement around no, no, no, let’s have laissez-faire parenting. That’s the way to go. We have too many rules for kids and kids need to experience life. You have a whole other movement that’s on that end of the spectrum.

 

20:36

I think it raised another interesting question, what you’re mentioning, which is that that just suggests that parents are going to have a lot more conflict on what’s the right or wrong answer if we have so much variability. I don’t think we think about this when we marry someone. We don’t think about, well, how tight or loose is that person’s mindset? On my website, I have a tight-loose mindset quiz that’s based on our data. People who tend to veer tighter, they like more structure, they’re more focused on not making mistakes. They have higher impulse control. On the flip side, you have people who veer looser. They’re less attentive to rules. They’re more risk-taking.

 

21:09

Again, to the extent that we don’t really think about who we’re marrying, you can imagine you get into a marital situation where your partner veers very differently in their parenting philosophy and you really realize that and then you’re in a predicament. You got to negotiate these differences. I, for one, can say that’s the case. I veer on the looser mindset. My husband, who’s a lawyer, veers tighter. He’s kind of mortified by my dishwasher loading behavior and other markers of looseness. But the thing is that these things aren’t destiny. We can negotiate culture in the household. I’ll just mention one more thing about this. Research does suggest that either too strict parents or too laissez-faire parents produce maladaptive kids.

 

21:54

Jasmine:
Just like your country chart in the book. Super tight or super loose cultures tend to be the ones that suffer the most, but finding that right balance is the difficult piece. When you look at places like Singapore, which you mentioned earlier, and Thailand, they’re tight culture, but they’re working hard to bring in tourism dollars and oftentimes those tourism dollars come from very loose countries. What happens there? When these tight cultures need to attract loose dollars and they meet on their home turf, is there tension? Is there risk? What happens?

 

22:28

Michele:
Yeah, I think it’s a great question. It just gets to this broader issue of the importance of being culturally intelligent. CQ, or cultural intelligence, is really becoming more and more important in the context of globalization. In particular, when it comes to tight-loose, the idea of knowing your audience, knowing where they’re coming from in terms of their level of tightness and looseness, I think, is enormously important. Often, we ignore it in business, international business. At our peril, we tend to focus on strategy and other types of things. But we often miss that kind of cultural iceberg.

 

23:03

I studied this actually when it comes to ex-patriots and found that it’s a lot harder to go to tight cultures. Much more difficulty adjusting. But also what was really interesting was that people coming from tight cultures going elsewhere were more adaptable. It might be because they’re used to reading the situation and then following the rules that go along with that. So really, it’s quite possible that the context of Singapore, that it’s really on the mindset of we need to be ambidextrous. We need to deploy tight advertising in contexts where it works and need to loosen up and be more attentive to, like I mentioned, ads that might focus on risk-taking and creativity and informality that wouldn’t work necessarily in tight cultures, but that might work in looser contexts.

 

23:46

So I think anywhere, what we need to do is first and foremost understand tight and loose and where it comes from, and then be strategic about being ambidextrous when we are operating in other cultures. I can mention also, in a study that we’ve recently done, we talked about it in a Harvard Business Review paper, we know that this is really difficult to do. It’s not easy. Devil’s in the details. We studied cross-border mergers and acquisitions across many, many different companies and across years. We found that countries that had big differences in tight and loose suffered a lot in terms of their performance and these mergers. That was particularly the case in contexts where they were in creative types of industries where people had to actually deal with each other versus manufacturing

24:34

But the point gets back to this issue of negotiating. It’s really understanding where we’re coming from and then negotiating what domains should be tight, what domains should be loose, which branding should be tight, which should be loose depending on the context. The more we recognize this invisible force and start really drilling down to why it exists, I think the better off we’ll be able to adapt in these marketing contexts

25:00

Jasmine:
I really feel like you have this secret formula for understanding everything in the world. Something I forgot to mention earlier, that your tight-loose framework predicted the Trump election over 40 times better than even the most mainstream predictive tools out there. Is that correct?

25:19

Michele:
Yeah, I think it’s one of the tools. I never want to totally say it’s the… Clearly it’s not the only construct that’s important in predicting human behavior. But I think that it’s useful to think about why it would affect things like national elections because here we have this issue of threat. As I mentioned, threat can be real and it can be misperceived and it can be manipulated. We don’t tend to focus on these kinds of things. I was just actually listening to a webinar, trying to understand the rise of autocracy. Obviously there’s a bunch of factors, but culture matters for this. I don’t think it’s something that just applies to Trump. These leaders will come and go, but what won’t come and go, what’s a cultural mainstay, is the perception of threat

26:06

So I see two different tensions. One is that misperceiving a real threat and not tightening enough, that’s what we found in COVID. That’s one kind of mismatch that we have to really deal with. On the flip side, what we’re talking about now is what happens when actually there’s misperceived fake threat and that’s causing tightening when it shouldn’t happen. When that happens, it, of course, deals with this trade-off of order versus openness. The tighter that we tend to move in general, we tend to sacrifice openness and creativity and vice versa. So I think that one of the most important challenges that we face is trying to calibrate in terms of the level of threat we have and be ambidextrous. We need to do this in the US. We need to prepare ourselves for the next major threat. How can we really come together to tighten temporarily?

26:55

Jasmine:
Let’s talk about some of the cultural shorthand or clues that you observed in your research. Something I want to mention too is you don’t just do research in a lab. You go into countries and do serious observations and large scale research with populations. What I loved was some of the more quirky things that you noticed, like how public clocks are more accurate in tight cultures or there are more left-handed people in loose cultures. What are some of the more interesting signals that you’ve seen around the world?

27:25

Michele:
Yeah. In the book, we have a chart that looks at how synchronized clocks are in city streets. We got this data from a colleague of ours. It’s amazing. In some cities, clocks say almost the same exact thing, like in Switzerland and Japan and Austria. In other places, clocks are off by a lot, like in Brazil and Greece, and you’re not totally sure that time it is. I think it’s profoundly interesting that this is another expression of coordination. So whenever I go places, I look to see, okay, how aligned are the clocks? When they’re not so aligned, I’m like, okay, I’m getting into a loose context.

28:00

Other things that remind me that I’m getting into a tighter context include things like the level of uniformity or people tending to look more similar in terms of what they wear, what they drive. I look at even how people park in parking lots. Actually, I’m really guilty of this, where I really bad parker. Like I park out of the lines. I think that’s another thing. When you start seeing that kind of levels of norm violations, trash in city streets or graffiti, when you see a lot of variability, you start getting into looser contexts. When you see people wearing different types of clothing and wearing tattoos and all sorts of other… things like even wearing pajamas, I’ve seen that in my own classrooms by the way, people wearing PJs, that you start thinking that you’re getting to a more loose environment.

28:49

Jasmine:
Yeah. A couple more that I liked. You said there’s more synchronicity in the stock markets of tight cultures.

Michele:
That’s right.

28:56

Jasmine: 
Also, loose cultures have a great problem with self-regulation with things like food or alcohol.

29:02

Michele:
That’s right. Also, debt and even weight. We analyzed, controlling for lots of factors across tight and loose cultures, and sure enough, loose cultures have people who weigh more. When you live in a context where there’s stricter regulation, when there’s punishments that are real and chronic, you learn to manage your impulses more from a young age because you want to avoid those punishments. So that leads to differences in self-control and it has ripple effects on things like alcoholism, drug abuse, and debt. Loose cultures struggle a lot with self-regulation and failures, but what you’ll find on the flip side is that in contexts where there’s less accountability, people can be more creative.

29:44

Actually, we did one study where we looked at this even in the brain. We looked at how do people respond in the brain when they’re witnessing norm violations like Michele singing in the library or dancing in the art museum or Jasmine yelling in a bank or kissing someone in a crowded elevator. These are all sorts of things that you could study. What we found, when they were in these EEG caps as they were witnessing these kinds of norm violations, and afterwards, we gave people a creativity task where we just asked people to come up with different uses for a brick or for a paperclip. Like creative uses. What we found is really interesting.

30:22

First of all, we found that in our Chinese sample, they had far more brain activity in the frontal area of the brain, which is responsible for punishment decisions and thinking about behavior. Far more activity witnessing these same violations as Americans. We also found though that people that had a lot of brain activity witnessing these violations were less creative. So that suggests that when you’re really concerned and disturbed by norm violations, even at the level of the neuron, it actually makes you see creative acts to be more dangerous too. So there’s this direct order versus openness trade-off that goes along with tight and loose.

31:03

Michele:
People try to ask me, “Which is better?” It’s like, well, they both have their liabilities. There really is, in the best of both worlds, we should be trying to maximize order and openness. I’ll just mention I was asked what city might have the best Goldilocks order and openness in the world. I nominated Toronto as the place that might actually maximize this.

Jasmine:
Oh, wow.

31:27

Michele:
Because it’s a context where there’s a lot of diversity and a lot of tolerance, but also quite a bit of order, less crime than other cities.

31:34

Jasmine:
Yeah. Toronto does feel a bit like a utopia when I go there, so I totally get that. Okay. I want to try something. I would like to just do a quick fire round of cultures, subcultures, countries, groups, whatever, and you tell me if they’re tight or loose.

 

Michele:
Okay. Let’s go for it.

 

31:49

Jasmine:
All right. Let’s start with an easy one. France.

 

31:52

Michele:
Well, yeah, France in our data veers on the looser side. Clearly, there are tight domains in all cultures. I think French society is very tight on the language. You go into France and you’re trying to speak French and you’re going to get some serious feedback when it’s not very good. Also, other cherished values in France like food, wine, these things also tend to be pretty tight. Like in Germany, which also veers tight, in general… You look at beer, something like beer in the US, I mean, crazy amounts of different types of beers you find in the US. In Germany, I’ve been told that there’s really very strict regulations on the kinds of ingredients that can go in beer. On the other hand, there are domains in Germany that are looser also. You’re more likely to see people, for example, sunbathing nude in Germany than you would in the United States. But in general, you can see that there is a restricted range of behavior in general in both contexts.

32:46

Jasmine:
Yeah, the language thing in France, it makes me think of the academy that they have to project the French language from aberrations or-

 

Michele:
That’s right.

Jasmine:
… from English words. When a new word comes out like Wi-Fi or internet, they create the French counterpart for it.

Michele:
That’s right.

32:59

Jasmine:
Okay. Silicon Valley.

Michele:
I would say it veers quite loose. The kind of framework of break it and then… I forget the exact phrase, but it’s a-

 

Jasmine:
Move fast and break things.

33:11

Michele:
Yeah, move, that’s right. It’s really a place that… In a loose context, California is a loose state in our data, which is really interesting. They do suffer some threat, but it’s a place that’s extraordinarily diverse and it has been for over a century in our data. A lot of people that went to California were risk-takers. The people that were attracted to go there and schlep out there had looser mindsets, we would say, in our language. I think some might argue that Silicon Valley needs to tighten up in some contexts, that it gets to be too extreme in terms of the looseness. I had talked to some people who were starting up companies and it’s fascinating because when you have a loose mindset and you’re starting up a company, often it’s the case you get bought out by tighter, larger organizations. I think a lot of starter uppers don’t really like those cultures. They struggle and they wind up leaving and starting up another company as these serial start uppers. 

34:04

I think what’s fascinating to me though is in order to innovate, you nearly need both tight and loose. You need looseness to help create ideas, but you need tightness to scale it up and to coordinate. So I think that at some point, any company, even as loose as it started, needs to insert some structure. I call this structured looseness in the book because you want to allow for that creativity and that idea generation, but you also need people and practices that help to structure interaction to have accountability. On the flip side, you have some contexts that are much more tight like airlines and the military, and they should veer tight. You don’t want people making all sorts of weird decisions in these contexts. They have a lot of threat, a lot of coordination needs. But these places also sometimes can use the alternative cultural code of looseness. We call this flexible tightness. How do you insert some discretion into those systems, some looseness into some non-safety domains? It’s something I’m working with the Navy with right now.

35:03

Jasmine:
Okay. What about the NFL?

 

35:05

Michele:
would say that the NFL veers tight compared to basketball. Because there’s set plays that you have that you’re orchestrating. There’s much more focus on sticking with those plays as compared to, I would imagine, in basketball where there’s a lot more room for improvisation. So I think it’s fascinating to analyze sports through a tight and loose lens and looking at other sports like baseball or golf or tennis. Another thing I’ll mention that I’m interested in within the context of sports is whether or not female sports are tighter than male sports. I’ve often had the working hypothesis that lower status groups live in tighter worlds, meaning that they are subject to stricter punishments. I have to say, from my n of one experience watching lacrosse games, my daughters were crazy lacrosse players, it just looks to me like there’s a lot more penalties, a lot more calling of rule violations, a lot more tightness that they’re subject to, including what kind of equipment. So I think it’s fascinating to look at. Not all sports in all contexts are equally tight. They might be tighter or looser depending on your status.

36:18

Jasmine:
Yeah. Okay. So let’s move to a more gendered territory. What about SoulCycle?

36:23

Michele:
I’ve been to SoulCycle with my brother, who is a crazy SoulCyclist. I don’t have a tremendous amount of familiarity, but I would probably venture to say it’s pretty tight. I think it’s a pretty strong brand whereby there is a certain kind of way of being, the appropriate SoulCycle operation. That would be my hunch. What do you think?

36:46

Jasmine:
You know what I have trouble with SoulCycle is I can see where the threat comes in with women’s sports, the threat of not excelling or not be taken seriously, whatever, or the threat of football, which actually is kind of dangerous. SoulCycle, maybe there’s a social threat there that creates more of a tight culture.

37:04

Michele:
It’s possible. I think it’s also could be just based on the founders. We know in organizations that the leader’s tight and loose mindsets, for whatever reason, help to set the stage for how the organization develops. I read recently a paper in the management literature on how people who have a tight mindset, leaders, the organizations they create, they continue even after they leave, the level of tightness. So that’s possible.

37:31

Jasmine:
Very interesting. Okay. Two more. I want to ask about Israel because you talked about this in the book. But Israel has a huge startup economy, but also a very threatened region. So where does it fall?

37:43

Michele:
Yeah, Israel’s a really interesting anomaly when it comes to the theory because it’s obviously a place that has high density, it has a lot of conflict. It’s a place that should arguably be tight. But in our data that we collected in early 2000s and then more recently replicated this again, Israel comes out as quite loose, a place where people feel like the rules are negotiable. Of course, there is lots of variation in terms of secular versus orthodox, which is another way to think about tight-loose in religions, and also regionally in Israel, Jerusalem versus Tel Aviv. But in general, our data suggests that Israel is quite loose.

38:20

There is a couple of reasons that the threat instinct might be overridden in Israel. One of which is diversity. Diversity in any context tends to push groups to have more looseness because it’s harder to agree upon any particular norm up to a point. When there’s extreme heterogeneity like in Pakistan, stricter rules start evolving because that’s could be very chaotic. But in general, diversity pushes groups to be loose. The other thing about Israel that’s really interesting is that the religion itself promotes a lot of debate and debate pushes groups towards looseness. So if anyone goes to a Jewish service or reads the Torah, sees that no one can agree on anything. There’s constantly just incredible amount of debate and disagreement about basic things. It’s really part of the culture.

39:09

I want to mention though, like I’ve talked about, in all cultures, even that are loose, there are some very tight domains. Israel certainly has some of those. So one domain that’s really pretty tight in Israel is having children. It’s really like I’ve heard that if you don’t have children, you’re practically a criminal in Israel. It’s really a very, very strict rule to have families, to have big families. That in itself suggests some kind of survival mechanism to deal with threat. Incidentally, that norm is now butting heads with environmental collapse in terms of population density and resource scarcity and things like that.

39:50

Jasmine:

Even just the fact that I think Israel… If I’m remembering correctly, it has experienced a lot of migration out of the country. A lot of young people moving out, studying abroad, staying abroad. So I’d imagine it maybe even created added tightness to that topic. Okay. Last one. 4chan.

40:01

Michele:
Oh, yeah. I would say famously normless. Extremely loose. Like we see on the web, it’s a really big challenge in terms of the new world that we live in that tends to be pretty normless. The main reason is really about accountability I think. If you really think about it, the places like 4chan that veer extraordinarily loose are places where there’s a lot of anonymity. You don’t have to make a profile, username. You’re assigned a number for posts. It makes it pretty much impossible to enforce any consequences or to form any meaningful relationship with other people. The other thing about 4chan that’s really interesting when it comes to accountability is that your posts can disappear after a certain amount of time. This impermanence of things can really add to the normlessness.

40:56

So I think when we think about the web, and we’re doing some research on this now, I talk about it in the last chapter of the book, how do we harness the power of culture to create spaces that have more of the Goldilocks. Like we want, of course, social media to have a lot of latitude and it’s a really great context for idea generation, for connectivity, but we also want to have some accountability in the system. We want to be in a place where we don’t experience a lot of normlessness. We know that that’s extremely stressful to people in our data. It’s not the amount of time you spend online, it’s the perceived normlessness that’s really a big problem. 

41:29

Michele:
So I think part of what we’re trying to figure out in our research is what are the structural features in these different platforms that lend themselves to having more or less accountability and then how can we tweak them so that we can have places that balance autonomy and freedom with some levels of accountability to make them civil, livable places? That’s not 4chan. 

41:55

Jasmine:
Right, right. It’s so interesting. I just want to pause on it for a moment, the fact that it’s not the amount of time you spend online, it’s the perceived normlessness that creates stress in people. Wow. That kind of blows my mind. Okay. What can people do as individuals in their own lives to make sure that they’re responding to threats, perceived threats, the stress of normlessness appropriately and not having a skewed response or responding to things that are engineered to make them respond or whatever? How do you have a healthy relationship to this kind of stuff?

42:38

Michele:
It’s a great question. I think cultural intelligence get back to knowing yourself. Where do you veer, tight or loose, and why might that be the case? Are you what we call an order Muppet? Using Dahlia Lithwick’s famous metaphor. The order Muppet’s like Kermit the Frog and Ernie, basically loving order and noticing rules. Or are you a chaos Muppet? These are kind of rough distinctions like Cookie Monster and Animal. These are Muppets that like disorder, or at least, they tolerate disorder and they like openness. They don’t necessarily notice rules. On their website, they mentioned you can think about where you fall on this continuum and why that might be the case. Then I think we can think about, okay, wait, if we really veer very tight, where might we loosen up a little bit?

43:15

Same when we start thinking about other people in our lives, whether they’re our spouses, our kids, our colleagues, our friends. We have to try to understand why people might veer very differently than us, what might have caused that in their own lives, try to empathize with those differences. Then, as I’ve mentioned a couple times, then try to negotiate them. Try to understand, for people who veer tight, it’s really scary to give up that rule orientation, that it feels unsafe. How can we help them take baby steps in that direction? On the flip side, for people who veer loose, losing the autonomy feels very frustrating. How can we convince people who veer loose that when we have threat, it’s important to temporarily tighten, that it’s temporary? Let’s try to activate a mentality that says we can do this and then it will be done with. 

44:01

I can say that it’s really important to recognize that. It’s those very basic psychological approaches that need to be negotiated. They can happen. I mean, I teach negotiation. I love the study of negotiation. We developed norms. We can negotiate them. I’ll just give one example. I mentioned that I veer looser, Todd veers tighter. We said, okay, what domains really need to be tight in our household? Your health behavior, your schoolwork, how we treat each other with respect. That’s pretty tight. But what can we give up a little bit of slack on? Maybe how clean their rooms are. Just close your door. I’m not going to look. Maybe your bedtime. That’s a little looser. Or your curfew.

44:44

There’s ways to think about how we can give up our low priority domains. That’s really what negotiation’s about, to settle on a win-win agreement. It takes time. It takes some effort. It’s a little cheesy. But we can negotiate culture in our daily lives and that’s an exciting thing.

45:02

Jasmine:
You’ve been in this world for so many years, just completely immersed in the subtext of culture. I wonder, has it changed the way that you form relationships with people?

45:14

Michele:
Wow. It’s an interesting question. Well, I’m a generalist, so I think when it comes to be a scientist, my approach has been to try to have a big, large tent. I mean, I’ve also learned this very much from Harry Triandis, my advisor, the founder of the field of cross-cultural psychology, or one of the founders. Devoted the book to him and to my dad, Marty from Brooklyn.

Jasmine:
Marty from Brooklyn.

45:38

Michele:
Getting back to that phone call that started this whole process. I think that my approach has been to try to bring in as many people to study this stuff as possible from different disciplinary perspectives. I love to bring in computer scientists to our group and neuroscientists, political scientist. All sorts of people. Then like you mention, I try to interact with people who are in other spaces who have a lot of knowledge about something that I want to know about, but also that we can add culture to their equation. So it’s very mutually beneficial to partner with people to study culture that really have really different, very, very different vantage points. 

46:21

Jasmine:
Thanks for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you liked it, go ahead and share it with somebody that you think would appreciate it too. A friendly reminder that you can always sign up for our newsletter where you’ll get all of our latest brand strategy thinking, articles, videos, podcasts, everything. Just go to conceptbureau.com to subscribe. If you’re new here and you like what you’re listening to, we’d love it if you left us a review. I read those reviews. They mean a lot to me. But more importantly, they help us get this podcast in front of the right people. Thanks for listening and we’ll catch you next time.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Brand Strategy

Using Permission and Perception to Change the Brand Experience

On signaling behavior, moving the defaults and taking big swings

For a few weeks during the Coronavirus’ spread across the United States, Americans all spoke the same language.

Phrases like “flatten the curve” and “social distancing” entered our lexicon. Many have documented our new set of social norms, from stepping away from strangers on the street (once awkward, now thoughtful) to wearing a mask in public (once suspicious, now a sign of good citizenship).

But then these shared standards began taking on political connotations.

As government officials split over next steps in the battle against the virus, Americans fell back into factions, now perhaps easier to distinguish than ever. Those who stepped away from strangers on the street and those who didn’t; those who wore masks and those who wouldn’t.

Stores became battlegrounds for this changing, charged environment. Customers at Costco and Gelson’s filmed seething cell phone videos in response to mandatory mask policies, which quickly went viral. For some viewers, these moments became cause to support the brands, while others pledged to cancel their memberships.

By simply following government orders or recommendations, these companies made an inadvertent political statement, entering into a heated cultural conversation.

And yet, this is just another proof point that our societal frameworks are changing.

When societal frameworks shift, your brand’s actions are perceived through a different lens.

As Scott Galloway heralded in 2018 after Nike made Colin Kaepernick the face of their 30-year anniversary “Just Do It” ad campaign, our leadership has politicized sports — the last “oasis” of politics-free discourse — and has since then upped the ante in making everyday acts partisan in nature.

This is likely a reality that we can never revert away from again.

In moments of crisis, brands attempting to reestablish their commitment to consumers face a particular challenge, one that can easily go awry if you don’t pay attention to the societal framework shaping our choices.

There is a subtext to every move, an implicit bias or belief to every action. Brand perceptions don’t just come from words or actions — they come from reading between the lines.

That means you can’t make brand choices in a bubble. You need to consider the culture and the belief systems that those choices live within.

So, let’s look at some of the implicit forces at play.

The power of signaling behavior

As Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti began increasing the number of Coronavirus-related regulations in the city, he often returned to the idea of “self-enforcement.”

Acknowledging the logistical nightmare of trying to impose social distancing in all of the sprawling city’s public spaces, he instead maintained that individuals would personally analyze the risk and choose to heed his advice. Once enough people did that, the rest would likely follow suit due to perceived or voiced peer pressure, not wanting to stand out from the crowd.

In other words, adhering to social distancing became what sociologists call “signaling behavior.”

I spoke with Rory Sutherland about this concept for our brand strategy + culture podcast, Unseen Unknown. Sutherland is the Vice Chairman of Ogilvy, prolific thinker, and author of acclaimed brand strategy book, Alchemy.

To explain signaling behavior, Sutherland pointed to the practice of taking business trips to visit clients. Oftentimes, an in-person meeting is not the most conducive to productivity, particularly when you factor in the time and cost lost in travel.

Yet, the business trip has remained a standby not because of its efficacy, but because the gesture signals a high level of commitment. It proves to clients that they are valued, important enough for you to make personal sacrifices on their behalf.

For many brands, signaling behavior has become a key strategy to connecting with consumers amidst the Coronavirus.

With limited access to their self-isolating audiences, companies including Coca-Cola, Walmart, and Dove all released what New York Times critic-at-large Amanda Hess has dubbed the “pandemic ad:” spots focusing on the valor of front-line workers, with little to no actual acknowledgment of any products or services from the brand.

Instead, the ads signify that, by buying from these brands, you’re supporting a company that understands your concerns. That shares your admiration for everyday heroes. A company that gets it.

Just like Sutherland’s example of an employee taking a business trip to convey devotion to a client, these brands are spending their advertising budget to prove that they are there for you, a reliable constant during “these unprecedented times.”

Hess points to Facebook as one of the most persistent purveyors of pandemic ads. The social media giant has seen a spike in users this spring, up 10% from the same time last year. The brand has seized onto this surge, rolling out quarantine-friendly features for users that range from a new video calling option to a “feel-good” reaction emoji.

After years of declining users and scandals that made the act of quitting Facebook itself a popular signaling behavior, these actions have helped the brand once again become synonymous with connection and innovation — and not just in their approach to consumers.

Choice isn’t always enough. Sometimes, you have to change the default.

Facebook most recently made headlines for CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement of the company’s new remote-friendly employee policy, which he claims will make it the “most forward-leaning company on remote work at our scale.” Despite his trailblazing rhetoric, Facebook is not the first to take this step, with Twitter quite notably offering employees the right to work from home “forever.”

Across the country, an estimated 34% of US workers are remote due to the pandemic, with a sizable percentage likely to never return back to their previous in-office schedule. With that perspective, the policy change these Silicon Valley giants touted as pioneering can seem more like an inevitability of this moment.

But what is revolutionary about their announcements is the framing of work from home as the new standard.

By making it not an option, but a key factor in establishing themselves as a “forward-leaning company,” they have effectively changed the perception of remote work as a default rather than an outlier.

Working from home is no longer for B-players and non-core employees. It is the new standard, and now those people who have to go to the office may be the ones carrying a stigma.

This is another concept I discussed with Sutherland. Acknowledging that we are, as he notes, a “copying species,” he explains how simply giving employees a choice to work differently will typically fail to create any real shift in behavior. For most, the threat of standing out remains too high — even if employers say work hours are flexible, few will chance being the only person to eschew the culturally accepted 9–5 workday.

Think about the paradox of unlimited vacation. Employees at companies that offer what seems to be this fantastic perk have repeatedly proven to take less time off for fear of surpassing the norm.

That’s why, to truly encourage new behavior, Sutherland recommends changing the default rather than providing options. He advocates the adoption of what he calls “Libertarian legislation,” or giving people the “right to do things differently” through permission-granting policies.

Don’t just give people choices. Give them new defaults and permissions that can actually change behaviors.

[You can listen to Sutherland talk more about his theory on “Libertarian legislation” on our podcast here.]

For brands, changing the default isn’t limited to implementing structural changes. It can also mean redefining the culture around your products.

Billie, a toiletries company best known for shaving kits, perhaps confusingly calls itself a “hair-positive” brand. What seems at first to be a contradiction of its perceived goal — to sell razors — proved to be exactly what set it apart in the crowded industry.

By encouraging people to see body hair as the norm, they’ve created a space where purchasing personal care products no longer feels like a response to societal pressure, but instead, an opportunity to support a brand aligned with progressive values.

Their flagship video, a celebration of body hair and the choice to shave or not, was noteworthy in its message. But even more noteworthy were the thousands of comments, most of them overwhelmingly appreciative.

The messaging has seemingly paid off, with the company reportedly seeing a 268% increase in sales volume between December 2018 and December 2019.

By changing the norms, you change the reasons for using your brand.

Recently, Billie launched an additional set of personal care products, accompanied soon after by a social media call encouraging people to stop apologizing for “looking like ourselves” while working from home.

Once again, the brand received widespread praise for their candor in encouraging body positivity.

For Billie, a counterintuitive marketing campaign wasn’t new territory — but for Uber, it was.

Don’t be afraid of trying something new in response to a crisis.

In April, the ridesharing app put out an ad thanking users for “not riding with Uber” due to Coronavirus concerns. It was an unusual move, but one that paid off by keeping the brand top of mind despite its lack of use to customers at the moment.

Crises create instability, which can make it seem like a daunting time to take risks like Uber did. As Sutherland sees it, though, times of uncertainty actually give you the latitude to experiment.

While he believes we are typically predisposed to “incremental” improvements due to fear or failure, he points to the proverb that “necessity is the mother of invention” to illustrate how we are open to bolder ideas during difficult times.

  • Just a few months ago, Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang was largely dismissed for promoting universal basic income; today, multiple countries, including the US, have implemented schemes along those lines.
  • Brands like Ford, GE, and 3M quickly pivoted to meet the manufacturing needs for respirators and ventilators to fight coronavirus.
  • Fashion designers went from drawing gowns to making masks.
  • Beauty brands all around began manufacturing and selling hand sanitizer — and it will likely be the new mainstay for a beauty brand’s product mix going forward, just as with face wash and serums before it

Changes don’t even have to be particularly radical to be impactful. Consider the King Arthur Flour brand.

After the company saw its sales increasing by 600% overnight in response to the frenzy of quarantine bread baking, the 200-plus year old brand took some out-of-character steps.

It shifted both its production and transportation models, doubled its social media and call-in hotline teams, and even began producing two new shows on YouTube.

With these moves, it not only met the needs of its customers, but also innovated to better serve them across platforms and in new ways.

Sometimes the biggest brand moves are simple moves. You don’t need to be radical in order to be impactful.

For brands, this can be a key time to take a look at the broader societal playing field and make forward-thinking changes with this bigger picture in mind.

Keep in mind that there are cultural shifts, but your brand may exist in a smaller subculture that has its own rules, too.

How can your brand contribute to the cultural/ subcultural conversation? What needs are you uniquely positioned to address?

Think about your users’ shifting attitudes about themselves, their communities and the universes they live in. We are constantly renegotiating these relationships and refining our world views.

Prove to your customers that you’re paying attention. Instead of falling victim to the implicit forces at play, use them to inform your brand’s position.

Categories
Podcast

17: Systems In Flux: Class, Taste and the Modern Aspiration Economy

For the second episode in our series on Systems In Flux, we’re talking with brand strategist and sociologist Ana Andjelic about systems of class and taste. In the past 10 years, new brands have emerged, specifically in luxury and premium categories, that point to a divergence in our social systems around what class and taste are, and how they are achieved. Ana talks about the rise of the Modern Aspiration Economy and how the brands of this new economy have done something remarkable: they’ve successfully decoupled class from money, and taste from wealth.

Podcast Transcript

October 29, 2020

60 min read

Systems In Flux: Class, Taste and the Modern Aspiration Econom‪y‬

00:12

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. For the second episode in our series on Systems in Flux, we’re talking about systems of class and taste. In the past 10 years new brands have emerged specifically in luxury and premium categories that point to a divergence in our social systems around what class and taste actually are, and how they’re achieved.

Telfar Clemens, founder of the fashion brands TELFAR is part of a new group of brands that points to this divergence.

00:41

Telfar:
I was just super ambitious and always wanted to show my work. It wasn’t Fashion Week that was supporting me when I started. It was the art world that had spaces that they actually just give you because fashion is expensive and to actually be part of that system is expensive. There’s a monopoly on what gets in. It’s always been like kind of the support from New York and from my friends that actually did make things happen, and they didn’t have to be expensive, but they were memorable.

01:14

Jasmine:
Brand strategist and sociologist Ana Andjelic places people like Clemens in the modern aspirational economy. This emerging economy trades in taste, aesthetic innovation, curation and environmentalism, and what’s remarkable about these brands, brands like TELFAR, Blenheim Forge, Fly By Jing, Brightland, brands that you see in your world is that they have all successfully decoupled class from money and decoupled taste from wealth. In her new book, “The Business of Aspiration”, Ana explores this decoupling and contrasts the modern aspirational economy to the traditional economy where consumers once signaled their status through collecting commodities, Instagram followers, airline miles and busy back to back schedules. Now, it’s about collecting knowledge belonging to micro communities and leveraging influence. As Ana points out, this new cultural and environmental capital changes the way business and entire markets operate. I talked to her about how brands can trade in this new capital and it all starts by understanding where this decoupling actually began in the first place.

02:26

Ana:
The class decoupled from money at multiple points during the 20th century. I like the example of Ikea in the 1950s because it’s an excellent illustration of what happens when a company disrupts the value curve in its industry. And value curve refers to coupling between the price and whatever is deemed the most valuable that company is creating, it can be design, it can be quality, it can be luxury or it can be accessibility or whatever. So how IKEA basically did value innovation in its category and disrupted the value curve is by creating decent quality, well designed, trendy furniture at accessible price point. We’re talking about 1950s, that was where Scandinavian modern design was at its peak, or at least it was something that that was very coveted and it was also very expensive. And as such it was not available to large swaths of the population so well designed, trendy furniture was for the rich people. So IKEA came in and it was like, “Hey, we can offer the same thing. We can offer decent quality, we can offer great design for accessible price. And how are we going to do that? We’re going to do that by disrupting what is thought as the cores component of the value chain in the industry, which is the furniture arrives assembled already”.

04:14

So, IKEA said, “You’re not going to have assembled furniture, we’re going to put the cost of assembly to the customer and by doing that, we’re going to allow our furniture to be well designed and accessible”. So, that is one long winded example but it’s important to sort of realize how, even more recently, the budget airlines have done the same thing. Like you have, for example, Ryanair, which sort of decoupled the place from ability to fly and ability to fly around the world, as a matter of fact, even though the Ryanair doesn’t fly, Norwegian does, for example. So that opened up flying, flying used to be for the affluent.

 

04:45

It used to be for the very rich at the beginning, then it was for more classes of people but it was never for everyone. And now basically everyone can fly everywhere. How they’ve done that is basically through decoupling the price from the service, from the offering because they took all the amenities away. So, that’s sort of the mechanism. The reason that these examples are illustrative are basically because prices is not any more connected with the value that’s being provided, you can get value for lower price, so that’s a big economic decoupling.

05:23

Jasmine:
I think the Ryanair example is especially poignant for me and probably is for a lot of people listening to this podcast because we’re all somewhere in the millennial generation and I think this decoupling that you talk about characterizes what we’ve grown up with. And I remember being in Europe with so many of my other peers, and suddenly you could just jet about different countries during your break and it costs almost next to nothing. And that was a very new experience. And so we developed the taste for that kind of luxury at a really formative time in our lives, I would say.

5:58

You’ve also talked about something else, which is that the rise of the creative class of the knowledge economy kind of coincided with all of this and was another driver in this decoupling. Can you talk about that a little bit?

6:11

Ana:
Yeah, of course. I think what you just described, that you and your friends were able at a very young age, as a youth… as a representative of a creative class. So, it’s going to expose yourself toe a lot of artistic knowledge, cultural knowledge, taste, food, museums, fashion design. So you acquire that knowledge of the world for a very low price. That was something that was not available before when the money was connected with the class and knowledge economy disrupted in two ways. The traditional economy, which had a very strong hierarchies and you have upper classes that were educated and they have taste, and they have access to all the finer things in life because they could buy them. And now, even when you don’t have a lot of money, you can still have access to those things. And one is through education and the other is through the Internet, because you don’t have to be the smartest, the most talented or anything. You just need to have Internet access and if you dedicate enough time and sort of interest, you can become an expert in a number of things.

7:33

And now, of course, that creates a new class distinction, because if someone has three jobs and two kids, they obviously can’t invest time to become a coffee connoisseur or furniture aficionado. But it’s that democratized access levels the playing field and in that sense, also knowledge economy created a new class of those who cares about where their clothes has been made, where the food has been made. They know what the latest sneaker is to wear, they know where to go when they’re in Abu Dhabi, they know which exhibition is a state modern. So in that sense, the knowledge economy created this also big decoupling between the economic value and the social, environmental and cultural values.

08:24

Jasmine:
This always makes me think of this question that I have when I come up against this truth that you’ve just described. And that is that you said that really now, being able to consume this kind of luxury is about dedicating time and interest to the knowledge that’s required to have it. But I wonder, this information you’ve described it as wokeness in the book as well, being in the know. Isn’t this in some ways even more expensive than money because it costs our time and not just time, the fact is, you kind of can’t rest. I feel like in the old luxury context, if you were of a certain class, you just were of a certain class and you could enjoy the amenities that came with it but with this new kind of consumption, you can never rest. You always have to learn about the newest coffee brand or the newest hidden place to travel to or the newest cultural cause. Am I misunderstanding or do you feel that same kind of unspoken cost?

09:21

Ana:
Actually, I see where you’re coming from, and I like yes, that is definitely true on one level. On the other level, we have a completely different economy that we’re dealing with and our markets are reshaping because actually there are curators now who are doing all of that for you. You just need to know… you can follow three Instagram accounts and you know what’s in. You can read two magazines and they’re doing the job for you. So in that sense, the new class, the new intermedia are being created between yourself and your time and your money and knowing what is in, what is new. You can just walk in Zara and know what’s trendy. So I think there are a lot of shortcuts that we have restructuring that is wider than just consumers’ relationship in brands.

10:16

Jasmine:
Yeah, that’s a really good point.

Ana:
Right? So I think yes definitely, if you really want to become like, vinyl aficionado, you will going to spend time and money and no, and not everyone can afford it. But look at Zara, people shop at Zara because they can’t afford anything else, among other things. But they’re also buying stuff that is trendy, and they’re like… I literally heard in H&M the other day in New York. They were like, “I’ll give you this after a week”, one person said to another after a week, “I just need to wear it with a couple of more outfits”.

10:54

Think about that. We have created a completely new set of problems. We’re having that wide accessibility of things that used to be accessible only to a limited number of people. But also there are good things because at the same time, if everyone can have access to what’s new and without any work to be done, then there’s a new and economic and social environment.

11:18

Jasmine:
Okay, so this is what I want to talk about really, which is the crux of the book that you’ve written. Our systems of class and tastes are in flux right now and that’s as part of what you explore here, and you’ve described a split specifically in luxury that’s happened in the last 10 years and you said something to the effect of where aspiration has never meant more and yet has never meant less. What is the split that you’re talking about?

11:42

Ana:
There are two splits. In the book, I’m talking about the split between this big luxury which is like Big Pharma or Big Media, which is something that’s operated by conglomerates, by holding companies that is globally present that has stores in Tbilisi, Georgia as much as in New York City or in London or Tokyo or Abu Dhabi. So the one that’s pervasive and that is very mass and that is accessible to anyone who has money to pay for it, which is that very old definitional aspiration as we just discussed about. The value curve is still like, “Oh, you pay for a logo or you pay for the brand name”. And then there is this other one that is very much like Hermes quote, which is like, “We’re not a luxury company, we are maker of high quality goods”. So that means they’re they’re focused on making, on craftsmanship on the work of human hands which is something that’s very much rapidly disappearing from the luxury industry, which is largely created in factories in China or in Turkey or in Bosnia or in Spain or in India. It’s not made in Italy. It’s not made in France.

13:00

So that’s that’s split where something… How can you grow? What I’m looking is overall global economic growth strategy for a brand is either you do that scale and that mass and you keep the relationship between the logo and what’s trendy, the street wear and collaborations and high price or you stay relatively small by creating artificial bottlenecks or real bottlenecks in creating products because you’re not resorting to mass production. Like Hermes has artificial bottleneck for their Birkin bags, but it’s also limitation off how many hours and artisan can spend on it.

13:42

Jasmine:
All right, so you mentioned this is happening in other places, this is not unique to the US, this split that you’re talking about and the modern aspiration economy that’s kind of facilitating it? We see it here in the States, but is it something that is happening globally?

14:00

Ana:
Absolutely, and what we’re seeing, I mean, look like look at the largest luxury market, China. That used to be logo, logo, logo, logo, logo and it’s still to a large degree is. But there is also like emergence of local brands all of a sudden, because once the sort of the playing field is established and people with money can show that they have money, then is the second phase, which is that invincible phase like, we don’t need to prove anything. Now we can actually like care about taste, care about, like the refined point of view, care about locally made things and so on. So in China we’ve seen the rapid happening towards that knowledge economy, towards that modern, aspirational economy.

14:47

Jasmine:
And that brings me to my next question: With these systems changing luxury itself, splitting as you described, it’s obviously creating new kinds of brand opportunities to kind of play in this knowledge space. I’d love to know what are some of the more illustrative examples that really show how powerful you can be outside of the old luxury context, brands that have really understood what you’re describing and turn it into a phenomenon?

 

15:15

Ana:
I think there is two layers of brands, one are old school brands like Hermes, or Loro Piana or those that are very wedded to their factories and to their artisans and they work the same people from decades. I mean, their turnover of employees is very small, so that’s one level. The other one are those more modern brands, the brands that are making artificial Japanese knives or they’re making like East Fork pottery. They’re vertically integrated, and they’re all focused on improving the quality of life for a very selected group of people. So in that sense, it’s still aspirational. I’m not talking about the economy that’s equal. I’m just talking about the economy that changed its formula. But the inequality is still there because on one layer, there’s entire sector of brands that we’re seeing that are just focused on improving how much we enjoy life.

16:19

People who can’t afford that, like all the Ubers around the world, the Seamless, the Kashmir’s, Fat Pants, those brands that they’re focusing or making one thing and that improve our lives, that make us sleep better, that allow us to track our body, what’s happening in there. So the entire wellness industry, the entire nutrition industry, all of that is an example of that sort of modern luxury because it’s very human oriented in one way but it’s not for all humans, which is the downside obviously.

16:54

And then they have very specific business model because again, what I talked about before with IKEA and Ryanair, they really decoupled the price from the products of services. So how they’re making money is through membership, through community, through collaborations, through contents. That’s the way they add value in their value chain. Through taste, so it’s all about, “Oh, this is very carefully curated selection of brands”. And you go and you buy there because you want a carefully curated selection of brands, which goes back what you said. You don’t need to do the legwork. You just go. And you’re like, “Oh, but I’m buying from this influencer”.

17:34

Jasmine:
Okay, so I’m glad you brought the conversation here too because you talk about how they add value through membership, through communities and something that your work also centers on is how taste communities have evolved and how brands should shift their focus at times from targeting the individual to actually looking at the taste community that that individual is a part of to understand how to build their brands. I want to know… I feel like I understand what a taste community is but what makes it taste community different than a fan club or like a general branded community or even an unbranded community, what makes it a taste community specifically?

 

18:15

Ana:
I think that’s more related to the intangibles. You can have a shared taste and like different things. So you and I may have same taste in movies or in travel and gravitate and purchase completely different things. When you have a fan club that’s still more of a mass, and that’s still more of a reaction to the mainly mainstream, and what I’m talking about is there is no more mainstream. I recently also wrote about the cultural icons and how, at the time of mass media, the way to achieve scale was to have one icon that everyone rallies around like the Air Jordans or Back to the Future or Britney Spears. They had one singular meaning in a society that kept society together and mass media also sort of allowed it. And there was mass retail, which was the same, the American Apparel, the J.Crew.

 

19:19

There was one big door into the brand, and brand stood for a specific set of values. And in order to appeal to the mass, they had to create the taste that is very generic, that appeals to the mass, and now we don’t have this one big door. We have a lot of small doors. It’s very hard to say we have one set of values as a culture or as a society, not just in North America, overall. And that’s when you think the good illustration is like moving from broadcasting to streaming and what I mean by that is like my Nike is not your Nike, my J.Crew is not your J.Crew, my Netflix is not your Netflix, and Netflix is one brand, one umbrella brand. But what I see there versus what you see there are very different things.

20:10

Jasmine:
That is fascinating when you describe it like that.

Ana:
So, that’s what I… Try to apply that to cultural consumption when you have on Spotify, my Spotify is not your Spotify. If you have Amazon, the same thing, it’s very different. So, that’s hard to say it’s a fan community. It’s not about that, it’s about almost more about our data footprint and what we like and what we buy and what is our psychographic profile. So I think that, it’s more looking at our profiles can be seen on such a granular level that there is no need anymore to have those big, sweeping mass brands.

 

20:55

Jasmine:
You know what else I kind of… I feel like I’m kind of seeing here is that when you talk about those old mass brands like I think of Calvin Klein, let’s say, hen I was growing up. It feels like they were more in charge of setting the culture or setting the norms for a taste community or culture, whereas now it seems like the members of a taste community are setting the norms and it’s the brands job to amplify it or support it or kind of help explore the frontier of that. They’re not so much on the leading edge. They’re more trailing and I don’t know if you would agree with that or not but it reminds me of something else that you said in the past, which is that brands need to hack culture before they can hack growth or in order to have growth, they need to hack culture. Is that what you’re seeing or how would you describe that?

21:43

Ana:
Absolutely. I mean, that goes back to what they said about one set of dominant values versus having a lot of different value combinations. And I mean, it sounds very abstract, but let’s go back to maybe the Netflix example. You have different genres, and those different genres go all the way to micro genres. So that means, maybe noir, that is also anime, that is also romance, and that is like science fiction at the same time and they’re all those micro texts. for content. Imagine if the T-shirt was described in such a granular way and then on the other side. You have me, I’m Serbian living in New York for 20 years, highly educated professional, these are my tags. Your tags are like entrepreneur with a company with a family in LA With two kids and match your tags with the content tags or with a T shirt tags, and you’re getting a combination that is very unique, it’s very personalized.

 

22:50

So what we’re dealing with now is that the Internet basically allows such a level of personalization that mass brands have a hard time addressing all off that it’s not that they can’t. They absolutely can. But in order to achieve that, they would need to become thousands of brands. They need to have collection of street wear, collection for mothers or collection for someone who likes to live in their sweatpants, which is basically all of us right now and then like division of all the communication, the packaging, the newsletter, the messages for each one of us. I think we’re moving towards very granular way because we can.

 

23:36

Jasmine:
Do you see any fashion brand specifically that are moving that direction?

 

23:40

Ana:
Oh yeah, I think a lot of like the DTC brands are very targeted towards… Even the platforms that you have now. This platform, called The Yes, is using stylist and artificial intelligence and you’re basically like scroll through your Instagram feed and you’re like, “Like this, Like that, like that”. And you get hyper personalized curation of stuff.

24:03

Jasmine:
Right. But do you see any large luxury brands or fashion brands in general that are starting to create sub brands that let them speak to these different communities?

 

24:12

Ana:
I don’t see that but what I do see is collaborations. So what they’re trying to do that… Right now, it’s very blunt instrument right now. It’s very like, “Oh, younger and older”. It’s very demographic, but it can be selected… I’ll give you an example. I think in CPG we see a lot of that. I didn’t invent this but for example, Nestle, they have Evian and they have Volvic. They have just other regular waters. And each of those waters they’re created with a different value proposition. One is for health and wellness, the other is for vitality, the third one is luxury the fourth one is just hydration. So, they created all those different needs states and we haven’t seen that yet in massive retail.

 

24:57

Ana:
And yes, you’re absolutely right. When you brought up hacking culture, when you have those massive brands. They were setting the trends, but there was one trend, it was one. And now you have those niche communities going back to taste communities because we have Internet, because we can connect in micro communities with like-minded others, we can have absolutely specific taste. Maybe I love just Momotaro Japanese jeans and I’ll find those and that I’m going to know what the new trends in that super subarea are.

 

25:34

Jasmine:
You know what else struck me about all of this conversation is that, as you’ve pointed out, all of this only happened in the last 10 years. It took 10 years for the last 100 years to be disrupted this way. You know, like you said, all these cultural things when it comes to our social systems changing, the Internet, all the things that you’ve described. So obviously it’s one thing when people say the change of or the pace of innovation isn’t going to slow down, it’s another thing to understand that it’s not even ramping up slowly. It’s like a switch flipped. Have you thought about like what the next 10 years might look like?

 

26:10

Ana:
Oh, I mean, that’s your asking… Yeah. Okay, so let’s just go back for a second. I think in last 10 years it was like almost everything came to fruition. But I think, as I said, that’s why on purpose went back to 1950s and IKEA and a value curve. Back then, when was that big decoupling or think about automobiles, there was one person who can afford an automobile 100 years ago or maybe 120 years ago, and that was luxury.

 

26:39

And now, what is luxury is how can you customize your automobile or if you drive a Tesla, how does that reflect your environmental values that you wanna signal. The value curve completely changed. So what happened in the past 10 years, I believe, is simultaneously fragmentation off taste, all of a sudden, we’re like, “Hey, wait, why do I need to go on by J.Crew when I can buy like 35 other things”. Think about denim, for example, you used to buy denim from Levi’s or from Wrangler or from Diesel like 20 years ago. Now every single brand offers denim. So I think it’s the combination of factors but it’s also on-demand economy, it’s not about the supply. And when you have so much choice, it becomes how do you curate that choice?

 

27:38

Jasmine:
This all comes to like, “Okay, what are brands supposed to do with this”? And that’s what the bulk of your book talks about and you discuss this readiness, as you say, to create, distribute and deliver social, cultural and environmental capital to your audience. A lot of this I can imagine is long term thinking that’s gonna butt up against short term goals and growth targets for a company. What does it really take for not just a founder but an entire company to embrace this new way forward? Because when I was reading this book, I was thinking, what kind of leadership does this require? I know that’s a big question, but what are some of the big things that you’ve seen leading the companies that you’ve worked at that are good signals that a company will be able to embrace what you’ve described her

28:25

Ana:
Right, well when I mean… I think that… thank you for asking that because when I was finishing the book, it was end of March and then I realized I need to go back and I need to add a chapter about how changes that we’ve seen due to global pandemic and our own unpreparedness for it because science fiction writer Frederic Paul said, “It’s not innovation to create an automobile. It’s innovation to predict traffic jam”. So you’re very right.

28:59

I mean, we’re very unprepared for all sorts of externalities, of our actions, and we’re still unprepared for externalities of our actions when it comes to climate, and that’s gonna hit us very soon. So, the way I was thinking throughout the book about the brand is like the brands until recently, or even until this spring, they’re rewarding a bad behaviors of both their companies and individuals. They put forward imagery that is like Castle and “Just do it” and your an individual, you need to be better than others and if you buy our products, use our services, you’re distinguishing yourself from your peers or you’re better than your neighbors and so on.

29:44

And all of a sudden you’ve seen this narrative, that’s unbelievably communal now, that’s very empathetic, that is very human, that is very like, “No, no, there is no one hero. All of us are heroes”. So that, in a sense, needs to flip the script of the brands to say, “Hey, no, it’s more towards our communities and how we support each other and how we solve problems together”.

30:07

Jasmine:
I remember talking to you about this the first time we did our podcast and it was a totally different topic, but it brought me to the same question. I mean, is this permanent change? I feel like Americans have some really deep seeded capitalism based values. I mean, are we going to, I don’t want to say learn a lesson, it’s just the world is changing, but are our values permanently changing. Or do you think this is temporary?

30:32

Ana:
Well, that is the second part of my answer is talking about case shape desperation. So people are saying, “Oh, what I just answered, people are going to pay attention. Brands are going to be more sustainable and to spend and people are going to buy more sustainable and they’re going to want a more socially responsible companies and so on”. And yes, that’s I’m sure that is going to be a group of people or a class of people who are definitely going to say, “Hey, I’m going to invest less but better”, but the large swath of population are going to buy what they can afford so when you talk about fast fashion or fly Ryanair and so on, people are buying at Zara and Poshmark because that’s only the only thing they can afford.

31:19

So we have this like this wide gap that has become unbelievably obvious, it was there and it before and it was there for some time, when you have that like class of people who are ordering Ubers and class of people who are driving Ubers. And I think that is actually shaping the aspirational economy. This is not something I talked about when I was writing a book as I came to the very end and I completely agree with you that that is this strong capitalistic spirit in the United States but it is unbelievable inequality that is now in the focus.

31:58

Jasmine:
In terms of capturing the mood of a moment, how do brands actually do this? And it’s so crucial. A lot of times when brands do it, it almost looks it was… In hindsight, it seems like it was almost by accident. But how can a brand capture a moment, let’s say, even just this moment right now, and use it as a way to support the communities that are their consumers?

32:23

Ana:
Well, the ways that I describe in the book is twofold. I do look with what the small group of people is doing that going back to same taste community of, say runners, for example, or cyclists or nutritionist or wellness aficionados and so on. They’re telling you where the future is going because these are those edge cases and they go very deep into specific area. For example, Panagonia fans and their passion for environmentalism, I would not even think that they are fans, they have more taste for outdoors because they’re not maybe like for me, fandom is very single minded and it’s very mass culture.

33:14

So you’re not a fan of this, so you’re a fan of that. But if you’re just a fan of… if you have a taste for something, I think it’s much softer relationship. So if you like outdoors, you’re probably going to preserve that outdoors and you’re going to want to probably care about the environment and you probably care about climate change so you’re probably going to care not only to buy Patagonia jacket because it allows you to spend 55 hours outdoors, but you’re also probably going to care about what you buy to eat or if you recycle and other behavioral and passion points. So that is one way of looking at it.

33:57

How are the people who are very passionate about certain thing or that have a taste for a certain thing, what are they doing or those who like food aficionados you have now, for example, on Instagram, a giant economy of direct to consumer food brands who are completely bypassing being a brand and bringing this back to the market economy when we were going and buying like the farmer’s market, people buying from people because thanks to the pandemic and stores being closed and so on, a lot of people like they don’t have jobs in their backyard they started growing vegetables or making teas or curing meats and so on. And they’re just going to Instagram to sell that.

34:43

And we’re buying from other people because thanks to Instagram, thanks to that visual sort of culture, we know about their lives. When you go to say, Haus or the Aperitif or East Fork, you know, about the family, you know about their kids, you know about their values, you know what they stand for, you know how they spend their time, you know how they treat their employees. That’s one micro way of sort of seeing that the future is going so I see a lot more personal relationships if I have to give any prediction. And that’s not like ground breaking but when you think about how big brands are communicating is a very, very, very far away from that. And that goes back to what we talked about.

35:27

It’s like all of overall micro overall personalization, if I get from J.Crew newsletter that knows me so intimately, I would have a completely different relationship with a brand that you have, for example. So that clarifies a bit the previous point about the mass brands and micro. And the second way is to how do you read the room, read the mood. And I always say Japanese have this expression “Kuuki wo yomu, which is how do you read the atmosphere? So right now, when you read an atmosphere is like everyone is on the edge. If you’re a brand, you’re not going to be, “La, la, la, la, la, nothing’s going on”. You probably want to show empathy for how people are feeling.

36:11

Jasmine:
Right. It’s interesting that you mentioned farmer’s markets, too. We were doing research for a brand a while ago, maybe one or two years ago. And part of the demographic that they wanted… And I know demographics or maybe an antiquated way of looking at this but that’s where we started. And they wanted to, because of the cost of the product, really speak with super affluent people in regions but regions everywhere from California, straight through the Midwest to the East Coast. And we were trying to find insights about how people ate and see if we understood or could understand their value systems around the food that they bought.

36:48

And you’d think with such affluent people, with the other behaviors that we observed when I would talk to them about the food that they bought, I was expecting to hear like organic or grass fed or the kinds of diets they were on or the nootropic sacks that they were taking but the most common… I mean, it was remarkable. Everyone I spoke to brought up farmer’s markets and it forced us to realize, oh, people are not relating to food as a function. Food is part of their larger value system around how they relate to other people. And it totally changed the way we looked at the brands. And I think farmers markets… Just when you described that, it brought up that example for me, because I think another thing about capturing the mood or the zeitgeist is you really have to be open to what the information is going to tell you, because it’s not always what you’re expecting.

37:43

Ana:
That’s exactly what to say, if you care about the environment, you are not a fan of Patagonia. You care about the environment, that is the primary relationship with the world that you have and then also buy organic and you also buy also… That is a great…

37:58

Jasmine:
Exactly. The big question that this leaves me with then is and I see this with founders that we talk to all of the time, can you do what we’re describing here without being a part of that taste community? Can you sell to, let’s say, an audience of parents that have a certain taste community around, I don’t know, whatever and it relates to like values of childhood and things like that without being a parent yourself? Because I feel like we saw a wave of brands when I was coming up in brand strategy that were founded by people who did not look like their audiences and that was okay because they were creating value innovation like you’ve described. They were disrupting models, they were building brands that were very sticky. But now that consumers have changed how they relate to brands, as you’ve described, is there room for founders who don’t look like their users?

38:49

Ana:
But that’s I think where the empathy comes in, that’s what was the big shift is from just having your own vision and then just being able to capture the mood in society and in culture and just having empathy for your users and their way of life and how they relate. So I think that is more of a shift from founder’s centric to customer centric organization or from the board centric, again, to customer centric organization. And I know it sounds like it’s been said a lot before, but it’s the hardest thing to do. The reason why omnichannel hasn’t happened yet, it’s not because of the lack of technology or data is just because organizations are siloed and they’re not organized around their customers.

 

39:42

Jasmine:
Yeah, I think the empathy piece is really important. That’s a hard north star to kind of build a company around.

 

39:49

Ana:
It’s very hard exactly, because it requires operational empathy and it requires operational and it requires empathy to be operationalized and it requires organizational empathy and I don’t think that’s something we talk about enough. You know, we hear people say, “Oh, empathy is important”. But is like how do you really operationalize that throughout your organization?

 

40:10

Jasmine:
Yeah, that’s a great question.

 

40:11

Ana:
Or through your value chain. So, I think that is going to be a great mandate for the next 10 years, back to your question.

 

40:20

Jasmine:
So after all this is said and done, luxury is no longer connected to wealth and opulence. The ability to acquire our value systems have changed. Access means something different, taste has fragmented. Social classes are defined differently. After all of that, what’s left? If you had to define modern luxury in one sentence, what are we left with?

40:43

Ana:
I think one thing that we are left… it’s not going to answer your question directly, but it’s that we have to work hard on our social cohesion, we have to work very hard to feel part of the same culture and the same society. And I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. I think that we are forced to see and understand and listen to each other and recognize our differences and accept our differences. So that’s going to lead to a more diverse society. Having all those taste communities, because in a sense, mass media masked our diversity and our differences and our racial differences and our economic differences. But now we have to find a way to reconcile them if we are to to survive as a society. So I think that is one big takeaway.

And when it comes to modern luxury, this is going to be very unpopular opinion, old luxury is the new luxury. And honestly…
 

41:42

Jasmine:
That is an unpopular opinion!

41:43

Ana:
It is very unpopular opinion because during this pandemic, we’ve seen the people who have money actually fared way better than people who don’t and when you’re on your yacht in the middle of Mediterranean or in your luxury bunker or in your giant house with the pool, that is what mattered all of a sudden, forget about this aspirational economy. Forget about this experience economy and travel and leisure and food and culture. When you don’t have access to any of that, what matters is hardcore cash and estate. And that’s what you’re seeing now, people are going back to stores, they’re buying things again, they may not want to sit on a plane, but they want to still feel good about themselves so they’re buying stuff.

42:29

Jasmine:
That’s hard to argue with. And I know you’re saying it from a very nonjudgmental place. I think what I like about the way you think about things is that even though there’s a time and place to talk about whether any of this is good or bad, you can’t get there if you don’t look at all this objectively and just ask yourself the truth of what’s happening. And that means sometimes you arrive at an unpopular opinion. And I think that’s what’s so alluring about your writing. But to wrap this up, I want to ask you about what you’re seeing yourself as a consumer. So you’ve been in this business for a long time. You’ve led some amazing companies. You’ve had some of the most provocative thinking out there. You yourself are a luxury consumer, you’re part of the modern aspiration economy.

 

43:14

From both ends, you have access. But if we took that access away from you, you also have the knowledge and the wokeness. You walk both paths. So for you, what brands are really exciting and kind of playing in this primordial clay of these new aspirational systems or whatever systems are taking us back to what old luxury was like, what are some brands that kind of get it and excite you a consumer?

43:43

Ana:
Well, I always like to see when brands are disrupting themselves before being disrupted. So for me IKEA is a great example. I don’t know why I’m so into it, but I guess when I was researching for… I wrote about five different business models in modern aspirational economy and I looked at the value disruption for IKEA and they’re doing it again because you know what they’re doing? They’re basically inventing the furniture to the small businesses and students. They are rebuying from people who are… who don’t need any more of their stuff. They’re also providing parts for their furniture because they don’t want they want to avoid that association with cheap with Zara basically. “Oh, I’m just going to have this sofa for a year and then I’m going to discard it then it’s going to end up on a landfill”. So they are very actively working on changing that perception and what really attracted me to that sort of thinking is that they’re making those to value changes part of their business model. So they’re not just doing this for PR purposes.

44:48

They actually want to make money out of rentals and they want to make money off rebuys, they want to make money on the repairs. And I think that’s a blueprint for it for many for fashion industry, above all, like there is a handful, if any, like Ganni for example, again another Scandinavian company who partnered with Levi’s for the recycled denim and I think is a good way to think about that is like which companies out there are basically moving their products from functional level, something you wear and discard or use and throw away to the next level of the ritual level with the taste comes in, “Maybe how do I make coffee or any grind my own coffee at home”, to the level of a collectible. “Do I have these Ganni jacket because it was made of recycled Levi’s denim”. And then to the sacred object, “Do I wear this jacket only once a year when there is Christmas sort or a family gathering”.

So I think that brands can operate in any of those layers, but it’s basically, we need to really rethink the relationship with objects as consumers.

45:58

Jasmine:
And you as a consumer, do you feel like you’ve changed at all in just the last few months in any permanent ways?

 

46:06

Ana:
I don’t think so and that may be disappointing to hear but I’m more cautious when I’m buying things but that’s just the situation, just because if you don’t go to the office, if you’re not socializing at the same pace is before, of course, you’re not going to be like, “Oh my God, I need this jacket” or something. I still have that but I’m not in that … it’s just situational so I don’t think that’s permanent at all. So it remains to be seen really, I don’t think I really changed that much. I mean, give me new habits, I want to replace my old habits. But right now, I don’t have anything to replace old habits with.

I think it’s also important to emphasize that change happens slowly and then all at once. So whatever change we’re not seeing right now, we may actually see next year or in two years. And we’re going to be like where did this come from.

47:03

Jasmine:
And you’re you’re open to the fact that might happen to you as well.

47:07

Ana:
Absolutely. Oh, absolutely. And, you know what? One thing that did change, we were in Mexico City and I’m so sensitive to inequality, economic inequality. I think maybe I’m seeing more of that, just having more empathy to how people live and the discrepancy between rich and poor.

47:38

Jasmine:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown, if you’re new here and you like what you’re listening to. I have one request and one offer. First, we’d love it if you left us a review. I read those reviews. They mean a lot to me, but more importantly, they help us get this podcast in front of the right people. Secondly, I’d love to give you more of our brand strategy thinking in the form of articles that we write, the videos that we publish, and anything else that captures our attention. Just sign up for our newsletter at conceptbureau.com/insights and I promise you won’t be disappointed. Thanks for listening and I’ll catch you next time.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Psychology

The 14 Rules of Identity

This is a companion piece to The 16 Rules of Brand Strategy.

 

Image credits clockwise from top left: Mihai Stefan, Carlos Arthur, Emil Vilsek, Erik Lucatero, Kyle Loftus, Almos Bechtold, Ethan Haddox, Ali Marel.

 

Identity precedes everything in brand strategy.

Before your company, before your product, before your market, there is your user’s identity, and that identity dictates the world your brand gets to play in.

Everything we do as consumers is an expression of who we are.

From conversion to consumption to churn, every action we take is aligned with how we see ourselves, and identity is the underlying code that makes those behaviors happen the way they do.

Identity triggers behavior.

If you can understand that code, you can radically change your relationship with the user — so radically, that your users pivot even their most deeply rooted behaviors and beliefs.

We’re constantly feeding our minds with meaning and narrative, bringing our identities to life every day through the stories we tell ourselves.

Whether it be zoning out during the ride to work or the way we treat the barista at the coffee shop, we not only live in these moments, but also observe ourselves through a third (extremely subjective) eye as they happen — “Beautiful woman is lost in her thoughts on the the way to the office”…“Man with kind eyes tips the barista a little extra because he has character.

It’s the nature of identity to experience something in the moment while also contextualizing that experience for meaning.

That eye is a perpetual reinforcement of who we are and where we belong, and the single most personal story we tell ourselves.

The story is also the world in which your brand will live.

While most brands only consider the observable world of their ideal users, truly smart brands look for the hidden inner world that operates within each user.

That’s the world where decisions get made. If you can understand that world, you can make the right decisions happen.

In order to know how to speak to your user, you have to first understand how they speak to themselves when no one else is listening.

The best brands among us already demonstrate this:

  • TED created a new world of ideas, but also let us see ourselves as casual experts without the usual mental and emotional labor involved. They realized that while we may have wanted to learn, what we really wanted was to just know something.
  • Trader Joe’s started a food movement, but also constantly evolved their inventory and rearranged their stores, creating the thrill of discovery so that we could tell ourselves we were not only healthy people, but health tastemakers on the bleeding edge.
  • HBO’s daring and intelligent content changed television, and also allowed us to see ourselves no longer as just viewers, but as active participants. We once told ourselves we were an audience, but now believe we are active agents.

These brands changed not only the outer world, but our private inner worlds as well… and that is the most powerful way to build a brand.

They understood that identity was the starting point.

The quickest way to get there for your own brand is to understand how our identities form in the first place.

This is a list of the most important identity constructs we’ve learned at our agency. They are the rules and truths that guide any internal monologue in any audience.

Time and again, they’ve helped us get past the distractions on the surface and into the minds of the people we’re trying to speak to.

There is an inner world hiding in plain sight.

Use these guidelines to get there.

 


1. If you believe something, you will find the proof to support it.

I never thought I was very athletic, although I desperately wanted to be athletic growing up in high school. The story (which felt as real and deep as my DNA) was that I just didn’t get that gene.

I dropped out of tennis lessons and chickened out of kayaking not because the story was true, but because I was looking for proof of the story I believed.

Then I had my DNA sequenced at the age of 36 and it turns out I have the ACTN3 gene, which is in fact associated with athletic performance in elite power athletes.

My surprising 23andMe result instantly changed my internal story.

 

The moment I read that, my relationship to my body changed and a new script started playing. I suddenly felt something inside of me that was always there, but I simply did not believe in.

Nothing in reality had ever changed. I had that gene for 36 years, but when my internal monologue shifted, so did my beliefs, and thus my behaviors. I got a personal trainer, started tennis and kayaking, and began to treat my body very differently.

We will always find proof for the stories we believe.

Our internal scripts are so powerful, it’s nearly frightening.

  • Vice changed our script about serious journalism
  • WeWork changed our script about work that doesn’t look like work
  • Tinder changed our script around the shame of casual sex

You, too, can change the script for the betterment of your users.

Look for the story that needs changing and then create a new reality where that story can live. Give your users new proof, new evidence, new rules. Give them a new architecture to build their stories on top of.

Give them all of the props and staging they need in order to step inside the new narrative.

(More on this here: Dig Deeper — The Secret To Gripping Brand Narratives.)

2. Income doesn’t really mean anything.

If people want it, they’ll find the money for it.

Most of the people in your local Verizon store shouldn’t be spending $1k on an iPhone. But they do. And most of them upgrade every year, too.

Don’t waste your time with two-dimensional demographic info that only tells you what people should do, instead of what people want to do.

We spend our money on the things we believe in.

Look at psychographics instead.

Understand what permissions people give themselves in order to do or buy something outside of their usual scope… or better yet, what permissions they’re still waiting for.

Remember that Apple gave us the permission to make electronics a signal of our self-worth, before we even knew we wanted it.

Oftentimes gender, age and socio-economic background don’t matter, either. The people who can afford your product are the people who can afford to have their minds changed.

Ask yourself who those people are, and what drives their purchase behaviors more than their budgets.

That’s where you’ll find your answer.

(More on this here: How To Create Powerful Brand Messaging — 5 Truths and a Framework.)

3. What people really want is to learn about themselves.

Most brand positioning takes one of three forms:

  1. This is what our product does.
  2. This is what you can do with our product.
  3. This is who you can become with our brand.

The third positioning, This is who you can become with our brand, is the most powerful position to come from, and the only direction that the consumer mindset is headed for in the foreseeable future.

Ikea knows that even affordable modular furniture can reveal something on an emotional level.

This year, they’ve announced a slew of daring collaborations with not only breakthrough fashion icons like Virgil Abloh and OFF WHITE, but also musicians like Solange and her arts and culture hub Saint Heron, perfume creator Ben Gorham, and childhood throwback Lego.

The message is clear — you can become a creator with IKEA. This isn’t about furnishing your apartment anymore.

It’s a realization that changes your relationship with both the company and yourself.

There is perhaps nothing more valuable for your user than the experience of realizing who they are.

Every action your brand takes is a reflection of your positioning. It’s easy to go with This is what our product does, or This is what you can do with our product, but that’s leaving money on the table.

Push yourself to create a different a story that weaves both you and the customer into the future. A story that will deeply change both of you.

(More on this: How To Be Different, Not Better.)

4. Values rarely change. Beliefs change easily.

Short of a life changing event, consumer values typically don’t budge.

The beliefs that sit on top of those values, however, do change easily.

Cannabis startup MedMen knew that changing peoples’ anti-drug values was a dead end, but changing the belief that sat on top of that value — the belief that drug users are bad people — could in fact be changed.

MedMen ads challenge your beliefs with a heavy dose of empathy.

 

MedMen’s new narrative gave people room to understand that you can be a drug user and still be a good person.

And logic only dictates that if you want to use marijuana, you can still maintain your values and stay a good person, too.

The ads above literally crossed out the old belief and inserted the new one. Now your drug use didn’t define you. Your humanity did.

Changing our values is extremely uncomfortable. Changing our beliefs is a lot easier.

Brands that keep your values in tact but change your subsequent beliefs allow you, the user, to grow without the pain of changing your worldview.

Make sure you separate beliefs from values and know where to insert your narrative.

Yes, you can change values if that’s really where you want to go, but sometimes people only have room to shift their belief systems.

5. Maslow’s hierarchy doesn’t always correlate with wealth.

Somewhere along the line, we started believing wealth pushes people up Maslow’s hierarchy.

But oftentimes it doesn’t.

Not everyone gets to the top of the pyramid. Not even the wealthiest among us.

Source: Big Think

 

While it may be largely true that increased prosperity moves people up the bottom three tiers, we’ve found in our work that the top two tiers actually correlate a lot less with wealth than you’d expect.

Many consumers in the top 5% have the disposable income to donate to charity, give back to their communities, volunteer, partake in immersive travel, become more spiritual, expand their world views or philosophies (all behaviors that reflect self-actualization and self-transcendence), but get stuck somewhere between the love/ belonging and esteem stages.

Wealth doesn’t move you up the pyramid. Confidence does.

It takes more than money to move up Maslow’s hierarchy.

Mindset, not money, defines where we are.

If you’re surprised that your wealthy neighbors hold xenophobic views, or your prosperous family members won’t give change to homeless people, it’s likely because their money moved up the pyramid faster then their hearts could.

Similarly, just because your customer is affluent doesn’t mean your corporate social responsibility program will resonate or your environmentally friendly practices will keep them from churning.

Make sure you understand where your customer is before you make any assumptions.

If you can help them move up a little faster with your brand, that’s even better.

6. People can have different identities in different parts of their lives.

I call this Poly Identification, and as more and more rules about class, gender and social roles begin to evaporate around us, the more comfortable we have become with letting people carry multiple identities at once.

As I wrote in Business of Fashion last year:

When Chiara Ferragni dresses in head-to-toe Chanel one day and Supreme and sneakers the next, she’s not just mixing styles, she’s moving between spaces.

It’s indicative of a much larger trend of millennial consumers willing to simultaneously identify as preppy, bohemian, emo, street, glam or any other number of subcultures.

Indeed, young consumers increasingly travel between styles instead of committing to a singular diehard identity. Rather than breaking out of the box, they collect boxes that reflect different senses of self at any given moment, on any given day.

It’s obvious in fashion, but also evident in our careers, love lives and social circles.

Kim Kardashian and Howard Stern can travel between wildly different identities without friction. That wouldn’t have been possible a generation ago.

Instead of fitting into boxes, people are increasingly moving between them.

Identities are a mosaic.

You can find a way to let people explore a different dimension of their identities or make a certain dimension fit in with others, but you can’t assume your user looks the same to you as they do in other parts of their lives.

7. You can’t leapfrog fear.

No matter how positive, hopeful or uplifting your brand promise is, you have to resolve any fear that may precede it.

Food tech companies tend to struggle with this.

Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and Perfect Day have compelling brand messaging, but it all sits on a house of cards. Consumers still have a fear of the unknown in modified foods just as they always have with GMOs.

You can’t skip messages when it comes to fear. Fear must be resolved before any higher message can be adopted.

You already know a confused buyer never buys. Confusion is a form of fear. There are other common forms of fear, too:

  • Hate
  • Anger
  • Misunderstanding
  • Phobia
  • Bias

A2 Milk is from regular dairy cows while Perfect Day creates dairy without the animal.

Granted, A2 doesn’t have the same battle against consumer biases that Perfect Day has, but they still understand that the fear must be alleviated first before the optimistic horizon can be introduced:

A2 Milk homepage.

 

Their messaging turns unspoken fear into a simple story that consumers can tell themselves whenever those uncomfortable feelings crop up.

Perfect Day, on the other hand, let’s an unspoken fear sit in the mind of the consumer:

Perfect Day Homepage.

 

Do a sense check of your brand and see if fear is creeping up anywhere in your user experience. It can be sitting right under a positive sentiment.

Consumers can skip over most other emotions if something bigger is on the horizon, but fear is like quicksand.

Don’t let people get stuck.

8. Everyone has a garden.

Everyone has something they hold dear. Something they nurture often. A place where they focus the expression of their identity.

The mistake we make as brand strategists oftentimes is stopping short of finding that garden.

The garden is that one expressive outlet that reveals far more about your user than any other insight.

You’ll know it when you find it:

  • It will be where you user feels the most comfortable to be themselves
  • It will reveal what your user values the most
  • It will usually tell you when and where you can break the rules

Life hacking is a fascinating garden that reveals a lot about the men and women who spend time in it. Tim Ferris podcasts, Bulletproof Coffee and https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/ all live there.

It’s a garden where men, especially, can obsess freely over their bodies, reveal values that can easily be mistaken for vanity, and give you one important insight that goes against many other commonly held beliefs — that men will pay a lot of money to feel good.

HVMN knows this. That’s why their branding taps directly into a psychographic that wants to “Be Impossible”.

The video’s adrenaline-laced visuals tie in things like aging, mood and cognition, metabolism, obesity, inflammation, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes.

This is hyper self-care for men.

It’s compulsive wellness. All-consuming self indulgence.

And if you didn’t look in that garden, you may have kept believing the stereotype that men are far less concerned about those things than women.

There is always something valuable in the garden.

If you can find it for your consumers, you’ll hit on something important.

9. We will do a lot to ease our cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance occurs whenever we believe something about ourselves, but act in a way that diverges from those beliefs. For example, we may believe we are healthy lovers, but fail to stay in any long term relationships.

That rift between what we believe and what we do creates an unease, and usually points to where we have the most dissatisfaction in our lives.

That’s why the love industry is so big and people are willing to spend immense amounts of money on both legit forms of help (books, therapy) and more questionable ones (reiki practitioners, fortune tellers and energy workers).

Sometimes our entire identities are driven by the motivation to narrow that cognitive gap.

Esther Perel understands that as desperately as we want to see ourselves as enlightened romantic partners, we do very little to actually get there. That’s why she’s positioned herself as a relationship explorer.

Instead of offering relationship advice in the traditional form that only creates more distance between who we are and how we see ourselves, she offers a path for self-discovery.

The Esther Perel experience allows people to see themselves as experts instead of disciples, and that brings our behavior a lot closer to our beliefs. She teaches us not how to fix, but how to think.

Look for gaps that need closing in the minds of your own audience.

Solving a problem for your user is great, but easing their cognitive dissonance can have a much greater emotional impact.

There is likely something that your user wants more than just a solution.

[More on that here: The Cognitive Dissonance Hiding Behind Strong Brands.]

10. “Everyone is a hero in their own story” … but there are different kinds of heroes.

If you’ve read my writing, you know this is one of my favorite quotes.

It forces you to identify with anyone, and without judgement. I often refer to this quote when I find myself bothered or turned off by a customer profile because it brings me back to a place of empathy right away and helps me see the goal my user sees.

Empathy is a great homing device.

Keep in mind, however, that different people are different kinds of heroes:

  • There are the anti-heroes that look like villains on the outside and need someone to see them for who they truly are
  • There are the reluctant heroes that not only need the motivation to take on their destinies, but are secretly hoping and waiting for someone to give it to them
  • There are the catalyst heroes who act heroically, but rarely want change much themselves in the process
  • There are the tragic heroes that believe they will continue to stumble and fail, and may resist a narrative that says otherwise
  • There are the willing heroes who are eager to take on the challenge, and expect to get the Hollywood ending

Every kind of hero needs a different kind of message, but every one of them can be motivated to act.

Understand your hero, and you will understand how to make them move.

An anti-hero (like Harley Davidson’s customer) needs to be discovered while a willing hero (like Nike’s customer) expects you to already know who he is.

11. The journey is starting to matter more than the destination.

Something has started to change in the psyche of most post-boomer American consumers.

The end goal is starting to matter less, and the experience of getting there is starting to matter more.

Consumers are gradually entering a constant state of evolution.

Rather than defining themselves as who they are (a state of being), they are defining themselves by who they are turning into (a state of becoming).

Our ever-evolving co-working setups, our daily experiments in beauty and nutrition, and the transformative experiences we fervently search for in everything we do (from spiritually uplifting SoulCycle sessions to healing travel) show how the becoming piece matters more and more.

I refer to this as the treadmill vs. the step ladder. Previous generations understood social class and the incremental step ladder you moved up into in each rung.

Today we are moving along something that looks far more like a treadmill — no destination and no gatekeepers, but a constant experience of moving upward.

When people move from a ladder to a treadmill, you need to center your brand around the journey, not the end point.

That’s an important difference.

[More on this here: In The Transformational Economy, ‘Being’ and ‘Becoming’ Have Started To Merge.]

12. There are utility users, and there are premium users. You can’t speak to both, but you can turn one into the other.

Every client we work with wants to move upmarket to a more premium user, but many of them get scared when they realize that premium positioning will likely box out their core utility user base… even when that core is limiting them.

You can’t win over both with the same branding, but you can turn a utility user into a premium one.

Utility users need to be educated into caring about the right things. You need to find something more important than value-for-price that they can latch onto.

Lululemon didn’t miss out on a mainstream market. They turned a mainstream market into a premium one by educating and transforming those users into discerning yoga wear addicts.

Lululemon hired Vice to help explain and expand to the mainstream.

 

If you feel yourself sweating in the brand strategy process because you don’t want to leave your non-premium core behind, change your perspective.

You don’t have to leave them behind. You have to change them so they’ll come with you.

Give them a message that will make price irrelevant.

13. There is value in the ‘in-between’ spaces.

Consumers in every vertical of every category are looking for greater meaning, and they’re finding it in the connections between spaces.

Health is no longer just a doctor’s visit. It’s mind-body-spirit. It’s a juice cleanse, a heart-to-heart with your partner and a colonic. It’s a trainer and a nutritionist and therapist.

Beauty is no longer just an eye cream. It’s a non-inflammatory diet, a 24 karat facial and stem cell serums.

Career success is no longer a well paying office job. It’s a personal brand, an active blog and a creative side gig.

The connections between spaces have put new life into old paradigms.

Connections give consumers the answers (and narratives) they’re looking for.

All of these examples create a narrative of how and why we do things.

They add meaning and value in a way we can control. Instead of just trusting a drugstore eye cream brand, you have an empowering story of how and why your beauty routine is working.

Just like religion and folklore, connective stories become part of our hardwiring.

Look for how your brand can connect to more than just one part of someone’s life. There is a story to be told that is much bigger than your product.

Make the connection and go deeper into your consumer’s world.

14. Identity is a story.

Truth has very little to do with identity. How we interpret that truth is what matters.

To change a person is to change the stories that define them.

Every construct on this list culminates in this one, simple fact.

If you want to really see a person, look beyond the ‘truth’ of their external lives — listen to the stories they tell themselves internally.

Behavior, belief, bias, conversion all weave together to tell a tale. No one of these things can demonstrate who your consumer is. But together, they do just that.

Don’t get distracted by facts and statistics. Don’t chase after trends.

Instead listen for the story arc that emerges from them.

(Here are some common ones we all like to tell ourselves: Pain, Villains and Fuck You Money)

 


Reaching For Identity

Searching for identity can feel like grabbing at clouds. Just when you think you’re holding the truth, it slips through your fingers.

That’s because truly understanding someone else’s identity is an out-of-body kind of experience. It’s one thing to see it on paper. It’s another thing to feel it your bones.

“The shortest distance between two people is a story.”
― Patti Digh

But no matter how you cut it, identity is where it all starts.

You can’t know where your brand belongs if you don’t know what world it’s living in.

 

This is a companion piece to The 16 Rules of Brand Strategy.

Categories
Podcast

16: Systems In Flux: The hidden divergent forces shaping the next generation of brands, consumers, and capitalism

Whether it’s brand, behavior, or culture, the more you dig into the systems that affect our lives the closer you’ll come to a conversation about capitalism. While capitalism as a model may seem unchanging at a glance, look a little closer and you’ll start to see patterns of change. In this house episode, Jasmine and Jean-Louis dig into divergent systems, the unstable behavior of markets, and how the rules we’ve trusted for a century are now ushering in a new generation of brands, consumers, and capital. This is the first of a series of episodes exploring how divergent systems are shaping the business landscape.

Podcast Transcript

October 27, 2020

50 min read

Systems in flux: The hidden divergent forces shaping the next generation of brands, consumers, and capitalis‪m‬

00:11

Jasmine Bina:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. Today we have a house episode for you. Jean-Louis and I are going to be talking about something called, diversion systems. And it comes from an interesting place. So we’ve been recording this podcast for a few months now, and after every episode, we’ll have a conversation after the fact with the person that’s on the show, or we’ll be talking to each other. And we kind of have this conversation after the conversation where we ask ourselves, “Why are we witnessing the things that we’re talking about on this show? Why are these certain behaviors happening? Why are these certain opportunities opening up, and other ones closing? Why is the landscape shifting in this way?”

00:51

And it always invariably comes back to the same answer; if you really, really look at it, everything comes back to capitalism. And capitalism is really just a set of systems. The systems are theoretically simple. There are goals and there are incentives. If the goal of a free market is to make money, then the incentives are to make better products, offer better prices, create better brands people love, so on and so forth, so that you are able to reach that goal of making more money.

01:20

Jasmine Bina:
And in this simple definition of capitalism, where goals are aligned with incentives, it makes sense, except in some categories, it’s starting to go a little haywire. And those are the categories that we want to start talking about today. And in a series of conversations after this one over the next few episodes, where we’re going to talk about how we’re seeing it happen in certain verticals. Because in some places, goals might look like they’re aligned with incentives, but actually they’re not. And that is when you get divergent systems. Systems that start on a clear path, but then they start to split. And the bigger question really here is, when systems diverge, what happens to brands? And before we can get into that, we need to talk about what divergent systems actually are, on a more granular level. So Jean-Louis, this is your wheelhouse. Describe divergent systems for us.

02:15

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. The way I think you can think about this is, we’ve been running this kind of our economy, capitalism on an operating system, which is well over 100 years old by now. We haven’t really changed it at all. And so the way I kind of think about it is, you’re flying a plane at a slight angle, and over time, that plane is going to turn, and given enough time, and you might actually end up going back the way you were coming from. So I think that’s kind of where we are with a lot of these systems is, we haven’t changed the rules at play, and so the plane is just gradually turning. And so given enough time, a system that was designed for one goal might end up doing something completely different, because it’s not moving according to what the goal of the system is, it’s moving according to what incentive is.

03:00

So a really, really simple example of this is infrastructure. So when you think about infrastructure, the goal is obviously to support a city, support the environment with the tools that it needs, but the incentive is usually political capital. So a lot of cities are in desperate need of more bus networks, but that doesn’t really win an election. So you end up with a lot of rail stations that aren’t actually used that much. And so, you’re getting the goals really diverged from the actual actions that are happening in the system. Without getting political, if you look at political parties, the goal is to represent the interests of the public, but the incentive is influence. And usually influenced comes through capital. And so it’s not really surprising that you end up with a really strong duopoly, and you end up with massive polarization because it’s really effective at garnering capital and influence.

03:50

News, for example here. For a long, long time, it’s been running on the ad model. And with the ad model, while the goal of news might be to represent or communicate the events of the world, the incentive is attention. And so it shouldn’t be surprising if you follow that track. If you just think about where that’s going to go, fake news should be sort of expected when you’ve got a model that tracks towards attention. Algorithms that condition us to be kind of more outraged, more kind of sensationalized by these different things, those things should be expected. And so now, in response to that, you’ve got a lot of news sites that are becoming subscription platforms, and you’ve got others that are coming really pay-for-play. They’re changing the business model in response to that.

04:30

So you can see all of these systems as just, almost forget what the goal isn’t just think about what is the incentive that is keeping the system alive, and just imagine where that is going. And often it’s a really good prediction of what we’re going to end up with. And the problem is that we’re not able to fix the plane while it’s flying right now. And so it keeps turning, and we keep getting these systems that are kind of falling apart. And you right, now at least, with the infrastructure within capitalism, it’s not really changing much. And so it’s creating a lot of new demands.

05:05

Jasmine Bina:
So where else are we seeing diversion systems at play? And I think more importantly, why now? Because everything you described is clear as day, and it’s all happening at once. So why is it happening now, and is it even bigger than this?

05:19

Jean-Louis:
Right, right. So I think there’s two things that… Why now, is, if you imagine kind of your destination is straight ahead, and you’re just a fraction of a degree off, it takes a lot of time before the difference in direction becomes really visible. And so I think with a lot of these things, it has just taken a really long time, I think a perfect encapsulation of this is the healthcare industry. I mean, it goes without saying that it’s clearly diverged. But I think when you think about it from the point of view of like, what is the incentive here? It’s profit. Profit for the hospitals, but also profit for the insurance companies. And you’ve got a flood of private equity coming into hospitals to really dial this up. And so, it should be somewhat expected that in a system that doesn’t have the checks and balances it needs, and your insurance tells you, “Your deductible is higher this year.” “Your discount is higher.” But then they’re raising the prices.

06:13

You’ve got a system where there are no visible costs. It’s really not a free market anymore, because no one’s able to know the prices of things before they buy. And I think that’s one of the key problems here, is that when we talk about capitalism, it’s really, I think important to remember that a free market in and of itself does not want to stay free. What will happen over time is that through regulations, or through monopolies, people will try and close the door behind them. Businesses will try and close the door behind them. And in healthcare you’ve seen that they’ve created so many regulations that really make it incredibly difficult to compete, and incredibly difficult to operate as a free market where consumers have any level of choice. They’re not even the buyer really, the insurance company is, and so there’s so many levels of abstraction.

07:00

Jean-Louis:
But then if you look at tech for example, they’ve done it in a different way. You’ve got these monopolies that literally block out the sun for competitors, and anyone who gets close. They just get acquired or just bought out. And so you’ve got so many ways in which the free market doesn’t want to stay free inherently. If you think about it as a system, it’s inherently unstable, and so you need those checks and balances. And I think in large part, we’ve kind of seen a failure to maintain the freedom of the market in so many different places.

07:30

Jasmine Bina:
Even if the market isn’t entirely free, in a world like this, where profit has to be the goal in order to survive, because the story is ultimately written by the victors. I mean, isn’t everything really divergent in some way or another?

07:45

Jean-Louis:
I mean, yes and no. I think a lot of systems do have divergent properties, but when a system diverges is when it’s really had enough time for that. I think what’s really interesting here is that we’re seeing the very, very, very beginning stages of new kind of infrastructure here. So, at the extreme end you’ve got cryptocurrency. And really, it’s less about the cryptocurrency itself, but more about organizational structures it enables. So people are starting to talk about DAOs, decentralized autonomous organizations, where you’ve got, essentially the rules of the organization are written in code, and anyone can kind of come and go freely and participate in this economy. And so we’re starting to see the very beginnings of this. Really, we’re at the infrastructure layer. If this was the internet, we’d be in the early 1980s right now. So this company Foundation. And they’re a great example of this, where they’ve created a market where artists, or any kind of creator can create goods that are linked to tokens, and people can buy and sell those tokens. And so they become an asset.

8:45

And so you can invest in an artist that you believe in, and what they’re doing there is, they’re creating a market. They’re creating an economy that gives ownership to the customers, and gives new kind of vehicles of capital and new vehicles of ownership for the creatives themselves. And so we’re starting to see different ways of organizing people. We’re seeing a rise in cooperatives in terms of businesses, we’re seeing a rise in equity crowdfunding for example, is another great way of people starting to think about, “Okay, how are we organizing around these things? How are we creating the incentives, and how are they aligned?”

09:51

And so it was starting to explore these things, I think were at the very, very beginning of maybe a Cambrian explosion of new formats for this. But again, I think maybe in five years, people would be talking about that, but right now we’re just at the infrastructure layer. So I think it’s coming, in terms of finding new ways, and I think what’s really important to hear is, how do you fix the plane in flight? How do we create a model that isn’t just, set and forget? Where we can actually tweak the rules of engagement as it goes? And I think things around decentralization and crypto are actually often new vehicles to do that.

09:57

Jasmine Bina:
So, I’m going to do something that you do a lot of times. Let’s test this idea by pushing it to the extreme. If we push this out to like 100, here’s what bugs me about this idea a little bit. And when you look at co-ops, decentralized systems where people can come and go and participate as they want, I think these things, you can understand how they work on a small scale, but the thing about a capitalist society, let’s just say American society is that people are driven by the fact that… This idea of rags to riches. The fact that you can do much better than your neighbor tomorrow.

10:30

And that’s why I feel people are so willing to put up with so much crap today, because they feel like there’s always a possibility that they can outperform other people. But these decentralized systems, crypto, the co-op idea, I think it kind of caps any one person having some sort of major breakaway success or taking more than their fair share of the profit, or whatever winnings, whatever you want to call it. I hope I’m not getting too abstract here, but it kind of feels like it’s going against human nature a little bit. Does that make sense?

11:06

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I mean, what’s funny is that when you think about capitalism, there’s capitalism as a system, as the economics, but then there’s also capitalistic values. And I think that’s two very separate things that are almost always conflated for one another. And so I think certainly in this country, if you attack capitalism, it sounds as an attack on the values, and you kind of, you get lost in the weeds instantly. But I think there really are two different things. You raise a really good point. It was stress testing this. One of the challenges right now is that, if you take a cooperative for example, a lot of these business models can generate a ton of value for people, but maybe they only reach 10 or 100 million in terms of valuation for a company.

11:45

But you’re in an environment which you’re fighting against VC funding a lot of the time. And so you’ve got companies that, they strap $100 million to it, and say, “Hit the moon, or go bust. It doesn’t matter.” And so it’s kind of challenging because it’s stifling a lot of opportunity for these new businesses, because really the economics of VC is, either you’re a billion dollar company, or you don’t exist. And so it is a challenge though, but I think one of the really fascinating things is, the fundamental rules of capitalism might actually be changing kind of under our feet. And what I mean by that is that, for most of history, in my view at least, capitalism is really, in the way it existed, an enabled incremental advances. It really encouraged small improvements over competitors. You make a slightly better product, and you win the market, and someone else makes a slightly better product, and that’s generally how it worked.

12:38

When it came to massive advances in technology, that was usually left to governments. Because it wasn’t easy to get the capital to have something that takes 10 years, or maybe an unknown period of time of R&D to come across that breakthrough. But now with these trillion dollar companies that are emerging; Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, what’s starting to happen is, they have the means to make step-change advancements. It’s no longer incremental, as in for those few companies that are able to do that, they can invest in very, very, very long players, that may take an indefinite period of time, but when they come, they completely changed the market. We haven’t seen that yet, but you have to remember, all of this kind of a step-change advancements used to come from the public sector, with NASA developing all sorts of technology.

 

13:28

But now, with Google working on longevity science, with self-driving cars, with huge AI advancements, even like Neuralink for example, with Elon Musk creating a brain-machine interface. These changes, if taken commercial, would be potentially trillion dollar companies in their own right for each of them. But they’re completely owned by these trillion-dollar companies. And so I think we’re reaching a point where the rules of capitalism are changing. And I think that might impact our values. The story that you can go from rags to riches might not make sense in a world where the trillion-dollar company is literally sucking up all of the oxygen in the room.

14:07

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. These trillion-dollar companies have the potential to create these step-change advancements instead of incremental change. Would you say they’ve also kind of… Obviously they’ve created the capital opportunity to do that, but have they also created the cultural opportunity to do that as they’ve started to take on a more prominent role in our lives, as they’ve become the new governments, which we’ve talked about so many times? Have they created an environment where we’re willing to let them create such huge changes, or we might not have allowed them so few decades ago?

14:44

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. I mean, I think it’s a really interesting question. One of the things I’ve been thinking about, and I don’t know how true it is, but it definitely seems to resonate with me is that, we’ve really changed recently in the way that a lot of these businesses work, where you’ve gone from the customer to the product. This was that line out of the social dilemma that everyone’s talking about. But I think it’s really quite profound, in the sense that when you hold the product, you’re not really a stakeholder in the conversation anymore. And I think that’s starting to happen in a lot of different places, especially when you think about AI. You’re the data point, you’re the data set. And so your opinions are far less valid.

15:23

And with these companies, they have so much capital to influence public opinion, they’re completely bulletproof from a kind of scandal point of view. They have massive operations. I mean, we should probably do our own episode about how the trust machines are designed to perpetuate trust, you cannot not trust them. And that’s literally the one thing that they need to create. And then they’re exceptional at that, and that’s what makes them so successful. So I think, in that regard, they’ve escaped that oven. And I don’t know if we have the power we think we do over them anymore.

 

15:54

Jasmine Bina:
Hold on, though. You watched the Social Dilemma? I did not see that. And I was very surprised at how much social chatter there was about it, because… Well, you tell me. There’s nothing in there that we don’t already know about, the ills of technology, right?

16:09

Jean-Louis:
No, but I think there’s one point that soundly stuck out to me. And that’s, when you think about Facebook and these social networks, it’s not that you are the products, but that the product is incremental behavior change. It’s getting you to behave ever so slightly differently, and when you think about that, that’s a big deal. And it’s kind of begs a really interesting question which is that, if you’re able to change society at large in terms of their views and their opinions and these kinds of things, maybe society is now a slightly divergent system, because you’ve got a new incentive at play, who knows?

16:49

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but I feel like we had kind of already knew that, I knew that. I think most people knew that. I’m guessing it’s only being presented it in a way that is a bit more shocking, but I feel like we knew that and we agreed to it, when we all started kind of giving up our privacy. I think that was the first, well we’ve talked about this before, I think that was the first signal that tech was slowly changing our actual behaviors, and the way that we related to each other…

 

Jean-Louis: 
Yeah.

17:15

Jasmine Bina:
And the things that we were willing to accept. So, okay. Going back to that discussion. It’s easy to step away from this discussion and hear what you’re saying, and to say like, “Isn’t this just disruption?” So I’m going to ask you, isn’t this just disruption?

17:29

Jean-Louis:
Yes and no. I mean, I think… Really the story of this isn’t so much like this is creating the environment for disruption. This has created the social norm, I think that we now look to disruption as a point of trust. The point is that the systems have been broken enough that our trust in them have been broken. These aren’t authorities that we look to, and so we’re now looking for new authorities, and that’s forcing us into the arms of disruption. It’s forcing us to look to new players. And so when someone is disruptive, they’re sending a signal that we are not the broken system. We’re a new system. And I think we’re really willing to embrace that, because of this climate. So I think the disruption economy, if you could call it that, is because of divergent systems.

18:13

Jasmine Bina:
You’ve brought up trust a couple of times now, which I think leads me to the next question, which is, what does this mean for brands? Let’s bring it back down to earth. How is this changing the rules of engagement for our brands? What should brands be doing in response? Obviously, where does trust fit into this?

18:30

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I mean, the way I sort of see this is that people are looking for power. They’re looking for control. A lot of the divergent systems, what’s happened is that they’ve gotten less control. In the medical industry, there’s no control. You cannot actually get a price before they do that. I mean, there was an example, it was on A16 podcasts. Could you imagine booking a plane, and they tell you, “We can only give you the price when you land. There’s just no way.”

 

18:59

Jasmine Bina:
And that’s a very soft example. I mean, there’s also just the power of being a woman, or a person of color. Trying to be heard in a medical system, it’s been documented so well, that depending on your race, or your class, or definitely your gender, doctors won’t take your descriptions of pain as seriously as they would somebody else, for example. Or they will be more likely to characterize your reactions or feelings as hysterical, over other things. It’s not just disempowerment and loss of control over technical things, like being able to track price transparency. It’s over like things that are also kind of dehumanizing.

19:41

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. No, I mean, it kind of sounds like, maybe it may be a small factor, but the numbers are insane. If you look at the numbers, these are very, very big deals. And I think just generally across the board, with these divergent systems, you the consumer, you the individual, generally lose power in all of these conversations when it comes to political bodies. You’ve lost power because it’s about the capital and the influence. And for most of these systems, you become the product. And so in terms of what brands can do, it’s giving people a sense of power back, and designing an incentive that really aligns with that. Creating the ability for some kind of value generation for your customers, to be part of your incentive as a business. So there are different ways that you can do that. The most tangible one is building your business around a cause.

20:29

So, I mean, you’ve got like sustainability brands as a baseline, or even a company like Patagonia. They are successful on the back of building a community around environmental advocacy. And so, if that is successful, or rather the success of their environmental advocacy has a large impact on the success of that. And so even though it was a private company, their incentive might be profit, that’s largely driven by their ability to provide a meaningful impact and create value. And so I think as a brand, when you’re thinking about operating in this environment, you have to think about, “How do I bring the incentives of my business, which are almost always going to be profit ultimately, how do I align those as best I can, with value creation for my customers? At a very fundamental level, what can we do?”

21:13

And so another example is creating your brand around a perspective, or sharing a voice, or creating a community. These kinds of vehicles are creating value for your customers, but also if done right, can generate a lot of profit for you as a business. And so it’s really about thinking about where are we creating value, and how can we align our incentives around that? I think fundamentally at a systems level approach, that’s the best thing you can do. Because really, again, we’re looking for disruption because we’re looking for power, we’re looking for control again. We want to feel like a stakeholder in all of this. And when you create value like that, you’re doing that for the customers.

21:51

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, and when you say trust, that’s super interesting because, you can talk about having a cause, you can talk about creating communities where people feel like they belong, you can talk about corporate social responsibility, or providing value through really wondrous experiences. You can talk about so many different things and lenses that brand touches. But if you go and re-examine them again, and say, “Is this creating a source of trust for people?” Not, “Do they trust our brand?” But do they feel like they are in a system that is trustworthy? That gives them that control back? I feel like that changes the answers a lot. And a lot of brands would be very hard pressed to actually answer those questions in a way that makes sense in a non-divergent system. I mean, let’s be honest here. This sounds hard and probably not easy to scale, right?

 

22:44

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. I mean, yeah. Ultimately it’s hard and it takes a lot of serious decisions to get there. But I think you sort of touched on it in the sense that, real authenticity nowadays… I think people are so fatigued by lip service, that you have to have authenticity at a systems level essentially. And that’s really… Almost what I’m talking about here in terms of value creation is that you need to design your business in a way that it authentically creates value for people. Like that is part of the incentive. It’s the model, it’s the expectation that’s been set. And so I think that’s kind of what we’re demanding of these businesses. You can’t say these things without backing them up with actions now. It’s becoming far more sensitive to these things, and far more aware of the actions businesses, take when leadership fails, even if it’s just the company culture. That’s a big deal now in a way it wasn’t before. So the climate has changed, our tolerance for these things has really changed around it.

23:41

Jasmine Bina:
So we’re kind of talking about this already, but I want to go deeper. So how is this changing consumers and culture? Or, I don’t know if it is the chicken or the egg. Did consumers and culture change, and now it’s changing business? I don’t even know if we need to ask that question, but how are these parts of the equation being changed?

 

24:02

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I mean, it’s definitely kind of everyone’s been changed at the same time. I mean, this is kind of such a slow moving vehicle in terms of divergence. Again, a lot of these things have been in the works for 100 years or so. It takes a lot of time, but I think there’s a few trends that we know are happening. We know that people are trying to circumvent the broken system. Again, kind of going back to the medical industry, it’s so clear here that we are looking for new ways and new places that we can fulfill those needs. And so it shouldn’t be any surprise, in a world where you can’t guarantee your wellbeing through the health care industry anymore, the trust isn’t there. And so obviously you rely on it when you need to, but that’s probably one of the contributing factors to why wellness has become so strong.

24:44

We’ve become massively disenfranchised with healthcare, and so we are looking to new places, to new ways of fulfilling those needs. And so we buy wellness products, we follow wellness influences in a way it’s… I think you have to see this from a mental category point of view. We are seeing this in the same bucket of, “This is my health. And so I’m taking care of my health in new ways now.” And the divergent system has kind of forced us into these new behaviors. But I think the subtext here, which is interesting and maybe concerning is the fact that this usually trickles down from the top. You have very premium offerings come in, and they grab the capital, and they take that opportunity, and it’s mostly with more affluent customers.

25:28

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, I know. Yeah, I know exactly what you’re talking about. I think of Parsley Health, when you talk about this. And for the record, I love Parsley Health, I’m a Parsley Health member. I’m not even going to say patient, I’m a member, because it feels like a club, and you get great healthcare. But man, does it cost money! And they don’t accept insurance. You get great healthcare, but at the same time, you kind of… They put a lot of emphasis on design and creating very comfortable spaces, and a lot of, I think, empathetic healthcare is about solving a design problem too, design from the spaces to the actual patient flow, to how you interact with your doctor, all things which they’ve innovated on.

 

26:11

Jean-Louis:
Well there’s trust design. I mean, it goes back to it. The pastel’s really a code for trust. Code for, “We’re not the old way of doing it.”

26:20

Jasmine Bina:
That’s a really good point. Because it’s easy to look at that and be kind of skeptical and be like, “All right. Are these beautiful colors and rattan furniture in these third spaces that they’ve created, and the kombucha on tap, or whatever it is, is that really going to solve the world’s medical crisis?” But you’re right. It does solve a mental barrier that we have right now, around just how the experience starts when you walk in those places.

26:45

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I mean, it’s happening in all over the place. Again, going back to news, with these membership platforms, they get progressively more expensive. I mean, even if you look at a Sub stack in these kind of more boutique niche things, you can pay a lot of money to get incredibly high quality news and analysis of the world. And so you can see the world in a different lens if you have the capital. What’s happening here is social stratification. Is you’re getting society is broken up into different tiers, and eventually these things might trickle down, and you’ll get consumer access for the mass market.

27:17

But I think a great barometer of, is something divergent happening here? Is society getting stratified? Are different levels, different tiers of society able to have very different experiences, and their needs fulfilled in different ways?

27:30

And so without divulging too much, I think the conversation about capitalism versus socialism is really, where do we find it acceptable to have social stratification? Is it okay to stratify people’s healthcare? Or people’s education? Or people’s infrastructure? That’s, I think in my eyes at least, a big part of the conversation that people don’t realize they’re having is, where is it okay to have different levels of service for different people? Where is it a right to have everyone have a baseline? And I think that’s really what we’re talking about, because socialism really is just capitalism with a slightly larger welfare system.

28:07

Jasmine Bina:
Oh, be careful what you say here. It’s election season. I would not throw those words around lightly. But I mean, I get what you’re saying, taking the socialist piece out. How we choose where we’re willing to accept this kind of stratification, is a very, very direct signal of what a society values in different ways. Is that what you’re trying to say?

28:30

Jean-Louis:
Well, yeah. I mean, it goes back to this point about, it’s not really about capitalism, it’s the bad capitalistic values here, in terms of where we choose to draw the line. And you can see that, because other countries are also capitalistic in terms of that model, but the values are slightly different. And so they draw the lines in different places. And I think it’s so it’s so powerful when you delineate values from the actual economics, because they’re two very separate things. “What do we accept?” That’s really the question there.

28:58

Jasmine Bina:
Can you give us some examples of how it’s different in this country versus other countries? That will really, I think, illustrate what we mean by this.

29:05

Jean-Louis:
Well, I mean education is a great place to look. So there’s a big conversation right now about making university free, because university or college is no longer… I mean, really it’s a baseline now for the workforce. I mean, it’s been a long, long, long, long, long time since high school was the benchmark.

29:23

And so really, by making that free, you’re expressing your values and saying, “This is the benchmark for society, and this is what equal opportunity should start as a baseline.” And obviously if you’ve got more money, you go to private schools, whatever. And so, I think in Germany, university is free. Or at least at a certain level. And a lot of countries are looking at that and starting to say that, “Okay, higher education is free up to this level.” And that level is gradually rising in a lot of places. But I think it’s a very transparent way of seeing the values at play there.

29:55

Jasmine Bina:
So where do you predict the next set of diversion systems is going to emerge? We’ve mentioned the obvious ones, education, politics, healthcare. Where’s the next set going to come from?

 

30:09

Jean-Louis:
Well, I definitely think we’re going to see a subset of play in terms of mental health. I think that’s a whole space that there really isn’t even much of an industry around it right now, but it’s such a big thing. And especially with COVID, I think we’re going to see a lot of social stratification around that. That if you have money, or with this case shape recovery that we’re talking about, you’re going to have a very different experience. But if you have money, you can really take care of your mental health in different ways.

30:32

Jasmine Bina:
But isn’t that already true though? Are you saying there’s going to be even more ways to circumvent?

 

30:37

Jean-Louis:
Oh, far more ways to circumvent. But I think especially when it comes to childhood. And children’s experiences of COVID, in terms of like, it’s a huge, huge impact to have a lack of social interactions for such a long period of time. And that the ramifications of that, you’re going to have two very different classes of people from out of that.

30:54

Jasmine Bina:
Oh you’re already seeing it? Kids that have a pod, and kids that are doing remote learning. Or risking their health going to school, or whatever. I’m not dogging anybody’s personal decisions, whether they send their kids to school or not, but the fact is that some kids have a choice and other kids don’t.

 

31:10

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I think, I mean, in my eyes, what’s the most interesting is, we’re seeing very, very, very quiet signals right now, of an infrastructure change. As I was saying before about decentralized autonomous organizations, and these kinds of things. We’re starting to see a new layer of infrastructure that creates new types of incentives. New ways of organizing people around these incentives, and potentially the chance to fix the vehicle while it’s moving. Ways of updating these incentives and these models in play. Those things are incredibly exciting, and there’s now such a demand for it. Because these systems aren’t really working for us. Again, it goes back to that question of, are these systems going to be stifled by hyper-aggressive models like the VC model right now? We don’t know, but I think what’s really exciting to me is these infrastructure changes.

32:04

Jean-Louis:
If you’re a brand in the next three to five years, this conversation is very quiet now, but you’re going to see it get louder and louder and louder, just like the internet. Suddenly it was all there, if she wasn’t paying attention. And so I think that you have to start thinking about this at a systems level. You have to think about your business as, “Where am I creating value, and where are my incentives?” Because if you aren’t all careful, you’re going to wake up one day, and there’s going to be a new model that is completely outpacing the way you can operate.

32:31

And again, these things are getting more direct. With creators, now with these direct relationships with Patreon and Sub stack, and you no longer have to go through mediators. If you look at the media industry, right now it’s mostly rent seekers. If you look at Spotify and YouTube and all these kind of aggregation platforms, all they’re doing is kind of surfacing it. They’re rent seekers in the sense that they’re not really creating true value themselves, they’re extracting value from everyone else. And so all of these models are emerging, where it’s a direct relationship, it’s direct engagement. That’s creating a new norm for people. That’s creating a new behavior and a new expectation of saying, “I don’t need to go through these central circles.”

33:09

Jasmine Bina:
Well, also it creates that sense of trust and control that we know people are seeking too.

 

33:13

Jean-Louis:
Exactly. I mean, it all points to the same thing. There is a new set of behaviors and values coming out of this, as a response to the divergent systems. And if you can speak to those, if you can fulfill those, and you can behave in those kinds of ways and create direct relationships and access without mediation, I think there’s huge opportunities to get. I mean, really quite profound ones, because we’re talking about systems here. It’s not even industries, or categories, or anything like that. This is the fundamental gears of how we service our needs as consumers.

 

33:48

Jasmine Bina:
So if you’re a founder or a brand owner, other than the obvious question of like, “Are my goals aligned with my incentives?’ What can you ask yourself, to really understand where the divergence is within the systems that you operate?


34:03

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I think, I mean, the first thing you have to do is understand where your consumers are, in the context of what you’re offering them, and in the context really of the needs that they’re getting fulfilled. Because again, if you look at wellness, the needs of taking care of my health, that was what was at play in terms of pushing people out of the health care industry, and into the wellness industry.

 

34:23

Jasmine Bina:
And I think… This brings me to another point. A lot of times people don’t even know how their consumers define the products. What does health mean? Well, health stopped, for a huge faction of people, it stopped meaning, not being sick, and started meaning living to your most extreme physical potential. I mean, just the fact that their definitions change, meant that the system was starting to diverge, because now the goals and incentives are not the same for you as they are for your users, right?

 

34:57

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, yeah. For sure. I think we’re seeing a lot of those changes there, but the way you have to look at it is just at the very, very basic needs viewpoint. Because that really is universal to these things. And so it sets the context of engagement. And so understanding, where are people moving? Because there’s a lot of foot traffic right now. People are really… They’re moving away from industries and moving to new ones. We have this appetite for disruption, because we were looking for authentic, trusted relationships. We’re looking for these new standards of engagement now. And so you have to look at the needs to understand where the foot traffic is going. Where are people moving? How is this consumer base changing? Because again, I mean, right now it’s mostly early adopters. And it’s mostly this top tier of consumers, premium luxury consumers, that are very affluent. And so it doesn’t seem like… Maybe it’s not a huge market right now, but you’d be missing the signal.

35:51

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, it’s kind of funny. I don’t want to simplify anything that we’ve described here, because I think it’s pretty profound, what you’ve kind of summed up for us. But you could kind of boil it down to something that you and I have always talked about with our clients, which is, you might have a vision, and you might want to know what you want to create in the world, whether you’re a startup or the CEO of a public company, we work with both. But it kind of doesn’t matter. What matters is, what your consumer wants, where they believe they’re headed, and what they’re willing to let you do, in order to make that happen with them. To the point that when we do all that research, when we really start to understand those triggers, when we really start to create a very rich picture of the value systems that these people have for themselves and how they operate in the world, and the roles that they play, it’s kind of irrelevant what the founder actually wants.

 

36:47

The best founders, which fortunately we always get to work with, are the ones whose desires have actually deep down, tapped into an emerging wave of change in the culture, but they didn’t realize it. They didn’t mean to necessarily articulate it, but they tapped into the much deeper needs of their audience. So again, not to simplify what we’ve described here, but a really easy guardrail is to just make sure like, “Am I really, really paying attention to what people want?” Because a lot of times, what brings people to your brand, is not what keeps them there. They might come because they need to buy something, but they stay because you’re providing them with something different than just the product. I think the smartest brands understand that. And I think that’s kind of what we’re talking about.

37:34

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, for sure. I mean, it’s all just systems of value. And a lot of the time you just get lucky, you just happen upon, without even knowing. A lot of the time, people don’t even realize the actual value they’re providing for people. But ultimately, you can kind of strip away everything else, and the success of business can be predicted by its ability to fulfill value for people.

 

37:57

Jasmine Bina:
Right. Well, I think that was a great discussion on diversion system. So after this, we’ll probably do another house episode at some point, just to wrap this all up. But we’ll be talking to other people in different verticals, about how diversion systems are creating new brand opportunities in their categories, so we can really get a rich understanding of what this divergence actually means.

38:18

And like anything else, I personally find that I learn a lot more when I understand it in somebody else’s industry, than when I understand it in my own. Because it forces you to really kind of let go of your biases, and see an idea mapped in onto a different space. And once you understand the actual truths, then you can start applying it to your own. So we’re hoping that as we talk to different people, we bring that same value to the people who are listening. So Jean-Louis, thank you so much. Another great house episode, and we’ll talk to all of you guys soon.

 
Categories
Startup

Welcome To The New Premiumization of Everything

When markets for premium toilet paper and convenience store wine start to prove themselves, a brand reckoning isn’t far behind.

When I arrived in Tokyo’s Nirita International Airport on a cold December morning, before I even searched for baggage claim, I had located my first asian 7-Eleven on the second floor of arrivals.

It was all there — puffy cloud pastries, fried chicken on a stick (soon to become my preferred breakfast for the next two weeks), racks of single sushi pieces in colorful wrapping — and it all lived up to the hype.

The fabled foodie culture that haloed 7-Elevens overseas just two years ago hadn’t quite come to the US at that point, but today something is changing.

More and more people are posting 7-Eleven food hauls, hunting down limited edition 7–Eleven foods, sanctifying new products with enthusiastic taste tests and talking about the midnight convenience store run more like a gastronome hobby than a stoner pastime.

Through their 7-SELECT private label, limited edition releases of emotionally driven food brands, the 7NOW delivery app and new lab stores that test concepts like turmeric slurpees, the company has started to drive a wedge between the words “convenience store” and “cheap junk food”.

Although many fan posts still use #junkfood, it is more of a term of endearment than derision.

There is an active hunt for that one 7-Eleven food you haven’t felt before. You may have seen Slurpees and Sour Patch Kids, but when you see a Slurpee push pop or a bag of only blue Sour Patch gummies, you feel delighted before you even know what you’re looking at.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Snack Betch (@snackbetch)

It’s a move straight out of the Trader Joe’s playbook: start a food movement around the thrill of discovery.

By constantly evolving their inventory and rearranging product mix in their stores, 7-Eleven is creating an experience where we can tell ourselves that we’re not only fun foodie people, but tastemakers on the bleeding edge of this new foodie movement — and it’s still dirt cheap.

This is the new premiumization. There is no premium price point but there is definitely a cost to participate. Whether it’s time, education, emotional investment or understanding the unwritten code, premium brands make us pay in ways that are perhaps more costly than money to begin with.

New premium brands don’t charge in dollars. They charge in expensive intangibles like time, emotion, education and understanding.

When you charge a premium that can’t be measured in dollars, you’re trading, not transacting. This isn’t an exchange of goods and services. This is a reciprocity of commitment. It’s very clearly a different kind of relationship.

Of course it doesn’t stop there. Last year, 7-Eleven launched their own premium private label bottled wines and canned wines, named Voyager Point and Roamer, respectively.

This is in addition to 7-Eleven’s value-priced Yosemite Road and Trojan Horse wines. As they build their wine selection horizontally across price segments, they’re signalling to the market that you don’t come to 7-Eleven to get cheap wine. You come to 7-Eleven to evolve your tastes.

That may seem like an exaggeration, but when taken in context with all of their other efforts to grow the brand story, including experimenting with private label meal kits, kombucha aisles, local craft drinks, patios, interior dining areas and rustic decor, you get the idea that you can invest time here.

There is something much more to be had than just food or convenience. You can feel all of the emotions that come with building a meaningful meal, and learn about the secret world of a well-stocked 7-Eleven.

If there’s a lesson here, it’s this: Anyone — literally anyone — can be a premium brand. We are living in a time when consumers will let brands change as they outgrow their heritage. They will allow for you to redefine yourself in a way that previous generations may have had difficulty with (i.e. New Coke).

The revolution is taking over every inch of real estate from the forgotten corners under your bathroom sink to the lines on your monthly portfolio statements.

But new premiumization isn’t just a clever story and good packaging. There’s more to it than meets the eye.

And when the dust settles, there will be winners and losers.

The Balloon Crowding Out Value and Luxury

To fully understand this new premiumization, we need to discard any old connotations around the word.

Premiumization is not a form of diffusion branding, nor is it a higher margin (although a higher price point may be there, it’s not core to the brand’s positioning). The notion of what is premium has completely untethered from the product, its heritage, its quality or its features.

Consider the endless parade of premium brands that are either eroding value from their luxury counterparts above, or stealing marketshare from their value-priced neighbors below.

Pay attention to where the real cost is incurred for each of these examples. Any premium in price pales in comparison to the emotional, educational, time or personal commitment cost hiding beneath the brand.

WaterWipes

In case you were wondering if there was a new way to package water and sell it, there is. This brand has taken over the baby wipes category by storm by virtue of the fact that its only ingredients are water and a drop of fruit extract. I’m a new mother and even though I know the mechanics at play here, I still co-sign this.

This is not an easy category to make gains in. It’s a commodity product, the behemoth that is Amazon had introduced their own private label version of baby wipes, and by 2016 they had driven the price so low, even Huggies and Pampers were forced to follow with cheaper prices.

When WaterWipes entered the US market, they became a viral hit. Billing themselves as the “World’s Purest Baby Wipes” and crafting a premium brand by way of storytelling, reimagining of a product’s meaning and it’s role in the home, they gained significant marketshare.

Although their cost is not core to their premium positioning, the fact that they command a 300% premium in the market does reveal something important —even water can be made more valuable. That’s 300% that has absolutely nothing to do with inherent quality, heritage, craftsmanship or luxury.

Pet Food

Remember when Fancy Feast and that flamboyant white cat were the only game in town?

Times have changed. Today’s market for premium pet food runs the gamut from niche local brands inspired by clean eating, to celebrity fronted names like Rachel Ray’s Nutrish brand dog food.

Consider the fact that you can now buy pet food in the pet food aisle, the refrigerated foods, the frozen section, in health food stores, in sporting goods stores, in gourmet cooking stores, have it delivered fresh to your door, and of course, get it online.

Premium pet food isn’t about feeding an animal. It’s about the overall lifestyle of the pet owner. That’s why Nutrish’s parent company Ainsworth Pet Nutrition was able to sell to J.M. Smucker Co. for nearly $2 billion.

Uqora

This is an interesting premium brand that I have been watching for a while, and consistently I have seen them make smart, brand-led moves.

Uqora is an over-the-counter supplement brand that helps women deal with potentially dangerous urinary tract infections, often triggered by sex. The medical community has no real preventative solution other than antibiotics, and an invisible faction of women has silently suffered without a real solution — a story Uqora has carefully managed to surface in their content.

But if you do some searching, you will find that a supplement called D-Mannose has helped women who are searching for a DIY cure. You can buy D-Mannose, basically a sugar that prevents bacteria from attaching to the urinary tract, in bulk on Amazon.

Uquora has taken this commodity supplement and repackaged it with a hefty amount of vitamin C. D-Mannose is not rare or exotic. It’s cheap. It’s available for delivery. It’s there if you need it.

What made this a premium brand was the fact that they created a new narrative — a narrative that forced its users to invest emotionally, personally change their views and pay with the time it took them to learn this new perspective. This is the premium price.

To truly understand the genius in their approach, you have to first take a look at something like Viagra.

Both Viagra and Uqora are actually in the business of sex. And not just any kind of sex, but sex inside of a relationship. Viagra took the subject of erectile dysfunction, a very emotionally charged issue between a couple, and made ads like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIfls7Inh4

It’s been well documented that when ED hits, the woman probably doesn’t demand sex like an expectant minx. Instead, she’s likely to blame herself and feel a just as much shame as her male partner, making an already loaded issue even more complicated. Ads like this often misrepresent the emotional turmoil that ED can cause.

Uquora also exists between two people in the context of their sex lives, but their approach is very different (watch the video here):

They get right into that uncomfortable spot between two people. They involve both parties. They uncover triggers and fears in a way that others have failed to do, and they do it in a supportive context.

This is not a premium product, but it is a premium brand.

The list goes on and on…

  • Karmicare and Twice: Two different toothpaste brands, both deconstructing the toothbrushing experience into day and night rituals, both reinventing your relationship with your mouth.
  • The InstantPot retail phenomenon: Basically the same pressure cooker that we’ve always been afraid to use, but suddenly made friendly with better buttons and a new ethos around the magic of super-fast cooking.
  • Blenders like Vitamix: Simple countertop machines that have no business flaunting so much horsepower, but have become a $500 symbol of middle-class superiority.
  • Taco Bell Hotel: We all laughed. And then it sold out in two minutes.
  • Peach Goods Toilet Paper: It’s a subscription service that uses phrases like “Developed with diligence”, “Made in American plain country” and “We believe in moments for ourselves”. And they’re in good company with other names like Tushy , Who Gives A Crap, No. 2 and Cheeky Monkey.

When you pay for these brands, you pay with a piece of your identity. If you become emotionally invested, have to learn a new code or spend time to understand something you didn’t know before, then you are paying for the premium.

Alchemy at the Edges of Your Category

So why is all of this happening?

The bulk of my research as a brand strategist has led to this question. Why are today’s consumers fueling the emergence of premium brands across every single category?

Yes, we’ve moved into the experience economy. Yes, people want to participate in stories. But these aren’t the answers, these are the effects.

What’s happening is a shift in where we draw value as a culture. Where we once found meaning in the focused perfection of a single product or vertical, we now look for meaning in the blending between spaces.

The intimate act of eating has birthed a movement around functional foods (food + medicine), traditional education was the unwitting precursor to edutainment brands like Masterclass (education + entertainment), and even something as simple as the humble water bottle has evolved into a new ‘hydration’ category with brands like S’well and Corkcicle (water bottles + lifestyle).

When you combine to create something entirely new, you build meaning where there was none before — the pinnacle of brand-led companies. It’s this alchemy that has powered the premium market.

You see this blending everywhere:

  • Food is the new religion: “Good” foods, “bad” foods, “clean” foods, “pure” foods — we’ve come to apply religious principles to the foods we eat because, as researchers like Alan Levinovitz have pointed out, “Seeking out natural products is about health, yes, but holistic health. Physical and spiritual, personal and planetary. Nature becomes a secular stand-in for God, and the word ‘natural’ a synonym for ‘holy.’”
  • Gyms are the new temple: SoulCycle is a daily pilgrimage toward an out-of-body experience. CrossFit is where we push ourselves from manliness to godliness. Heated yoga inspires heart-racing highs. We emerge from all of these hallowed spaces as better, purer beings.
  • Pets are the new children: You don’t need to go any further than the phrase “fur baby” to see this. We millennials see our pets as ‘starter children’ and spend money on them like we would children, too. Heated cat houses, dog ice cream, puppy beer, cat wine, ornate halloween costumes, rechargeable fetch machines and leash umbrellas are just the eccentric goods that come with the territory.
  • Founders and VCs are the new celebrities: It was only weird for a little while when Ben Horowitz hung out with Kanye. Gary Vaynerchuck has a one-man documentary crew follow him around. Elon Musk’s autograph is probably worth more than any A-lister in Hollywood. You see the pattern.

As a culture, we are searching for new meaning, and new meaning comes from the unexpected combinations that cause us to experience and understand the world differently.

If 7-Eleven would have been bold enough to try today’s rebrand 30 years ago, it wouldn’t have worked. Back then, we were still deriving meaning from categories in silos (the best car, the best tech, the best product, the best anything).

But we, the consumer, have changed. We didn’t scoff at 7-Eleven’s moves because we understand they’re going somewhere. We know that if we invest in them with our patience and curiosity, they will delight us.

Who Will Be Standing When the Dust Settles

We’re living in the wild west of premiumization right now. The rules are still being written and every time a new cowboy comes riding into town, the everyone gets shaken up.

But there is one truth emerging, and it is the rule that will define the winners and losers when the landscape starts to mature.

The winners in the new premium space will be the ones that committed to something bigger.

Forget story, forget packaging, forget design, forget all the trappings of a flashy new D2C company. Instead, pay attention to who is consistently creating meaning outside of themselves.

You don’t need to be in CPG to do this. Wealthsimple, a clear cut investment platform (like all those that have come before it) proves that.

They are not talking about how to invest and make money. They are having a much larger conversation about what money means.

This isn’t a simple topic. Everyone from the Dalai Lama to Dr. Laura has tried to tackle it… but perhaps never before has an investment firm tried like this.

Wealthsimple’s blog untangles the messy money stories we all share with people like Sasha Lane, Jonathan Van Ness and Kim Kardashian.

In their Money Diaries section of the Wealthsimple Magazine, the company reveals the very messy, very human side of how famous people deal with money. You quickly come to understand that money is about self-worth wrapped up in all kinds of emotions like fear, denial and joy. The content is engineered to remove judgement and change your relationship with your own bank statement.

“We never had money. You learn, as a kid whose family is broke, not to ask for things. You even learn not to want things. Just be happy with the basics you need to survive: food, clothes, and a place to live, which my mom always found a way to provide.

But every year, as Christmas approached, it meant the same heartbreaking ritual. My mom would sit my brother Sergio and I down and say to us, “I’m so sorry, but there won’t be any Christmas presents this year. I just can’t really make it happen.” She’d have tears in her eyes.

It wasn’t the lack of presents that broke my heart; it was seeing my mom feeling like she’d failed us, even though we’d tell her again and again that she hadn’t.”

– Excerpt from interview with actress Sasha Lane

In the Dear Ms. Etiquette section, readers get answers to hairy questions like “Do I need to have to lend my siblings money?” and “I just got engaged! Yay! So can I ask him for a prenup or does that mean I’m actually dead inside?”

This isn’t really about etiquette so much as it is about permission. Their readers already know what is right. What they’re really seeking is for someone to tell them it is.

All of this content is about creating something that didn’t exist before it. Wealthsimple is taking a machete into the overgrown wilderness that is money and clearing a path for people to inch forward in.

It’s a commitment, and if you felt a range of cathartic emotions as you clickholed your way deeper into this excellent storytelling, then you repaid that commitment with a premium.

Even our dear friends at 7-Eleven are committed to something bigger.

“We’ve been on this journey to redefine convenience,” said EVP Gurmeet Singh in a recent statement. “This makes it easy for people to stay in the moment.”

Nice, but not entirely accurate. What they’ve really committed to is honoring the food some of us love, but others among us hurtfully call “junk”.

Whether that’s reinventing it to be healthier, repackaging it to delight us as it did when we were children, or pairing it with something a bit more adult, it’s all the same thing: a way to create new meaning where there was none before.

Categories
Podcast

15: The Profound Human Connection of Micro-Communities, Participatory Economies and Good Old Customer Servic‪e‬

From the gig economy to the passion economy, and now the emerging participatory economy - changing consumer values are inspiring new business models for creators. In this episode we speak with early stage VC and Level Ventures partner Sari Azout about how these nascent economies are centering the new frontier of disruption on customer happiness, and what that means for how value and profitability are connected. We also speak with Ty Givens, customer experience strategist and founder of the WorkforcePro about engineering the human connection that turns customers and users into fans.

Podcast Transcript

August 13, 2020

110 min read

The Profound Human Connection of Micro-Communities, Participatory Economies and Good Old Customer Servic‪e‬

00:00

Jasmine Bina:
This is Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. You already know that on this podcast, we’re obsessed with how the customer is changing. And every time the customer evolves, a new set of business models is born. The gig economies of Uber, TaskRabbit, and Instacart were born of lots of different economic and technology forces in America. But one of those forces was a changing consumer who was more willing to engage with strangers, especially as the sharing economy and peer reviews became more commonplace.

00:41

Then came the passion economy, with early ad-based models like YouTube, then sponsorship based models maturing on Instagram. And now platforms like Patreon and Subsec. But the common thread among all of these being a customer who is looking for a more direct relationship with the creator. And today, we’re seeing the emergence of something else, some that VC and Level Ventures partner Sari Azout calls the participatory economy, where fans actually participate in a creator’s success, with newcomers like Rally, Role, and Foundation. And this model, along with the others all boil down to one thing, customer happiness.

01:20

Customer happiness sounds trite, but it’s likely not what you think it is. It’s definitely not as simple as you think it is. And considering that the user, your user is changing, customer happiness is something that you can’t afford to overlook.

01:39

Sari Azout:
A business that is really, truly oriented around customer happiness is one where the business profits from things that are in the customer’s best interests. So, if you think about the KPIs and the guiding principles that define success, those have to be fundamentally aligned with the customer’s happiness. So, if you think of Facebook, for example, for Facebook it’s really important that the users spend a lot of time on their site. The more time I spend on Facebook, the more ads I’ll consume, the more money they’ll make. And so, for the user, spending a lot of time on Facebook, that’s not really making my life happier or more fulfilling. And so, I think of this as an example of misalignment.

 

02:19

Now, Facebook could start a customer happiness department tomorrow. They could improve their customer service department. They could add a ton of user research teams. But at the end of the day, if customer happiness is seen as a program or initiative, it’ll fail. I think that the companies that are truly oriented around customer happiness, there’s something in their kind of genetic code and the DNA of the business that’s driving the organization.

02:46

A long time, I think that I saw customer happiness as something that was defined by values. But I think if you only look at it through the perspective of values, you may have good values, but those don’t necessarily translate into your business model. For example, if you are a business that is selling anti-anxiety medication, but you profit. And even if your guiding principle as a founder is, I don’t want to sell medicine if you don’t need it. Ultimately, if your business model is designed to profit from selling medicine, there’s a fundamental misalignment there. So, I really think that this technical definition is one that acknowledges that businesses ultimately succeed when the self-interest of the business is aligned with the self interest of the customer.

03.33

Jasmine Bina:
What are some examples that really show how powerful this kind of alignment between the self-interest of the company and the self-interest of the user actually looks like and how it can create a business that’s very scalable, profitable, that can actually grow alongside other competitors that maybe have a different kind of business model?

You’ve also talked about something else, which is that the rise of the creative class of the knowledge economy kind of coincided with all of this and was another driver in this decoupling. Can you talk about that a little bit?

03:54

Sari Azout:
I think one caveat really is that the world is messy, right? So, it’s hard to kind of say, any business that is ad-based is fundamentally misaligned because the world is not black or white. Things tend to be pretty gray. But if we look at, for instance, education. If you look at the world of education, the business model around education has historically been you pay for information. The school is not really designed to profit when you get a job. But as the customer, if you’re going to enroll in a coding bootcamp, for instance, you’re not really paying for information, you’re paying for an outcome. You are paying to get a programming job.

04:35

Sari Azout:
So, that’s where that’s examples like Lambda School, for instance, come in. What they’ve done is, they only charge students once they get a job. And so, by charging them a percentage of what they earn, the idea is that the school’s interest is aligned more directly with students. And the school has kind of a real incentive and financial pressure to help students get a job. So, I think that’s an interesting example around education. We’re seeing a lot of movement there.

05:03

That’s not to say that if you launch a school with this model, you’ll succeed because education ultimately is about the quality of the curriculum and the teachers and the experience and the community. But I do think that businesses where there’s misalignment, they just present a lot of opportunity for innovation. Actually, a pretty interesting example is a company called [Aneva 00:05:30]. It’s in beta right now, but it’s Google competitor search engine that was started by an executive at Google who ran their ads business for 20 years.

05:40

So, the idea is that with Google, you as the user are not the customer, you are the product. They profit from you data. And so, their business model really necessitates them doing some things that are not in your best interest. If you are searching for something at Google, what you’re going to see is really the renting space to the highest bidder. And they’re not necessarily incentivized to show you the best results for you. And the idea with a subscription product is that the incentives are more aligned.

06:16

Of my favorite examples actually, is in the gig economy. So, if you think about the gig economy and platforms like Instacart and Uber, the challenge with a lot of these businesses is that it’s hard to keep all stakeholders happy, the drivers happy, the shoppers happy. Everyone almost feels like they’re getting ripped off. And so, I think that with Instacart, for example, there is a new company called Dumpling, and they’ve kind of turned the business model on its head because they’re giving personal shoppers a personal website. They’re empowering them, instead of a model where they’re somewhat commoditized or dehumanized. In the case of Dumpling, the shoppers are paying to build their own kind of grocery shopping business, almost like the Shopify model.

07:04

So, to me, what’s really exciting about these businesses is that they’re combining the scale of these marketplaces, but with the idea of empowerment and accruing kind of equity and value for everybody, not just for these kind of centralized organizations that a lot of participants have come to resent.

07:25

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. When you were talking about subscriptions models just a second ago, it makes me think of the passion economy, or what you’ve described as the participatory economy, which is maybe an extension or something separate from that. I’ll let you describe it. But you had another really great example in some of your writing about the difference between Medium and Substack. And I think you had described how with medium, it’s really about really good content. With Substack, it’s really about really good creators. And there’s a difference between those two experiences. Can you describe that a little bit more? Like, how one maybe is a certain kind of brand in a certain kind of economy, whereas the other is maybe working on an older model?

08:09

Sari Azout:
Yeah. It’s super interesting. I think Substack is another example of this idea of incentive alignment. If you think about essentially the model for MailChimp, because we can think about incentive alignment for something like a MailChimp for Substack, and also Medium or a traditional media company and Substack. But starting, for example, with something like a MailChimp, with MailChip, you are paying to send a newsletter. With Substack, you are getting paid to send a newsletter, right?

08:37

Just this idea that Substack grows alongside your audience is a really interesting flip on kind of just publishing in general. I also think that Substack is an example of the passion economy in the sense that it’s really building on the identities of creators and the personal brands of creators. And so, with Substack, you’re not subscribing to topics. You are not subscribing to a publication, you’re subscribing to people. And I think that what’s interesting is that, in many ways, Substack is a response to media that has incentivized clicks and views, as opposed to kind of depth of interaction.

09:24

Substack, by charging subscriptions is able to go kind of narrow and deep, instead of having to appeal to a wide audience and monetize on ads. I think the challenge is, I think if you ask, does this idea of incentives apply to every industry? I think the challenge is, I don’t think media has found its model yet. I don’t think you can call subscription media a panacea yet. I think there’s a lot to be said about information wants to be free. And so, what happens if we live in a world where the lies are free and you have to pay for the truth?

10:02

And so, I think there’s a lot of, I think, discourse and conversation around that. And it’ll be interesting to see how Substack evolves. I think in the passion economy, a lot of what we’re seeing it fans are not necessarily paying for content, they’re paying for alignment and an affinity with a creator. So, there’s a universe where Substack can enable creators to build these close relationships without necessarily paywalling the content. So, I think there’s a lot of room and space to explore and kind of what it means, what the new business models for information might be. And it’s certainly an exciting time with a lot of kind of emerging business models that different people are exploring.

10:47

Jasmine Bina:
I really am so happy that you brought this up because it kind of brings up this gray area that I wanted to discuss with you. You said something similar to what you just did nos in one of your newsletters. You said, “Do we want to live in a world where people pay for content?” And I just want to put that question to you. I know you kind of touched on it a little bit. But in your personal opinion, and you just described, when the lies are free and the truth or whatever, the subjective truth is paywalled, naturally, you’re going to create echo chambers and a sense of tribalism. But is there another side to this? Like, if you had to answer this question, how would you answer it?

11:25

Sari Azout:
It’s such a fascinating question because I think that if you look at other professions, if you look at anything outside of journalism, sports stars, celebrities, the best ones get paid so much money. And so, with journalism, it’s not the case, right? Journalists are some of the lowest paid across all of these professions. And the reality is is that it costs a lot of time and money to create good information. And so, we could get into a conversation about, to what extent is it a public good? I think what’s interesting to me is that, if you look at what a lot of the successful publications at Substack have done is, they have said the free tier gets one post a week. The paid tier gets two posts a week. I don’t think that’s the right model.

 

12:18

1 think that you are making a lot of effort in creating something that costs you $0 to distribute. What I think that people are paying for, if it’s true that people are paying for the affinity, the closeness, the idea that I am supporting such and such writer, then I think that there is a universe where information can be free and users, customers will still pay for that affinity. I think that there’s still a lot of room to explore what that means. And I don’t think that we have the tools necessarily for that.

12:53

But I do think that it’s certainly not the best outcome for society for everything to be come subscription based in response to advertising. And I also think that we kind of went from advertising is evil, subscription is pure. And we’re not realizing that there’s a real gray area here, in the sense that, perhaps when your advertising is completely programmatic and algorithmic, there’s some tension there. But what about seeing advertisers as perhaps sponsors or facilitators of democratized information? I think that brands have so much marketing spend potential that could be put to use in humane and effective and ethical ways. And I think that we’re just kind of seeing the outcomes in such binary ways that we’re not really exploring the in between where I think there’s still a lot of room to build and explore.

13:52

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. If we can, I want to look outside of just content because so much of the passion economy and the participatory economy, as you describe it, move outside of content where they do align incentives and they’re focused on customer happiness. What other brands are you seeing in the landscape that are aligning their incentives and goals along with their users in a unique way that’s kind of putting pressure on the old way of doing things?

14:19

Sari Azout:
Yeah, super interesting. So, I think the way that I see this evolution is historically customers were passive, they didn’t really have a voice. And it’s only recently that customers have really had a voice and a say. And if you think about the last 50 or so years in the first wave, it’s not really customers who started projecting their voices, but brands, right? Brands started developing personalities. Now instead of selling to Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s, I have my own brand, I have my own voice. And so, I am broadcasting that voice in a unidirectional way on Instagram, for instance. Or I’m hiring an influencer with millions of followers to promote my brand. And so, I think of that as kind of unidirectional, right? The brand is still in many ways, the relationship in many ways is still top down.

15:12

I think what’s interesting about the participatory economy is that the consumer is also the creator. It’s this kind of bidirectional relationship. A good example of that is probably Arfa. Arfa is a company that was founded by the COO of Glossier, who I believe was also the co-founder at Glossier. And I think what’s interesting is, a lot of companies say they work closely with their customers and they’re customer-centric. But Arfa is kind of going a step further, they are devoting a percentage of their profits to a subset of their customers who are cocreating their products with them.

 

15:48

So, I think that what’s interesting about the participatory economy is, it’s not just paying lip service to this idea of, we build with our customers. But it’s actually creating models that align with your most valuable contributors, because if you think about, what is Facebook without its users creating content? What is Reddit without its community moderators? What is Uber without its drivers? What is Instacart without its shoppers? And I think that in the participatory economy, you are able to kind of frame these questions and create economic alignment from day one. And to me, there’s nothing more exciting than thinking about how you can grow and build these platforms in ways that don’t cause your contributors or your most valuable stakeholders to resent you, which is what I think has happened across marketplaces and mostly gig economy marketplaces, which have really grown at the expense of their most valuable stakeholders.

16:48

Jasmine Bina:
Can you describe Arfa a little bit? What is that brand?

 

16:51

Sari Azout:
Yeah. So, Arfa sells beauty products. I think their first brand, it’s a holding company. Their first brand is a brand called Hiki and they sell direct to consumer deodorants. And so, what’s interesting is that I think that borrowing from the success of Glossier, which is seen as a brand that has really innovated as far as how to think of their customers and engage with their customers. But I think what Arfa does is they take that relationship a step further and they truly engage their customers in helping create their products and give them a financial incentive to do so. It’s actually the first consumer brand that I’ve seen doing that.

 

17:31

Jasmine Bina:
So, this reminds me of something else that I’ve seen you talk about. And it’s that in these new economies, collaborators are greater than competitors, abundance is greater that scarcity, interdependence is greater than independence. And it’s really a profound new way of looking at business. But it also feels so antithetical to everything that we know about business, everything that you’re taught, everything that you see in the marketplace. Do you feel like this is going to have an out sized impact on business culture as a whole? Because now we’re talking about culture a little bit here, we’re changing our value system in the business landscape. Do you see this as having a halo effect?

 

18:16

Sari Azout:
Absolutely. I think that at the end of the day, what’s interesting about the participatory models that we were talking about is that it’s not just about saying we believe in a fair world, we believe that everyone should have a stake in the things that they contribute to. I think what’s interesting is that we increasingly have the tools to be able to align platforms with their contributors. Now, I don’t think this is some sort of socialist, let’s just kind of redistribute wealth. I think what’s interesting about this is that it’s actually in everyone’s best interest, because if you think about, if you were to start a community today. And that community relied on contributors to create content to spark discussion, if you give away a percentage of your fee stream or of the equity of that business to contributors, what’s going to happen there is that network effects are going to just kick in because more people are incentivized to help that community grow, as opposed to a lot of businesses that are just being drained by this misalignment. And Amazon warehouse workers, again Instacart shoppers.

19:28

So, I think that the promise and the kind of optimist in me thinks that we’re going there, because when we built the first wave of companies, I don’t think anybody anticipated how quickly they would grow, how big they would become, how much they would concentrate wealth. And I think that this new wave is about reclaiming the beauty of the internet. The beauty of the internet is that we can redistribute and democratize access. And the reality is that, I think in unintended ways, what we saw in Web 1.0 and 2.0 is the kind of unintended consequences of centralized platforms and platforms that don’t really facilitate the distribution of outcomes.

20:13

And so, I’m really just excited about what it means to create participatory models, not only from a governance perspective, you know? If you think about how many businesses have gone under because Facebook changed an algorithm or Twitter changed an algorithm. And so many companies are kind of one algorithm change away from failure. And so, what happens if you have more democratic platforms where governance is more distributed, I think that we run less of a risk. And I think that culturally, we are so much more aware right now of the challenges of centralizing and wielding power to kind of these massive social platforms.

 

20:53

Jasmine Bina:
I think you really hit it right there. I think a lot of people don’t understand or appreciate at least when they’re first starting a business or founding a startup that when they sign up for these models, they’re giving away so much more than just having to follow somebody else’s rule. They’re really giving up their potential livelihoods if something in the algorithm changes. That’s a really good point. Did this kind of relationship not exist before now because we just didn’t have the technologies to execute it? Or because as a culture, we just didn’t even think … Like, we weren’t ready to accept this kind of relationship?

21:35

Sari Azout:
Yeah, I think a big part of it is that the companies that we build online grow so much faster. I mean, if you think about how long it took Uber to become a multi billion dollar company, these companies are becoming big at unprecedented rates. If you think about the S&P 500 companies of 30 years ago, it took them 10, 15, 20 years to build meaningful businesses. But today, the network effects are so strong and so profound that it’s scary how quickly companies can become billion and now trillion dollar companies. And so, I think that there’s just this massive disconnect between the unprecedented rate at which wealth is being created, but also the inequality. And so, I think that that’s a new thing.

22:23

In many ways in the past, we looked at wealth creation as something that was meritocratic because it took 10, 15, 20 years of you working so hard to build businesses that were a lot more traditional. You were operating in the physical world, you had manufacturing plants. But nowadays, if you build a network that takes off, the growth is just exponential. And so, I think that in a world where things can grow so quickly, that means we’re wielding power to people. And how does that impact a society when you have a company that has more power than a country? And so, I think that’s where that cultural shift towards decentralization and really allowing more people to participate in the creation of these platforms is occurring. So, I really think it’s a result of how fast these platforms grow relative to the businesses of the pre-internet age.

23:16

Jasmine Bina:
I’m going to shift gears here a little bit. The word fans keeps coming up. And I think we shouldn’t overlook that. I feel like we’ve gone from customers to users and now fans. And fans is reflective of this new relationship that these economies are affording us, where you’re not just buying a product or relating to the brand, you’re buying a relationship with the founder of that brand or the person behind it. And I think it’s really easy to see this in personality cults behind beauty brands that were started by YouTube founders, let’s say. But you also see it with obvious ones like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs or even Scott Galloway. A lot of people love the personal brand that packages what he’s selling. And I mean this in the best possible way. And he himself has described how a lot of times this likeability factor really insulates a company from criticism later on or from hiccups in development and things like that.

24:10

I want to ask you, I’m certain when you’re talking to new founders who are pitching you and they’re talking to you about revenue, TAM, you must be looking for something else instead, right? I mean, what are you watching for? If you’re in the room with a founder who has a platform in this new economy, what kind of a leader does it take to create these new kinds of relationships?

24:31

Sari Azout:
Yeah, I love this question. I think part of what I observe and links with the passion economy a bit is that we are transitioning from trusting institutions to trusting people. And so, in the same way that brands became people on the internet and the internet kind of led them to kind of humanize their voices, I think in that same way, people are now becoming brands. And so, historically, I think companies built products first and then audiences later, right? The audience would come as a result of the product.

 

25:03

What I think we’re seeing now is, people are building audiences. And those audiences are authentic. People are attracted to these creators and these leaders because they’re prolific, they stand for something, they have values. And so, that kind of affinity is what allows them to introduce a product later on. So, I love this idea of going from building a product and then an audience to building an audience and then a product. And I think that, when we look at digitally native vertical brands, for instance, I think that was an area that for a while we were tracking and heavily investing in.

 

25:36

And we noticed that there were almost like two kinds of founders. There was the founder that saw Warby Parker and said, “Oh, we went down every single industry to see what Warby Parker for X could look like. And we found that there’s nothing in refrigerators. So, let’s build a Warby Parker for fridges.” And that’s very different from somebody that has been talking about home improvement or some other category, beauty, and then launches a beauty product that is so authentic to them, that there’s a built in audience and that product makes sense.

26:10

So, I think increasingly, we’re going to see more companies that are born from just the affinity that they have with creators. And I think that that’s also a reflection of just the attention economy we’re in. It’s so hard to get a customer’s attention, CAC as they say is the new rent. Facebook is no longer a cheap acquisition engine. And so, what’s left is really kind of values and an audience that really kind of believes and buys into those values. And what I love the most about this, you mentioned Scott Galloway. I think it was Chris Dickson that once said, “The next big thing will start looking like a toy.”

26:51

And I think that a lot of that’s happening with maybe people broadcasting their ideas on newsletters and that might become the next online school. If you think about what David Perell is doing with Write of Passage, a writing school. He just started writing on the internet, has a weekly newsletter. But if you look at his vision for Write of Passage, it’s so ambitious that it’s hard to kind of comprehend that something that started off as a newsletter and just a creator being authentic and creating his own brand can really branch out and create products.

 

27:26

So, I think that the internet or people that are prolific about their views and their values have such an advantage into these worlds when it comes to building products. And when I’m looking at founders, I definitely love founders that have been building an audience and stand for something, because really, the last kind of battle for differentiation is really values.

 

27:50

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, that echoes something else I saw. It was like a Walkers study, I think, that said the next frontier of disruption is going to be in customer experience and not product or price points. And they said that this was the year that that was going to happen. And COVID probably accelerated all that. But I want to dig in a little bit more. If you’re looking at a founder and they’re pitching you, what are some of the soft skills or the cues under the surface that will tell you that somebody can actually build this kind of personal brand that would help grow an entire business? Because this is a whole new skillset. You don’t learn this in business school. So, what does it really take? Because after all, whoever that person is, they’re going to create the internal company culture as well, right? It comes from the top down. So, how do you even quantify that? What do you look for?

28:35

Sari Azout:
Yeah. It’s such a good question. I think one of the things that I learned, and I think for me thinking about businesses from a kind of customer first way comes very natural. But what I’ve learned in the last couple of years is, that’s not necessarily the case for a lot of founders. So, I’ve spoken to a lot of founders that come to pitch us and say, “We are building AI for law.” Or, “We are building a social network built on top of crypto.” And then you ask them, “Okay, but what problem is this solving?” There’s no clarity around that. So, I think that what I’ve seen is that a lot of founders are in love with an idea or a product or a technology, and not really in love with a customer problem.

 

29:19

And so, the first thing that I look for is, is there a unique insight and an emotional connection to this problem that makes you the best founder to build this? And it can’t be, “Oh, we’ve seen eCommerce is growing. And Warby Parker succeeded. And so, there’s no Warby Parker for X,” because that’s not authentic. And building companies is way too hard for any founder to really withstand the pains if they’re only doing it as mercenaries. So, what I look for is missionaries. And I think that, back to this idea of incentive alignment, I think if you’re obsessed with a problem, I think that the strategy is determined by what you believe.

30:07

So, people always say culture eats strategy for breakfast. I think culture determines strategy. So, if you are a founder that believes that the social networks of the day optimize for vanity metrics and likes and followers and you have a point of view around why that shouldn’t exist, then the product and everything else is almost dictated by those beliefs. So, I really think that finding founders that are authentically mission oriented and that have a unique insight, because it’s not enough to say, “I believe this. Why is this unique?” But at the end of the day, yeah. I think at the end of the day it’s about missionaries over mercenaries. And it’s about making sure that the founder is driven by an obsession with a problem instead of an obsession with an idea or a technology or a solution.

 

31:05

Jasmine Bina:
Is this truly scalable internally and externally?

 

31:30

Sari Azout:
I think that as you scale, it’s a lot harder to do this. And that’s why it’s so easy for five person teams using a small wedge to build massive businesses. I think there a lot of examples of public companies that are able to do this. I mean, if you think of Amazon and their day one mentality, I think that’s an example of a company that is still rooted in customer obsession. But ultimately, as businesses grow larger, the individual, the people are almost like abstracted. And the empathy gap between the business and the customer grows larger.

31:48

Whereas, I think for small businesses, they really have no choice but to prioritize customers. And the lack of scale, I think is kind of a forcing function to listen and to iterate. So, I think that surely you can do this at scale, but it’s a lot harder. And I think that that’s how you see a company like Zoom in a couple of years eat Google Hangouts for breakfast, you know? So, it’s the reason why I think small teams and a lot of the innovation in industries like education and healthcare is going to come from the outside in.

32:25

Jasmine Bina:
But something else that keeps coming up too is the idea of community. So, you mentioned brands that start with a community first or looking at the customer first and then building a product instead of the other way around. And there’s so many niche communities popping up. You described a niche community that could turn into a huge vision for an education platform. The obvious one that I’m sure many people listening right now are thinking of is Glossier, which started as a really, really tight knit and active community and turned into a successful beauty brand. Where are you seeing some interesting developments and micro communities online, both in the actual communities themselves, as well as the platforms that are enabling these communities to happen?

33:09

Sari Azout:
Yeah. I love this question. I think we’re really seeing a renaissance in communities that I think is a result of people craving authenticity and just more depth. I think Facebook may say that their mission is to connect people. But at the end of the day, back to their business model, their business model is to connect businesses with people, not necessarily people with people. And so, I think that we’re seeing … I almost bucket it into products where the community is the product. And some examples there might be, for example, a network like Chief that connects women in executive positions, or a platform like Hey Mama for working mothers. A Slack group for brand builders that I’m part of called The Jacuzzi Club.

 

33:57

And there’s just across any set of interests, there’s products that are just built for the purpose of connecting people. What we’re also seeing is brand communities or product let communities. And I think that brands are realizing that the last kind of battleground for consumers is going to happen in terms of values and a deeper alignment. And a lot of brands, I think community has become a buzzword. And so, a lot of these brands are kind of vying to carve our spaces. And what’s interesting is that a lot of these communities are forming outside of big socials.

 

34:35

So, there’s Slack, there is increasingly a lot of telegram chats. There’s Discord. There’s a lot of platforms like Circle and Mighty Networks. Personally, I think that communities have such bespoke needs that I think the most interesting ones are not the ones that are going to live in platforms like these, but are ones that are going to develop very kind of idiosyncratic tools and features to meet their needs. So, I’m personally kind of bearish on this idea that there’s going to be a Slack for communities that’s going to serve the needs of all of these platforms. I think that this isn’t just about connecting people as a network, but giving them the right tooling to achieve specific outcomes, right?

 

35:26

If you think about communities around investing, they need specific tools. I don’t think that group chat or channels is necessarily the right tool or the right mechanism to connect. So, I’m increasingly excited about the more kind of custom communities that are building bespoke tooling around that, because Reddit, ultimately, it homogenizes communities across interests. And so, this idea of unbundling Reddit and unbundling Facebook I think is really interesting.

 

35:58

Brands always go where attention is. And attention, if you think about where you’re going, I’m no longer starting my days looking at my Facebook feed, I’m not scanning through my Slack chats and Telegram chats. And so, I think brands want a piece of that. I think it remains to be seen whether they can authentically do that. And I’m not super bullish on really large brands being able to do this in effective ways.

36:25

Jasmine Bina:
That’s what I was going to ask you. Can a community, the strongest of communities for a brand ever make up for a company that maybe doesn’t put customer happiness or the alignment of their self-interest with the self-interest of their customers at the center of the business?

 

36:44

Sari Azout:
Yeah, I just think that consumers are too smart and consumers can see through everything these days. And so, especially brand communities, if the brand is launching a community and the metrics to measure that community are user growth and revenue, I just think that those incentives are going to lead to outcomes that the consumer can see through. So, I’m less interested in those communities. I think somebody that invests and looks for venture scale outcomes, I think that this is an area where the reality is that the larger the group, the worse the conversation. And I think that as humans, we really haven’t solved this problem.

37:24

The best Telegram chats that I’m part of are 15, 20 people. I think when the groups start to become 200, 500, 1,000, I think that the quality of the interactions just decreases substantially. And so, yeah, I think there’s a lot to test here. I think companies like Chief have done a good job of creating smaller groups and kind of innovating on format. But you know, I’m not bullish on a brand reading that community as the next mode. And so, creating a Telegram or a Slack chat and just inviting 2,000 of their best customers inside and hoping for good results.

 

38:02

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, I think I would agree too. As much as we want it to be true, I don’t know that it is. So much of what you’re describing here is about your mission, which is to bring more humanity and creativity to technology and business, bringing in this … I don’t think humanity is … There’s a better word than that. It’s not just empathy, it’s not just a closer relationship. It’s really all of the subtext that comes with the idea of humanity, just making it more ethical even, among other things. I feel like a lot of VCs say this. But I feel like with you, you’re really, really committed. And I just want to ask you, how did you get here? And why is this personal to you? And what is your unique take on how this is going to all unfold? I feel like I really see your unique take in your writing. But I would love to explore it here a little bit.

39:00

Sari Azout:
I think, I grew up in Colombia in Bogota, and my family was always in retail. And I remember, we were in the grocery business. I would go and I would work the cash register on the weekends. And there were always coasters in Spanish that said [foreign language 00:39:20], which means we work so the customer comes back tomorrow. And there was just this kind of immense obsession with the customer that I almost took for granted. And then I went to college, I graduated college, and I worked in investment banking and then on the trading floor. And I felt in the case of the trading floor, I felt this immense disconnect between my job and the customers I was serving. I didn’t really know who they were, what they needed.

 

39:51

And then, throughout my work with startups, I also realized that it’s almost like a paradoxical truth that a lot of businesses have a lack of focus on the people that they’re serving, and a lack of reverence and honor for those end customers that I almost assumed to be the number one rule in business. And so, I think that, for me, as I had children and I kind of … The stakes around my work became higher because one second at the office became time away from my kids, it really came down to using my voice to kind of further this idea that without reverence for customers, what is the point of business? And beyond that, I think that a business is really a way to project a worldview and to project your values to the world. And so, why would we build businesses in ways that are so transactional without leveraging the capabilities and the ability to just project your ideas in unique ways?

 

40:58

And so, I think part of it is that. I think a lot of products just don’t have a heart. And I think that’s sad. And so, I think anything that we can do to bring more delight, because the world doesn’t need more consumer brands. The world should see more products that delight and inspire. The other piece of it is that one thing I think I really believe is that all problems are people problems. And if you believe that, then the number one reason companies fail is founders run out of energy. I mean, you can say that the company failed because they ran out of capital or they got into a fight with a cofounder, they lost a key supplier. But at the end of the day, I’ve seen so many companies come and go. And I think that the one thing we don’t talk about enough is just the emotional side of entrepreneurship and the people, not just the people we’re serving, but the people that are building.

41:50

And so, I just think that bringing more humanity, just even to the way that we approach the work also just enables people to be more creative, more vulnerable, more real. A lot of what I try and do is not just to build businesses that are delightful, but for that process in itself to feel more human.

42:13

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. And that humanity too, when you describe the way that you’ve described it, it only makes sense that as founders and businesses get closer to their fans, let’s say, or users, they crave that sense of humanity. Like, that kind of connection. And something I wanted to ask you earlier was, so much of this, yes, you can build it in the brand, you can build it in the product, you can build it in community platforms, wherever. But one of the most low hanging fruits is just in the customer experience, or even if we’re getting down to brass tacks, customer service, right? Where people are literally reaching out to you in the moment when they’re vulnerable, either they’re angry or confused or need something, that’s when the humanity could perhaps impact them the most. I want to ask you, how can customer happiness manifest itself in the actual customer service or experience of a brand?

43:06

Sari Azout:
One of the things that’s most surprising to me is that customer service is seen as a cost center instead of marketing or customer experience. I think that this idea that you have to invest to win over new customers, but the keeping existing ones happy is a totally different department with a totally different mindset is just so crazy to me in this day and age. And I think that you just need a better mindset, I think, to treat your customers better. I think that if you have a mindset that is oriented around customer happiness from day one, then customer service isn’t just about answering questions about shipping and returns, it becomes a way to build relationships with your customer, a way to organize customer insights. And so, those teams should be, in theory, very important. They should be tied to the product development teams.

44:05

And I think that companies. Glossier’s an excellent example of a company that has done this effectively. If I recall correctly, their customer service teams are part of their marketing teams. And I believe that they rotate as far as answering customer service emails and being a part of other functions. And so, I think that companies that don’t silo service as a kind of low level drain on costs are going to succeed. But ultimately, the way that I see it is it really flows from the top. If you are guided by important principles that are oriented around customer happiness, the rest will flow. And I almost am reminded of just examples of companies that are just so delightful in everything from their microcopy. One example that we invested in is a company called Ghia. It’s a non-alcoholic aperitif. And every touchpoint and interaction, you can tell that it wasn’t somebody that woke up one day and said, “Oh, the non-alcoholic market is growing. Let’s just launch this.” It was a product that had a soul.

45:16

And I used, like they send you coasters with your order. And they say really fun things like, ‘glass half full’ or ‘over the influence’. And everything’s just so authentic and has such a clear and distinct voice that I think that if you have a mindset that is oriented around customer happiness, the details, the delight, all the way down to the microcopy and the interactions, they all flow in a way that doesn’t happen.

44:45

Jasmine Bina:
Yes. I was just going to say, it’s the difference between struggling to write a brand versus a brand that just writes itself. We see this in our work all the time. And I’d imagine with this brand it’s exactly what you’re describing.

 

45:58

Sari Azout:
Yeah, I think that when you have that mindset and that obsession with a customer, then every customer interaction just becomes a magic moment and compounds into just something that the customers are willing to pay for. And I think it’s such an exciting time to be in business for that reason. This is really new, I don’t think that brands had this kind of power and direct relationship and two-way relationship. And so, I just think it’s a really interesting time to think about how you can delight customers in ways that weren’t possible when you had gatekeepers.

 

46:34

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, and it also reminds me, I think Warby Parker actually, in the beginning, required everybody to come up through customer service. Everybody had to work in customer service at some point to really appreciate and understand the customer and have an empathy for them before they could go onto leadership somewhere else within the company. So, even before we had names for these things, it was already starting to happen and actually create new categories and new winners. You as a customer for a company that you haven’t invested in, when did you feel this human connection? Can you remember a time where a brand actually touched you because they put customer happiness at the center of the brand?

 

47:15

Sari Azout:
Yeah. You know, it’s funny. I think one of the best examples, and it’s an interesting example to use now, I think, considering where the company is today. But I think that when Outdoor Voices came to the market, it was perfect for somebody like me who’s never been the athletic type, where the message of just doing things really resonated with me. It wasn’t just about, let me run faster, compete, or be the best runner. But just like, wear these leggings and just go out there and be active. And that message, to me, was so profound. And it’s not that their product was necessarily any better than Lululemon or Nike or anything like that. But just that idea that you as a customer could have an affinity for a brand just because their values resonate. I think that illustrates this idea that what’s most important is the mindset and the values, ultimately. And that everything else flows from that.

 

48:18

Jasmine Bina:
So, this human connection, this customer happiness that is the new frontier of disruption, how do you actually make it central to a company? How do you build a real brand on top of its principles? Ty Givens is a customer experience strategist and the founder of The Workforce Pro. She and her SWAT team descend into the heart of companies and transform them from the inside out with a focus on the human connection that turns customers and users into fans. I asked Ty how leaders can truly make customer experience core to their brands. And what kind of second order effects that change can have on the company, its employees, and the overall landscape.

 

48:59

Ty Givens:
In order to make customer experience central to a company, it sounds cliché when you hear it starts with the top down, but it’s true. One time I worked with a company where it was uniquely brilliant. The person who answered the questions related to shipping problems was the person who did the shipping. The person who answered questions related to marketing problems was the person who did the marketing. And I thought that was so remarkable because most times, customer experience is actually in the center of everything. We take responsibility for decisions that are made in every single department, and we own it as if it’s our own. So, when I saw a company that actually trained their shipping person to reply to issues related to long shipping times or an item or product coming that was damaged, I thought, “That’s genius. Why isn’t everybody doing this?”

 

50:03

Jasmine Bina:
That’s super smart, because also when people, when they’re stakeholders in the actual customer experience, it makes that shipping person better at their job. It makes that marketing person better at their job in other ways. And also, now they have something valuable to bring back to the table to the rest of the company that only they would be uniquely able to understand.

50:23

Ty Givens:
What I also saw during my time there, it wasn’t that long. They’re great, we’ve worked with them a few different times over the last year. But what I also saw was fewer defects. So, when you’re the person who has to own the outcome of the decisions that you make, you make better decisions. So, it was great. Like, they ended up changing couriers as a result of the shipping person hearing how long the delays were, which is normally something that sits in customer service. And then you have these competing priorities where the business says, “Why aren’t you telling us what customers are saying?” And then it’s like, “But when we tell you what the customers are saying, you’re saying that’s not important enough.” So, there are competing priorities that happen all the time.

51:01

And I just found that when you have that ownership, it’s great. However, I haven’t been able, even sharing how successful that was, I haven’t been able to really get any company to take on that same thought process. A lot of times, customer experience is sometimes thought of as the last thing that you need to be worried about. And so, because of that, you end up in a place where you hire a bunch of people to come in and answer questions about things. And for us, we live in the space day in and day out of fixing other people’s problems, so you start to get a little bit numb. You don’t hear the issues and the problems the same way, it’s just what you do every day, day in and day out.

 

51:41

Jasmine Bina:
That’s super interesting. So, I just want to get to the heart of the matter here. You do customer experience strategies for companies. Like, you go super deep. You reorganize org charts if you need to, you completely uplevel entire teams. You change the internal culture of a company. What are some of the secrets, the really non-obvious things that you’ve learned in your years of doing this that people don’t really understand that affects customer experience and customer happiness really profoundly, but it’s just not commonly understood?

52:14

Ty Givens:
The reality is that you have to put the employees first. A lot of companies really focus on putting the customer first. But it’s the employee that you have to take care of, because if the employee is happy and feels passionately about working with or for your company, that’s going to show up in their engagements with the customer.

 

52:32

So, a couple of ways that you can do that. When a CX person provides you with insights on what the customer is actually experiencing, even if you can’t take action right away, you have to have a way for them to feel valued and heard and know that the information that they’re sharing with you is important, it’s valid, and you’re going to do something about it when you can. And when you do that, what happens is, the employee, they feel empowered. And that empowerment shows up on the call because they actually … Let’s say call, email, chat, whatever. I’m showing my age. But it shows up in their confidence when communicating to the customer.

53:16

So, if someone writes in and says, “You know what? I received this product. It was broken. It was damaged in shipping.” And that CX person feels empowered to make that right and know that they can get that information to a person or a team or a group of people who are going to work on prevention, that confidence is going to show up in that communication. And a lot of times, the company is really, really focused on, let’s make the customers really happy. And it’s like, well, let’s make the employees really feel happy and valuable, because they’re the ones who talk to the customers, and that’s going to show up there.

53:51

Jasmine Bina:
So, what you’re talking about here is managing emotions on both sides of the equation, not just the customer emotions, but the employee emotions. And it feels like what you’re saying is that creates the conditions for a really good interaction that is almost irrespective of whether you can help them right away with the problem or not. Is that right?

 

54:13

Ty Givens:
That’s right. I’ll give you an example: I used to run customer experience for ShoeDazzle. I started there in November 2013, ironically, the week of Black Friday, as the head of CX, okay? Right, okay? You know, listen. I walked right into it, smack.

 

54:32

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, that’s a crazy indoctrination, that’s insane.

 

54:36

Ty Givens:
Yeah, you know? Just jump in the deep end. And so, here I am, first day of work the question is posed to me, “Should we open on Black Friday?” “Well, what did you do last year?” “We were open.” “Okay.” “We had a skeleton crew.” “Great, let’s do a skeleton crew this year.” That wasn’t a good call, because you know what? It was a totally different business than it was literally 12 months before. Heck, it was different six months before.

 

55:00

So, here we are, skeleton crew. I show up with my team. We’re going to do this together. Well, we get there, we have 60 plus calls in the queue because marketing thought it would be a great idea to change the promotion every hour. So, you can imagine, you got 20% off an hour ago, and now you get 40% off. What do you think people are going to do? They’re going to call in and say, “I want my extra 20.” Okay?

55:23

I hadn’t even seen the backend of our website to help anybody with anything. But you know what I did? I got my butt on the phone, because I knew that I had the power to make things right. So, when I get on the calls and someone’s asking me, “Hey, I just placed my order, and I waited online for you guys for an hour, an hour and a half, or two hours. And now the promotion is that this percentage, I want you to adjust my rate.” Did I know how to do that? Heck no. I wasn’t signed into anything but the phone.

 

55:56

But what I did is, I took notes. And I knew that I had the confidence to make that call. And that confidence showed up. Another thing I did is I told the customers the truth. I was like, “Hey, this is my first week.” You know? And that actually somehow built some sort of relationship between me and them. They felt like, “Oh wow, well, welcome. We’re so glad you’re here.” They were so warm and welcoming. And while I didn’t know how to do the work, I knew what needed to get done.

 

55:26

So, I think that that’s a good example of how the confidence of you being able to actually make those decisions will resonate with the customer, because the customer is contacting the business. And they don’t know that they’re talking to Ty. They don’t care that they’re talking to Ty. They were talking to the name of that company. And so, they expect whoever picks up that phone, replies to that email, that they know everything about them and that they can fix their issue. So, you’ve got to make your employee feel and understand and know what their span and scope of control is, so that that can resonate on the call. And if they don’t have all the answers, don’t harm them for that. So what they don’t know all the answer? Make sure that they feel confident enough to communicate to the customer, “While I may not know that, I know that I can get that information for you.” That’s the key.

57:13

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, what you’re describing, I think, would sound a little scary to some founders or leaders within a company, to give that much autonomy in CX or even just customer support, when a lot of the problems are kind of still in a black box. Like, you don’t even know what you’re dealing with yet. I’d imagine that could be a difficult thing to convince leaders and CEOs to adopt, right?

Ty Givens:
No, you’d be surprised.

Jasmine Bina:
Okay.

57:41

Ty Givens:
Reason being is, most startups that I’ve worked with, and I’m talking about the ones that are growing super fast, they really focus on hiring people that they believe make good decisions. That’s actually scary though, because what does good mean? What I think is good, you may not think is good. Just because I finished and I got a degree from a really great school, that doesn’t make me a good decision maker. That means I can stick to something. And so, because of that, in a lot of startups that I have worked with, joined, either in a consulting capacity or even as an employee, they hire certain prototype because they feel that this person makes good decisions. But they’re largely inexperienced in a lot of ways. They’re not actually making good decisions, they’re just doing what they think makes sense. But they don’t actually understand fully.

58:35

And so, what happens is, and you have these side by side train the trainer type experiences. So, let’s say I walk in, this has happened before. I walked in, inherited a team of six. This is as an employee. All six of the people who were on my team did the work a different way. They all did it the way that they thought was best. There was literally zero strategy associated with how the work was getting done. And so, when it came time to putting in some structure and some rules, some guidelines, if you will, because I do believe that you have to give people the ability to make decisions in order for them to feel valuable, because if everything that you’re doing is logic based, it’s this, then that, yes, then no, let a machine do it.

59:21

Customers don’t actually have a problem with machines, they have a problem with incorrect information. They have a problem with waiting for incorrect information. But if you can make it where they can get that information right away and it’s accurate, they don’t care who gives it to them. So, I’ve seen a lot of times where there’s a lot of autonomy in CX. And as that company scales and grows, that process starts to break down because there was never any strategy behind it. I honestly think that companies forget that customer experience is tactically strategic. You have to be able to actually do the work that’s associated with the strategy.

59:58

Jasmine Bina:
Can you describe that a little bit more? Like, it feels like what you’re talking about here is also what makes people good decision makers. And I think that’s kind of like the big question. Like, how does a strategy make people good decision makers, but still give them a lot of autonomy?

01:00:00

Ty Givens:
First, you have to help them understand your brand voice. Who are you as a company? A good example that I think we all often use is, and it’s controversial, but a Chick-fil-A. When you go to Chick-fil-A, you get greeted automatically. When you ask for something and they provide it to you, they don’t say, “You’re welcome.” They say, “My pleasure.” And is that natural to them? Is that what they probably say when they’re with their friends and family? I doubt it. But it’s required for the role. So, what happens is, you start to formulate phrases, terms, things that are acceptable within the company that sound like the brand. And you present that to the team. And you’re like, “This is how the brand speaks. It may not be natural to you, but this is how the brand speaks.”

01:00:58

You also have to personify the brand. So, if there’s a person internally who represents the company, it’s almost like you’re thinking, “What would so-and-so do? What would that person say?” And that kind of becomes your nomenclature and your speech.

 

01:01:11

Jasmine Bina:
Is that like a shortcut that some brands use? Like, you know, so and so in the company, imagine what they would say. Like, their kind of archetype for what this brand sounds and feels like?

 

01:01:23

Ty Givens:
Exactly. And so, when you start to talk about the decisions and what’s a good decision, you have to kind of mirror that person. What would that person do? So, I worked for a company where there was a person internally. She was not the CEO. But she was the company personified. And so, when we would go into these different interactions with customers, the question would always be, “Well, how do I handle the situation. What would she do?” Because she is the company. So, once you understand who it is that you’re modeling after and you spend time with that person and you get to know that person, because they have to be very visible, obviously. That’s where you start to get into what is a good decision, because a good decision for me may be different from the brand that I’m working for or working with. And that’s the part that’s key is personifying that. You have to turn that brand into a person, because essentially the company to the customer is a person.

01:02:23

Jasmine Bina:
It also highlights something else that I’ve heard you talk about, which is that, especially with COVID, things like customer experience. But specifically customer service, for some brands, even especially in beauty, has become like the new showroom, because you’re going to customer service for the same things that you used to get at the actual store, which is education, experimentation, being guided, understanding what their brand stands for. Can you talk about that a little bit and how that’s changing what people are actually doing strategically in their customer service channels?

 

01:02:57

Ty Givens:
Yeah, 100%. I’m seeing brick and mortars turn into contact centers on a consistent basis. And the experience that you have when you’re servicing a customer directly in a retail business is so different than what happens online. So, for example, if I am working with you behind a counter, I’m talking to you. We’re making eye contact. You can hear the inflections in my voice. You can see that my expressions match what it is that I’m saying to you. We lose all of that context when we’re doing this either by email, live chat, over the phone. Anything of the sort, we lose the ability to have that emotional intelligence to be able to look at a person and kind of feed off of that energy.

01:03:47

So, you have to almost overly create it when you’re not physically in front of them. And you have to establish yourself as a subject matter expert. Specifically for beauty, it can be really, really challenging because nine times out of 10, if you are say a makeup brand, you have people who are coming to you and they’re asking you, “Which color should I be purchasing to match my skin the best?” Well, I’m not looking at you, so how can I make that decision? I can’t swatch anything on your skin to test it. So, instead, we have to build a rapport with one another where we’re sending photographs back and back, moving to some sort of channel that is may be visual. Asking for photos in natural light. So, you’re actually essentially building trust, right? In a different way than you would normally have to do. And you’re building a relationship because this person has to believe what it is that you’re teaching and telling them.

And a lot of businesses have just not been prepared for that shift pre-COVID. And now they’re in a place where they’re saying, “Hey, everybody. Make good decisions.” And they’re finding out that good means so many different things to so many different people.

01:04:59

Jasmine Bina:
Let’s talk about the customer side of things a little bit. You’ve been doing this for so long across so many different categories. And working with pretty big companies that are very brand focused, especially in certain consumer categories. How have you seen users change over the years? Like, how have people’s expectations or beliefs or their actions or whatever, how have they evolved over time in how they interact with the brands?

01:05:26

Ty Givens:
So, customers see a brand, a company, a business, like I said, as a person, one unit. So, for example, if I go into a brick and mortar store and I have an experience there, there’s an expectation that if I have to move that to the eCommerce channel, that that person on the other end of that message or system, that they know and understand me too. For the people who are actually physically in retail, they are not the same people that are answering the phone calls when you call the 800 number. So, you have to have systems that are able to almost trick the customer into believing you know everything about them, because the customers fully expect that you know.

 

01:06:10

They’ll say, “I went into the store yesterday and I bought this item.” They’re expecting that you can see their purchase history. Whereas, before we didn’t really have that experience where the customer expected you to know everything about them across the board. If you went into, say Macy’s and you made a purchase, you weren’t necessarily going online and expecting that the person in the retail store understood. But that was 10 years ago. Today, you have a full expectation that they know you almost by name. And that’s the way that the customer is. The customer expects that you know what it is that they’ve purchased, what they need, what didn’t work for them. They see the company as a person and they want that personalized relationship.

01:06:54

And I attribute that to great marketing in a lot of ways, because for example, this is not a client of mine, but I’m going to use Sephora as an example. I get a notice via email from Sephora that says, “It’s time to buy more of …” whatever product. What’s crazy is that, they’re always spot on. How do they know? Feels so personal. And so, even though I’m getting that email, right? And I live on the other side of things. But I’m getting that email and I feel like they know me somehow. And when I go into the store, I actually feel like the people in the store have some sort of way to understand all of my experiences, all of my purchase history, what store I was at. It’s a very personal thing. And customers just have that expectation. And we didn’t have that before.

01:07:43

You know, when we spoke on phones only to different brands, I mean, it was a much simpler type of engagement. You called Office Depot, you asked for pens. They sent you pens. The pens were not the right color, you call in, you ask for more pens. There’s no expectation that you have this amazing experience. And now, when you write in to Office Depot … Excuse me, when you order pens from Office Depot and you order blue and they come purple, you almost expect that someone on the other end is going to magically know that they sent you purple pens. And not only are they going to send you the blue ones, but they’re going to send you red ones for the inconvenience.

01:08:20

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I mean, as a user, it feels really jarring when you feel like whoever you’re talking to on the brand side isn’t anticipating your needs, because you know, you’re also giving them so much information. We’ve gotten so used to giving a brand so much information about ourselves that we expect that immediate understanding in return. And I know what you’re saying about Sephora.

01:08:43

This makes me think of something else. So, obviously it’s easy to control all these interactions in the channels that you own. But more and more, I see communities popping up that a brand doesn’t own. But they act as substitutes for customer experience. So, The Ordinary. So, The Ordinary has a couple of gigantic Facebook groups, you have to be accepted into them. Once you’re in there’s a whole … Speaking of indoctrination, there’s a whole indoctrination process, because to use The Ordinary’s makeup products, you have to really learn how to combine their products. And they don’t teach that to you right away.

01:09:21

But I just see a lot of women on these platforms. And it’s died down because the brand has changed, but in the beginning, there was such an engaged community of people. They’d post a picture and they would be like, “I have this skin condition. I don’t know what it is,” or, “I can’t find a match,” or, “I’ve tried this regimen. It’s not working. Should I be combining different products?” And you’d get a ton of comments of women who kind of could diagnose you and help you fix your problem within The Ordinary universe. The Ordinary doesn’t own any of this.

 

01:09:52

I think once in a while, The Ordinary would send the Facebook group some free product to give away to their audience. But they had no control over that. My question to you is like, in situations like that, are there good rules for what a brand should and shouldn’t do in terms of interacting with these autonomous communities? Is there a way to overlap them and to tie them together? Or do you just let that be what it is and hope that it amplifies your customer experience?

 

01:10:20

Ty Givens:
Yeah, so I can’t speak specifically for The Ordinary. I’ll tell you what I’ve seen on my end when it comes to the community. So, although communities appear to not be regulated, I assure you, they are, okay? No one is going to let anyone take off and run with their brand and messaging and have nothing to say about it. Believe me that they are definitely regulated. And it just may look like it’s being regulated by a normal person. But I assure you, they are regulated. That’s one. But I mean, good job if it looks like it’s not, because that’s the goal.

01:10:55

The second thing is that a lot of times, the people that you hear that are most vocal in those community spaces, they are not employees. But in a lot of ways, they could be influencers or ambassadors of the brand. And so, they may have relationships where they can get product for free or they get it at a discount. And maybe they can sell it to their cohort, etc. But essentially, there is a relationship that lives there, whether we see it or we don’t see it.

01:11:22

Jasmine Bina:
So, you’re describing environments that are somewhat engineered. Is that generally good practice? Or is there room where these communities can kind of take off on their own? I just want to get into the mind of, if I was a brand and I see a community forming that I don’t have control of, not yet at least, what should I be doing?

01:11:44

Ty Givens:
Well, first of all, you need to get somebody in there who can help review the messaging that’s going on and make sure that it’s actually true, right? Or that it’s right. And so, the way to do that is to get somebody in there who represents your brand, even if you don’t have that information shared publicly or it’s not directly clear. And the reason why you want to do that is because you want to make sure that the information that’s being shared is accurate and true related to your specific brand.

01:12:13

What it does for the customer though is, you’re actually getting information from someone you trust, because under the surface, if you have no idea whether or not that person represents that company, but you feel like the information that they’re giving you is tried and true, whereas the company obviously has a vested interest in telling you how to use their product because they want you to buy more. And what happens with the communities is, it kind of tricks the customer into believing that the person that’s telling them what to use and how to use it is not, in fact, a person who has any incentive to be sharing that information. They’re doing it out of the kindness of their heart and because they’re passionate. And in reality, they probably do just have some sort of relationship with the brand. And that’s the reality of it.

01:12:55

The other thing to think about in communities is people who work for companies nine times out of 10 are not as fanatical about said company as the users are. And so, because of that, even when you’re calling in or you’re speaking with someone from the customer experience team, they may or may not be as passionate as a community member. You’re going to get a lot more passion out of the community member than you are out of a customer experience person who was taught, if a person says this, then do that. If a person does this, then do that. They may or may not be users of the brand.

 

01:13:33

So, the community actually from a product standpoint can be a really, really, really strong place to develop and get more advocates and to help people to better understand how to best utilize your product, your service, your brand, whatever that is. And then have support be responsible for things that are operational, because like I said, the person who is actually replying to the customer may or may not be as passionate. And a lot of startups that I’ve seen, they try to hire specifically for passion. But it’s not the same.

01:14:09

A good example of that is hiring a makeup artist to do customer service. For me, who I’m a worker bee. I have my office hours, etc. It doesn’t bother me to have that type of structure. But makeup artists are creatives. So, when you give a makeup artist an offer for a job that’s say, full-time, what they hear instead of, “I’m going to have consistent pay and I’m going to get benefits and I’m going to have paid time off,” what they hear instead is, “Oh my gosh, if someone calls me to do a gig on Tuesday, I’m not going to be able to drop everything and go because I have to work.” Doesn’t feel good, right?

01:14:47

But if you put that same makeup artist in the community and give them access to free product to sell to their cohort, the ability to speak on behalf of your brand and encourage people to use it, not only are they going to feel more fulfilled by that because it’s passion for them, they’re also going to be in the space where they’re going to be able to get more clients to the kind of work that actually feeds them. So, it’s to a brand’s benefit to have a strong community of users, of people who … Because they’re going to actually teach the company about their product in a way that people internally will never even know or understand because their focus is just different.

01:15:23

Jasmine Bina:
Have you seen any remarkable or super creative, out of the box customer experience journeys or touchpoints or campaigns? Or anything out there, maybe even things that you’ve worked on that reinterpreted what customer experience could actually be?

01:15:40

Ty Givens:
I think I might have to go back to that brand that I mentioned earlier, who actually made their whole company customer experience people. That one really stuck with me. I mean, their inquiries were low. The volume of the product that they sold was very high. They had very satisfied and delighted customers. And it was all because everyone took ownership of the decisions that they made internally. And that also for the CX team, made them feel like they were as valuable and as important as the rest of the company. There was no such thing as hierarchy between departments.

01:16:20

And they didn’t spend a boatload of money on their customer experience, because a lot of times companies see CX as a money pit. Like, you’re hiring all these people. You don’t have to have a bunch of people. You just have to have the right processes. You can invest one good time in a good training structure and invest one good time in a good plan. And then, find the right leader to run it day in and day out. And you can do it for less money if you put together the right formula. A really good formula is to make everybody responsible for their own outcomes. It just really helps.

 

01:16:51

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. A lot of the things that you’re describing are just, and we’ve mentioned this with the previous interview with Sari, is just aligning the self-interests of the company with the self-interests of the customers. But you’re saying also with the self-interest of the employees too.

 

01:17:07

Ty Givens:
Yeah, you know, I worked for a company that put employees first. This was over 10 years ago. Yeah, over 10 years ago. And what’s funny is that, a lot of us who came from that company most immediately had a hard time finding another company that we wanted to work and and put in the same level of effort.

 

Jasmine Bina:
Oh wow.

 

Ty Givens:
Yeah.

 

Jasmine Bina:
They ruined you for other companies.

01:17:29

Ty Givens:
They ruined us, because it was the best thing though, because you know what? I remember after that, I would go to a company and they’re like, “We’re employees first.” And I’m like, “Well, let’s see what this looks like.” And I’m like, “They don’t even know what that means,” you know? I got my MBA. I finished in 2013, but I left that company in 2010. And so, when I started to do my coursework for my MBA, wouldn’t you know that I was finding that a lot of the training that I was required to do there, it was like 40 hours a year, not a big deal. But they did invest in you. A lot of it was coursework for my MBA. So, I was already ahead, right? Go figure.

01:18:06

So, that’s investing in your employees. And that’s how you teach good decision making, right? You give them resources and access to information. You help them to become better, right? You invest in them. And when you do that, you have happy employees who absolutely delight your customers. And at this particular company, the NPS was around seven, which is really, really high. And that’s because they had really happy employees.

01:18:35

Jasmine Bina:
Okay, I’m going to ask you a very big, very unfair question. How do you turn a really angry and unhappy customer into a happy fan for life?

 

01:18:46

Ty Givens:
It’s going to sound too simple, but you just have to listen. Okay, I was running customer experience for a brand. And this particular customer, they went from frontline agent to elite, from elite to a supervisor, from a supervisor to a manager, to me, okay? I get on the phone with the person, which to me, it shouldn’t have gotten this far, but it did. Okay, fine. So, I’m on the phone with this gentleman. And I just let him talk. And when I let him talk, I mean, he was going on and on and on. I literally put the phone on speaker, and I had to mute it because there was a lot of background noise. But I just let him talk. And every now and again I would say, “Yeah, I hear you. Okay, no, I understand. Oh yeah, that’s no problem,” right? By the time he was done venting, and this lasted a good 40 minutes.

Jasmine Bina:
Wow, what?

Ty Givens:
Yeah.

Jasmine Bina:
40?

Ty Givens:
40 minutes. 40 minutes.

Jasmine Bina:
40 minutes, okay.

01:19:54

Ty Givens:
Yes, 40 minutes on my cell phone, mind you. When he was done, he says, “Are you there?” I said, “Yes, I’m here. I heard everything you said.” And I told him, “Here’s what we’re going to do for you.” I didn’t give him anything that was ridiculous. I just made good on what he asked for. And I apologized for the experience he had. And he said, “Finally, somebody who listened.”

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah.

01:20:17

Ty Givens:
And I think it comes down to, when you’re dealing with irate or angry customers, what you have to realize is that it’s not personal. It’s not about you. They’re not mad at you, they’re not angry with you. They’re angry about something that happened, and you happen to be the person that’s going to catch the wrath of that because you are answering the phone for the company, and the company to them is a person.

01:20:40

Jasmine Bina:
So, I know you don’t do this too much in your strategy work now. But when you did used to get behind the phone, how does it feel for you personally when you take a negative experience like that and make it a positive one, and actually turn somebody from a customer to a fan?

01:20:58

Ty Givens:
You almost want to scream it to everyone who will listen, because CX is hard work. Now, granted, I’ve been doing it forever, so I’m probably going to say it’s the hardest job ever, but it’s the only job I’ve ever done. So, what do I have to compare it to?

Jasmine Bina:
A little biased. Whatever.

01:21:13

Ty Givens:
Right, you know? So, when you have those experiences, you actually feel so validated as a person that you’re good at what you do, that you know what you’re doing. You are empowered to make good decisions for people. And it just makes you feel validated in a lot of ways, because most people don’t call up a company just to say, “You know what? I think you guys are amazing. That’s all. Have a wonderful day.”

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah.

01:21:43

Ty Givens:
That would be nice. Doesn’t happen. So, when they call, they’re usually very upset about some experience that they’ve had. And when you are able to turn that into a positive, like for that gentleman that I spoke with for 40 minutes, that’s 40 minutes of my life I’ll never get back. But I gave him my cell phone number, right? And I told him if he had any problems, he could call me in the future and it’s no problem. And I mean, he didn’t have to call me back, right? And he ended up remaining a customer. So, it’s little things like that, giving people the access and making them feel like you care. You care and you heard them and they matter.

Once you’re able to get that conveyed to a customer and they feel good and they feel happy, or you even get to that point where, when they call in they say, “I want to talk to so-and-so.” Like, oh my gosh. Your feathers just fluff because it’s like, I did such a great job that they only want to deal with me. And people, they love it. They love it. So, I think that it makes me stand up a little taller. And it validates me as a CX person, because our job is really all about caring for other people and making brands, like we’re the voice of the brand now in our marketing. But marketing speaks through us, because anything that marketing says, we said. And so, we want to make sure that we’re making the customer feel as valuable and as important as the marketing, sales, and growth team set out to do.

01:23:18

Jasmine Bina:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you’re new here and like what you’re listening to, do us a favor and leave a review. Those reviews mean a lot. I love reading them, and it helps our audience grow. Secondly, I’d love to give you more of our brand strategy thinking in the form of articles that we write, videos that we publish, and anything else that captures our attention. Just sign up for our newsletter at conceptbureau.com/insights and I promise, you won’t be disappointed. Thanks for listening. It was great to have you here, and we’ll catch you next time.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

14: The Radical History of Self-Care & the New World of Wellness Brandin‪g‬

Wellness and self-care have taken over nearly every industry with a whole crop of new brands. But there is a much deeper story about the connected history of politics, race, gender and identity that underpins the self-care space today, and how it’s many interpretations reflect our American culture. We speak with New York Times journalist and editor Aisha Harris, as well as Jerome Nichols, founder of cult favorite self-care brand The Butters, to understand the very radical roots of this now-mainstream movement.

Podcast Transcript

July 16, 2020

50 min read

The Radical History of Self-Care & the New World of Wellness Brandin‪g‬

00:00

Jasmine Bina:
Welcome to unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. If you’re like me, you don’t know when it happened, but one day self-care and wellness were everywhere. Those messages about taking care of yourself, healing, thriving, making yourself whole, being enough, reclaiming your power, owning it. They were all around us from cereal boxes to the makeup counter, to advertisements for things like furniture, rental or CBD sticks, mobile apps, your everyday cup of coffee, and you mindset about how to be, but also about how to consume had started to settle in. A second nature as this may all seem right now, the concept of self-care actually comes from a very radical place in recent American history.

I spoke with journalist Aisha Harris about how we got here today. I issue as a writer and editor of the New York Times Opinion section, where she covers culture and society. But before that, she wrote an important article in early 2017 for Slate magazine called A History of Self Care. And in it, she outlined how the self care movement actually started was later adopted by the yuppie cohort and merged with the hippie fueled wellness movements. And after the election of Donald Trump had a sudden, politically inspired resurgence. Yes, self-care and it’s close cousin wellness are everywhere, but it wasn’t always this ubiquitous. Natalia Mehlman Petrzela is a historian of contemporary American politics and culture and she points to a 1979 episode of 60 Minutes with Dan Rather where the early commercialization of wellness sounds more like a pseudo science or as he says later in the episode, maybe even a cult.

01:58

Dan Rather (audio clip):
It’s a movement that is catching on all over the country among doctors, nurses, and others concerned with medical care. Wellness is really the ultimate in something called self-care in which patients are taught to diagnose common illnesses and where possible to treat themselves. More than that it is a positive approach to health. What one doctor calls recognizing that health is not simply the absence of disease.

Jasmine Bina:
This clip had already come a long way from the beginnings of our cultural shift. And we’ve come a long way since then. I sat down with Aisha to talk about the connected history of politics, race, gender, and identity that underpins the self-care space today and how it’s many interpretations reflect our American culture.

02:42

Aisha Harris:
Basically self-care has been around for decades, probably even hundreds of years, but I think in it’s most modern incarnation, we can kind of look to the as having been starting around the 1960s with the civil rights movement, there was very much an emphasis around the fact that black people were not getting the support system and the care that they needed from the institutions that were supposed to provide them, whether it was healthcare education financially. And thrown in with all of these marches and fights for equality was this emphasis put on the fact that schools were inadequate.

So going along with the fact that there were all these concerns about equality within that, there was also the concern about education, the inequities between black schools and white schools and healthcare and medication. And you see that happening in the ’60s. But then once the women’s rights movement kind of kicked off in the late ’60s and into the early ’70s, they adopted a lot of the similar concerns that were occurring.

03:58

And so women and especially women of color were founding organizations and clinics to specifically address the needs for women, whether it was abortion, single motherhood, and these places were a way for women to take care of themselves. It was very different from what we’ve seen today. It was all about survival in many ways. And even after the civil rights movement, you also saw this pickup with the Black Panther movement as well. Alondra Nelson has a book called Body and Soul, which focuses on the Black Panthers. And in part of that book, she really talks about how they started these clinics, these survival programs that provided medical testing within the black community, especially for diseases and illnesses that tend to afflict the black community in disproportionate ways like sickle cell anemia. And those were ways to make sure that black people were getting the help that they needed.

And it was all community oriented. The government wasn’t doing much to help in that regard. You also see that with the Black Panthers notable breakfast program, which provided, which provided free breakfast to kids going to school because they realized kids need to eat. If they weren’t able to get it at home, they could get it from them early in the morning. And so it was a really radical view of self-care that existed. And it was primarily started by women and people of color. And even alongside that same vein was, this was also happening in more like medical social terms as well. When you look at people who committed themselves to being social workers, therapist, the idea of self care also came into play there because the idea is, you can’t help others if you can’t help yourself.

05:47

So, there were studies being done showing that social workers, especially people who were working with people who had even worse problems than them like taking on that emotional baggage and that mental baggage was draining and they would report burnout and inability to both take care of themselves, but then also help the people they’re supposed to be helping. And the weird thing about that is that wrapped up in that is this idea that you need to take care of yourself so you can care for others. So, well, it is about your own wellbeing. It’s still about providing for other people in a way. Yeah, there’s this weird tension between that idea of self-care. But once you move into the ’70s, there is this movement that’s not quite self-care, but it’s like an offshoot of it.

I think most people who study this would say that wellness and self-care are two different things, but they’re like two sides of the same coin in a way. And with wellness that was more attributed to the hippie culture, this idea of eating and living holistically. It definitely had a different aspect in terms of class. It wasn’t so much about survival, but about making your life better. So, you’re at a different starting point. These are people in the San Francisco Bay Area who were seen as a cult. There was in my article I referred to this segment on 60 Minutes with Dan Rather. And he comes to them and talks to them about how they are seen as a cult.

07:23

This in itself is also a rejection in a way of traditional norms, but not in the way that women and people of color were dealing with it. And the fact that the government clearly wasn’t providing them with the basic needs for survival. These were people in the wellness movement really felt as though they were trying to reject Western medicine and felt that there were better ways to live. It was about improving your life starting from a higher, better level of livelihood than most people of color were dealing with at that time. And so that’s kind of where you see this movement towards living your best life and it becoming corporatized. One of the things that I think really crystallizes that one of the moments is Jane Fonda’s workout videos and like the whole exercise movement in the ’80s.

Jazzercise and all of those different things that like really attributed being skinny, equals healthy, eating fresh equals healthy and equals wellness. And that’s where we see the strains of what we see today with the influencers and goop and all of those things as well.

08:35

Jasmine Bina:
Right. This point that you’re describing in the ’80s with the Dan Rather interview with Jane Fonda, the whole proliferation of products that came around hippie culture. This is when we first start to see it really disassociate from being a political statement. And some have argued that now it starts to pull from its roots and it becomes more of a class thing like you described. It’s not even serving the people that it was there to serve in the first place, right? Now you have to pay for this kind of wellness or self-care. And another thing that was interesting about what you said was the start is a very community oriented thing. The purpose of it was so that you could contribute to your community ultimately, but the self-care of today, which there’s a few more steps I want to… We’ll get to like how we got to today. The self-care of today is really individualized. It seems like the community aspect has been cut out in a lot of ways. Would you agree?

09:34

I think in some ways it has, especially for a woman of color, I think it still is very… it’s become individualized, but not in a way… Women of color, especially are still often starting from similar points as their previous generations, where in terms of not getting the adequate care that they are supposed to have. We’re seeing it now with COVID where black people are disproportionately getting sick and dying from this disease unlike almost every other demographic aside from the Latino community. And so obviously self-care has become much more mainstream, including among black women and women of color. But at the same time, it’s still about survival because it’s not just about scraping by, in terms of needing food or needing like the right care. It’s also about daily microaggressions in the workplace.

Just racism and the PTSD that I think a lot of people experienced now that we’re seeing so many people of color… Well really specifically, black people being killed on camera. And having to relive that and having to see these headlines all the time that has been tied now to self-care and how to handle yourself and how to deal with that while also trying to function in the world and be professional and feed your family and take care of your health. So it’s all really, I think that’s happening alongside this influencer, Instagram, Lululemon, goop culture that very much exists. I think also like another form of self-care I’m seeing is think of something like the wing where the whole point of that institution was to have women have a space, specifically designed for women.

At first it was like, “Oh, men weren’t exactly welcome.” And there is that whole thing. And so the idea was like, “This is a space for women.” Of course, we’ve learned through a series of exposes that Thursday, very specific type of woman who is often invited to join that space, usually white, young, and not necessarily queer or queer identifying, but that is also in its way, this weird word version of self-care because that is supposed to be a space that’s values womanhood over anything perpetuating like masculinity or the typical male dominated spaces.

12:09

Jasmine Bina:
Right. And then what about the LGBT community’s role in the rise of self-care? Especially in the beginning

12:17

Aisha Harris:
The civil rights movement really has been the template for every movement that’s come after it. And it’s very clear the LGBT community has been very instrumental in dealing with that. One of the people I interviewed for my article on Slate was Jace Harr, who is a trans man. And he wrote a very interesting article or flow chart called You Feel Like Shit: An Interactive Self-Care Guide. And essentially the flow chart is a way for you to check in with yourself. It asks you questions, prompting you to check in, and it’s like, have you drank water today? If not drink a glass now, and then move to the next step, have you gotten enough sleep, if not, take a nap, then move to the next step. And it’s another form of radical self-care in dealing with as a queer person, LGBTQ person, having to deal with the things that they do.

It’s a way to fight against that and to really take care of yourself because as my LGBT friends have told me, and as trans people are making it very clear through social media and through articles and whatnot, just their existence is an act of resistance. And then it is a radical act and you have to take care of your body. There’s that really hokey phrase like the body is the temple, but it is the vessel. It is you. And so that concern with taking care of the body is really, really central to any disenfranchised group of people.

13:53

Jasmine Bina:
Of course. So, as you described, it seems there were these two different branches of self-care and wellness, if you want to include that too. Co-existing and moving on parallel tracks. And I think a lot of people, including yourself have said that 2016 though, was when self-care really came into the mainstream. Can you talk about that a little bit.

Aisha Harris:
2016 was a year that was definitely a turning point, I think for a lot of America obviously 2020 probably has it beat now, but that was kind of the precursor to it because you had people really, really stressing out about Trump and his presidency and what that meant and what that meant for especially women, people of color, immigrants. So many demographics were endangered. And so you saw this rise in both self-care, but also… I actually did another article right after the election or a couple months later about the rise in self-defense classes that were taking place across the country.

Jasmine Bina:
Oh, wow.

15:03

Aisha Harris:
Where especially ones that were targeted at LGBTQ people and black people and people of color because people were legitimately scared. And so that in itself is kind of like another offshoot of self-care of like, “Okay, how do I prepare myself if something goes down to protect my body from violence? Physical violence, not just like institutional systematic violence.” So that was very much the turning point. And when you see lots and lots of articles coming out about how to handle yourself and how to do self-care. Before that there had been, I think also there’s a moment there was a turning point before that also with which was like the rise of feminist blogs in the early 2010s.

You had everything from the Hairpin to Jessica Belle and all these other feminist blogs that also have like components of self-care embedded into them. And talking about the ways in which you take care of yourself, whether it’s shutting off your cell phone for how many hours, get off Twitter, go pamper yourself, treat yourself. All these things were wrapped in and embedded in the feminist blogs. And I think that those were the building blocks towards 2016 and made self-care. It didn’t just come out of nowhere, but it definitely, they led the way for that to happen. I think in 2016. And then that’s where it just became part of the vernacular across the mainstream.

16:36

Jasmine Bina:
Another thing that I’ve read was that really 2016 was the turning point where more than ever, you saw particularly white woman embracing self-care and the culture and mindset pieces of it, the pieces that they wanted to use. And that’s what kind of burst this new DTC economy of all these brands that were leering self-care and wellness over a product. The other thing also that I think contributed to all of this is as wellness and self-care are becoming more mainstream, you kind of have this peak around hustle culture, right? Silicon Valley has been exported to the rest of the world and we’re romanticizing the hustle and the grind, which dovetails so perfectly into the American identity.

Anyways, this idea of like working and there’s virtue and hard work and hard work always pays off. And it almost seems as the volume on one got louder, the volume on the other got louder as well.

17:34

Aisha Harris:
Yeah. That work hard, play hard mentality is and has been very, very much a part of, especially the millennial culture. And I think that’s been amplified by social media, especially when you think about Instagram, you think about all those influencers who are constantly like hashtagging, hustle, like, “I’m hustling, here’s what I’m doing.” But then it’s also like, “Oh, and then here’s me laying on the beach, self-care.” There’s that weird dichotomy that also very much comes from this place of having access to certain types of self-care and being able to do those things by traveling especially has become a big thing.

And especially for black people, there’s been a lot of articles about black travelers, black women traveling, traveling together, groups and organizations that have been started to organize group trips together. And those in themselves are seen as this act of self-care in part, because there were times when black people were not able to travel as much, they didn’t have the funds, they didn’t have the opportunity to do those things.

And so in a way being a black person who is able to travel now seem as both a privilege and also a way of an act of self-care as well. It’s like a way of getting out of the country. It can be a way of getting away from American racism. There’s lots of articles about black woman relocating and actually living in and European countries and Caribbean countries because they feel as though they’d been treated better there. There’s all these like really interesting strains of self-care that are happening from group to group, from age group to age group. And I really do think so much of that has to do with social media and how we live our lives on online now.

19:29

Jasmine Bina:
Right. And we can’t forget Instagram’s influence and all of this it’s created this weird nonsensical dynamic where it almost doesn’t count unless you can display it, but to actually practice self-care, you have to pull away from displaying and showing. And I think that’s also kind of morphed the meaning of self-care. And what I want to talk about now is the brands that were involved in all this Instagram is a big one. I think we understand their influence in a really making self-care, a very visual consumable thing. What about other brands? Goop is an obvious one, but what are the ones that we don’t think about that have been instrumental in kind of pushing the narrative around self-care forward, changing what it means helping us kind of develop our current American relationship to what it is?

20:20

Aisha Harris:
I definitely think that we already imagined the wing, but I think that the wing is very much of that ilk and other places, there’s been many off shoots like it of like, “We’re going to create this social club that is specifically for this group of people or are these types of like-minded people.” Obviously there’s a Lululemon, which has paired self-care with like the whole athleisure industry is very much about this weird corporatized self-care, but also just gyms, the luxury gyms I think especially something like Equinox where it’s like you play a very high premium price for not just access to gyms, but like boutique classes. And they have towels for you that are free, but they’re free because it costs so much to go there. But that you can go to the spa, it’s everything you want to pamper yourself in line.

So I think like that combination of exercise with self-care and corporatization has definitely been a really big thing, but even just like beauty brands have done the same thing, Glossier, Fenty, they all are about treating yourself, making yourself feel your best in ways like that. Some could argue are just reinforcing beauty standards for women. But I think that they are often wrapped up in this sense of like, “Buying makeup. it’s my act of self care.” I feel like those are some of the really big ones. The big brands have been really capitalizing off of that.

22:02

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I was trying to trace back when self-care and wellness broke out of like the traditional fitness and food categories and spirituality too, which I think is a big one that we haven’t touched on. And then it just kind of went cross category. And I think from what I can tell it’s because of beauty and there’s a really good example of this with sexual wellness brands. There’s a brand that I love that I think has an excellent work and like educating woman. And there are a lot of brands that do this, but they were one of the ones… like the Splasher ones I think, and that’s Dame Products. And there’s a very wellness aesthetic to it. They took out all of like the salaciousness and made it more about wellbeing taking care of yourself. This is something that touches your body.

It’s the same kind of theme and storytelling that we see with a lot of like feminine hygiene products and now male hygiene products as well. And the interesting story about Dame, which I’ve written about in the past is the fact that Dame was just seen as vibrators for women. And they made a very conscious decision to wrap it as a self-care item. By wrapping it I mean in their storytelling and the packaging and the overall experience.

And once they did that, it became so palatable along with the ideas of the culture getting more open-minded to these things that’s how they went mainstream, then brands like that were in CVS. They were in Walmart and not like one or two, I’m talking like 50, 60 skews. And that’s what it took. It wasn’t necessarily directly feminist ideals or breaking down the patriarchy, although those things were happening in the background, of course, but the minute they changed the positioning of it, that’s when it kind of broke out. I feel like sexual wellness under the guise of beauty, this is part of your beauty routine now is a remarkable proof point of how powerful the self-care and wellness ideal has become.

24:00

Aisha Harris:
Yeah. That even makes me think of like the infamous Rabbit Vibrator that Sex and the City basically propelled to make lots of women want to buy it. And I feel like that was the first time that women’s sexual desires and cravings were taken seriously in a way for all of that shows issues…outdated as today the fact that they made a vibrator very extremely popular and mainstream, you can argue that that was like a precursor to this new sexual wellness in terms of the ways in which it really just normalize taking care of yourself sexually.

Jasmine Bina:
Okay. So now this makes me think of, I don’t even know how I’m going to draw the connection here, but it just makes me think of, you had written something about how a lot of media, and we’re talking about a TV show. Now whitewashes the past. I know that Sex and the City is not like the distant past, but you had an example. I think you were talking about George R. R. Martin. He was responding to criticism about why as game of Thrones, all whites and you had pointed out his response was, “Well, this was way back in time.” And the fact that him just saying that proves that there’s an assumption, that things that come from the past were white dominated. Am I paraphrasing this correctly?

25:24

Aisha Harris:
Yeah. The other thing was that he was The Game of Thrones isn’t a real story, it’s completely fantasy. So like you can make the world look however you want, because like Westeros does it exist. Yeah.

Jasmine Bina:
Right. So my question here is, would you say that the kind of whitewashing of media and the fact that media was so instrumental in a lot of ways for propelling self-care and wellness in the way that we see it now, especially through like Instagram and TV and movies, do you think there’s a connection there? Do you feel like that’s how we… part of why we got the second track of self-care and wellness it’s a little divorced from its roots?

26:07

Aisha Harris:
Absolutely. I actually think, you asked me earlier about the biggest brands that have contributed to this depiction of self-care and wellness. And I hadn’t mentioned when I think is probably the biggest one, at least the one of the last 25, 30 years had to been Oprah, right? Oprah has built an entire empire on her favorite things, which are very much about pampering yourself and expanding your cultural horizons in luxury items and that sort of thing. Oprah’s a black woman obviously, and lots of people love her, but a lot of white women love her.

And I love the products that she hawks are by white women or by white people. I’m not trying to accuse Oprah of whitewashing, the self-care movement. But I do think that like her audience in many ways, they are the parents of my generation, the millennial generation who were very much the precursors to self-care of buying that fancy cookware or whatever, to treat yourself or buying that bracelet or anything she’s … favorite things where over time, I think really that in itself is about self-care in many ways.

And is in it’s way whitewashing of self-care because it’s… she’s not like advertising for Forever 21 items or something, these are all very pretty moderate to expensive items. And that in itself is a way I think that it’s been whitewashed and divorced in a way from it’s roots.

27:59

Jasmine Bina:
What’s the future of self-care and wellness. Where is it going? How has it changed people? But what should we be focusing on?

28:07

Aisha Harris:
When it comes to self care? I think what it should be and what it has been for a lot of people and what it hasn’t been for another huge segment of the population is the important thing to remember is that self-care doesn’t mean you completely tune out and you are useless in the world.

The point is to take that time to recharge, to make sure that you are caring for yourself in ways that are fulfilling in ways that are energizing in ways that will help you get through the world a better person.

And that is what is missing from the Instagram and influencer focused self-care wellness, wholeness aspect of it. Also we need to realize that self-care, shouldn’t take much money if any money to do again it’s the little actions. It is not reading as much of the news so that you don’t cause yourself unnecessary anxiety. It’s cutting people out of your life who are not serving you well, who are harmful to your health.

There are ways to do this. That don’t necessarily require money. It doesn’t have to be a spa day. It doesn’t have to be a gym membership at Equinox. It can be many other things. And I think that’s what we should be moving toward. Considering that we’re in a pandemic that kind of be a where we are moving toward because there are no gyms there’s not much traveling happening. Or if there is, it’s much more minimalized, I would love to see that going forward.

29:53

I think what brands need to do is really get back to the basics of why their brand was started to begin with, to really think about like, who are you trying to serve? Are there other communities you could be serving that are outside of what you and who you think will like your product? There are ways to engage especially by bringing in people of color, LGBTQ people into the space behind the scenes, hire them, hire them in managerial positions, positions where they can actually make decisions and make change.

And then I’m not going to say that just because you’re a person of color doesn’t mean that you aren’t necessarily going to serve the customers the best way. But I think that really making it more inclusive and recognizing that there is more than one way to do self-care could really, really help, not just in terms of building a brand, but also in terms of committing to different versions of self-care

31:00

Jasmine Bina:
Self care and wellness boomed into a multi-billion dollar industry with huge players, bringing their own version of the ideology to the masses. There’s been a crop of upstarts that are bringing it back to its core. The Butters Hygienics Co is a cult favorite with devoted fans from across the country. The company was founded by Jerome Nichols in 2016, a crucial year in our recent history. And since then has only grown it’s vegan, it’s cruelty-free and you’ll find a range of products from lotions and leave-in conditioners to face scrubs, soaps, and lube. Jerome has built a very thoughtful brands. And once you dig in more, you start to really understand how it’s so much more than just a set of high quality products. And I wanted to know how he created a unique experience of self-care successfully in such a crowded and oftentimes diluted space.

31:50

Jerome Nichols:
And the brand started basically because I was trying to solve the problem of finding a lotion, essentially I wear shorts a lot, I have very dark skin, I get dry and I could not find a lotion that would last more than an hour or so, until the water was evaporated. And then I’d go back to being ashy. And then like all the emulsifiers and stuff would start showing up on my dark skin. And that was not at all what I really wanted from any lotion or product. So I just started playing around with different formulas and things. It took several months to come up with the first iteration that I actually thought was pretty cool.

The idea was that I could make something that was inexpensive, simple and ingredients, but also exactly and perfectly effective at the task at hand, which that ethos has become the question behind almost all of our products is, how do we solve X problem naturally simply, and then making sure that it absolutely solves that problem. I don’t like having to try a million different things.

33:11

I’ve always had a very sophisticated tastes like even as a kid and if stuff doesn’t work, I just don’t like it. If it doesn’t smell right I just don’t like it. If the, if the vibe is not right, right I just don’t like it. And for me, the Butters was my way of making sure that I could get out that… I’m going to use the word perfection, because that is the closest thing I can think of. Or let’s say expertise. This expertly made product, this solution-based thing into people’s hands, which is what I’d always wanted.

Years of going to different stores and buying stuff for my hair, that didn’t work stuff on my skin that didn’t work. And just not quite understanding that these products aren’t actually made for me and they aren’t made for even serving the desires that I’m looking for. Part of the reason why lotion is the way it is, is because it’s mostly made for people with lighter skin, one. And it’s mostly made because people just want to feel kind of soft. There is a fear of like oiliness or greasiness among the majority population here in America.

And that makes really moisturizing things kind of offensive. There’s this one thing that I’ve always seen specifically white people do when they try my product is they’ll often feel it on their hands feel that it’s like rich and has a little slip at the beginning, and then they’ll start wringing their hands because they’re not used to having something that actually is like a moisturizer, they’re used to something that feels a little drier in the way that lotions typically do. It just feels like you’re, you’ve got some wet skin with a tiny, tiny bit oil there, which is what most people are looking for.

35:01

Jasmine Bina:
That’s interesting. So you’re saying that we weren’t even really addressing the problem of something so basic, like moisturizer, because there’s this weird bias about what moisturizer is supposed to be.

Jerome Nichols:
Yes, exactly. There’s a lot of just like a fear of feeling… the word that I always come up with this nourished because that’s often what’s happening. For example, one of my biggest overarching goals with the Butters is to help white people stop washing their hair. So doggone much turning it into straw, leaching out all the color that they dye into it, turning the blond color that they dye it brassy, just doing all these things that make their hair, not be rich, full, hefty, and oftentimes much more curly hair that it naturally is because what they’re trying to do is get it to look like the people that you see in magazines and stuff, just like black people do.

They’re trying to straighten their hair to make sure he doesn’t even have the slightest wave. You know, when Sharon did that back, whenever she made that popular, she changed the way everybody thought about how hair was supposed to look. And that really damages people all the way up until right now.

36:19

Jasmine Bina:
There are two things that you said that, that make me think on this topic. So one the fact that you really wanted to make something that works. And I noticed on the labels of the bottles that you use for your products, it says you can use anything from the Butters… I’m paraphrasing. You can use anything from the Butters in your regular routine. You don’t have to buy all Butters stuff my stuff just works. And what’s interesting is… That’s a very… I felt your voice in the brand. And I want to talk about this for a second. Your voice is all over this brands. I feel your presence even coming to the homepage of your website, it starts at the top with a description of what you are using right now. Was that a conscious decision?

37:03

Jerome Nichols:
Absolutely. I’m a very opinionated person firstly. So that makes me very apt to what to share my opinions on things. I’m also very proud of who I am and what I do and what I make and what I put into the world. My brand’s voice is meant to be comforting and authoritative. It has a very masculine edge to it. It’s very in your face. It’s very bold. And at the same time the colors and things that we use, the color Butters blue, which is definitely not blue, it’s very green, blue, it’s more green than anything.

It’s meant to evoke a sense of calm and peace and serenity and safety. And I spent quite a while putting that color together, making that color myself, looking at it and making sure that I did actually feel what it is that I wanted people to feel. In my choice to brand the Butters, the way I do, which is what the tagline 100% bullshit-free. It is meant to be just that a lot of times when you’re buying into a brand you’re buying into their emotional experience. And while it’s true. The first things out of my mouth were, “I want to make you feel comforted. I want you to make you feel safe and you know, like you’re making a good decision.” But at the same time, I’m not lying to you about that. You are actually making a good decision.

38:43

When you come to the Butters, you’re actually making a choice that is going to be worthwhile for your dollar, your time. You’re getting a product that is made to last, and that is supposed to come through with that bullshit-free thing. We tell you everything that’s in our products. We don’t use shit that you don’t want to put on yourself. We don’t use parabens. We stay away from alcohols as much as possible, except for like hand sanitizer.

We purposefully make sure that we’re actually staying on the cutting edge of things to take out of products. And we’re making sure that even down to making sure that like the ingredients, the version of ingredients that we get are extracted safely, they’re coming from cruelty-free places. Um, and we’re just making sure that everything is thought completely through. And that sense of completeness and upfrontness and thought rightness is a part of who we are. Our brand values, that 100% bullshit-free thing. It actually breaks down into a set of values that are courage, prudence ingenuity, respect and honesty. Those are the five that we live by here. And I think they’re important to every business, but for us, they are what we are putting forth as the things that matter most to us.

40:11

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. And now that you mentioned those five things in those, the second thing I was going to mention there is a feeling, once you get into the brand, once you use the products, read the language, watch the content, follow you. There’s also a feeling of rebellion, I think, rebelling against what you should expect. And I think those five things kind of capture that. That’s super interesting. Something else I noticed about your brand that… let me know if it’s actually there, but I get this sense that there’s something ritualistic about the way you’ve kind of packaged these products. And let’s talk about some of these products, too. You have everything from haircare and skincare to sexual wellness things like lube, you have packages for like pregnancy and for moms, which was so interesting to me.

How do you start about the rituals around these things? Was there a ritual put into the sprint? And I asked because one, I sensed so it’s a big part of self care right now.

41:08

Jerome Nichols:
Absolutely. For me, rituals are a part of my life. And when I’m making all of these products, it’s inevitable that I’m thinking about the way in which you’re going to be using them, the experience you’re going to have everything from going to the website, through opening the package, to actually using it. The way the instructions are written are supposed to give you a strong sense of presence and where you are and centering your mind. One of the most common ones that people point to is the instructions for our scrubs.

A lot of them say something to the effect of damping your skin, take a little bit of scrub, rub it in lightly, let the scrub do the work, rinse off, glow up, and then make them pay your rent and never call them back hashtag.

And while I don’t necessarily always support taking things from people I do expect that you should feel like you’re worth that while you’re using our scrubs. Scrubs are luxurious thing. They take time, they take purpose from the opening of the jar. Their sound their smelled radiating up from the jar. You have the sounds of the water, the feelings of the water running over your skin. You have the actual scrub itself, the texture, the grit, all of that against your fingertips, against the actual skin itself, you can feel and just sort of be in that moment.

42:49

And every single one of our products has that thought put into it. It’s why when you open the jar, they’re so beautiful looking while the texture is just like so smooth and things are sort of like tweaked to a perfect gloss so that you can really feel special and take some time out of days that are very rushy.

A lot of the people who buy from me are like retail workers. That’s a lot of the people who I serve. It’s part of why the prices are the way they are. Most things are under $10. Well, not mostly like 90% of things are under $10. But I would say even like 75% of them are under like $7. You can get like a two to four ounce for that price. And that allows for people to actually come to us and add bits of luxury, bits of ritual, bits of mindfulness to their day, which helps us out overall as a community, as a people. And that gets into like self-care as a thing being one of the things that I push with all of my products.

43:58

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. Let’s talk about the pricing. I noticed it was like wildly affordable and they’re really nice products. And you really demonstrate through the user experience, all of this thought that goes into each one of them. So did you know who you wanted your user to be and you developed this for them or did your user evolve and you came to learn about them and then kind of build a brand around them. How did that work?

44:23

Jerome Nichols:
For me when… Okay. When I was sitting down to talk with my business advisor and we were discussing these things, when I actually figured out that I wanted this to be a real business and I was going to work to make this into what I call it the Jiffy mix of health and beauty. What I said to him was that I am essentially the customer, because at the beginning of this, I was the person that I was trying to serve. And I am unique, but not singular. And I think a lot of people are unique in the same way that I am.

They have similar issues that I have, or I have the expertise to help them in a way that bigger corporations do not want to. One of the values that is at the core of me is making sure that all things are equitable and that’s equity not just in chance, but in outcomes.

So I understand that there are a billion, different shampoos on the market. There’s a billion, different lotions, body butters. You can go different places, get things. There’s a lot of people who make stuff. But the fact of the matter is no one was making stuff for me, nobody was making things with a masculine edge that were also soft and comforting and caring, and actually did what they were supposed to do. And there’s a lot of like, “Oh, I like how this smells or I like how this feels, or I like how this looks.” But when you buy the butters, you’re, you’re supposed to experience all of it at once.

46:04

Jasmine Bina:
It’s a unisex brand, you, most of your products, it seems are for everybody. But I did get the sense that you are presenting a very rich, nuanced, new look or take on masculinity.

46:20

Jerome Nichols:
Yes, absolutely. I grew up in a household full of women. There is me, three female cousins and then over the years there were aunts and aunts. [crosstalk 00:46:34]. We didn’t have a grandfather because he died before I was born. My entire life has been surrounded by women. I mostly socialized with women. And from that, there has been a lot of, men are trash, men are horrible. Men are this or that and a lot of times men are horrible people. It’s like, we are humans. But that did leave me a little worried about what it is means to be masculine, what it means to be a man, what is my nature? What is… who am I in this modern world? What desires of mine are normal are things that… Are there parts of me that are antiquated and shouldn’t be put away? Or are they situational? All these different thoughts about masculinity that led me to question myself a lot.

And in the time leading up to the creation of the Butters, I was often making sure that I was not shying away from masculinity, making sure that I could experience it for myself and sort of redefine it for myself. And when I got around to actually taking the time to graphically design the brand, it was important to me that it not look girly, but not also hard-edged and masculine, because the hard-edged masculinity that you often get is dealing with like leather and birchwood and pine and [inaudible 00:48:10]. And like all these other like stupid things that are just… I don’t even want to call them stupid. They’re just a vestige of a period in time that like our president is from where things were made to be big and explosive and coked out and crazy. And that is not the person that I am.

48:29

That is not the masculinity that I have. I am a very chill dude and I think that is a type of man and a type of masculinity that we don’t get to see a lot but I think it’s very important to share. The brand is all me, the brand is all myself and my values and the things I want to push forward in life. So having that right there in front, that boldness, that courage, that prudence, those values, it is crucial to making sure that the Butters is what it is.

Jasmine Bina:
And then how did men respond to the brand? What kind of feedback do you get?

Jerome Nichols:
I surprisingly get a lot of men buying. That alone is an endorsement because men often shop differently than women, or even just say like masculine or feminine people, oftentimes more feminine people want a more social experience.

49:31

They want help. They want to be told about things and oftentimes guys just want to have the information put out in front of them or masculine people want to have the information put in front of them, or they’ve come to the store already mind made up about the thing that they need. And they just want to get it in the most efficient way possible. And I try and cater to both of those needs by making sure that all my product are descriptive.

We’ve got reviews from lots of different people, including like user reviews that we have on the site. We’ve got videos on a lot of things, instructions, all the ingredients, things that it doesn’t have, things that’s compatible with, all this very important information that if you are a person who’s like going to go out there and actually read the information for yourself, you absolutely can. Then there’s this other facet of what we do here, which is a very close communication with all of our customers. And we allow… we have a phone and email that you can just contact us when people call the phone number.

50:32

Jasmine Bina:
Yes. I’m going to interject here and mentioned that on the homepage not at the bottom, not hidden boldly in the middle of the homepage, you have your phone number and I called it and you picked up before I even knew I was going to do this interview. And that’s typical for you, right?

50:48

Jerome Nichols:
Yeah. We get, we get quite a few calls a week and sometimes people will just text message me to ask me a question about something and being able to just be there for people to offer them that helping hand is super important to me because that’s what they need. And when I was speaking about equity earlier, a lot of it is making sure people have what they specifically need to succeed, which is why we have so many different products. This is why we have so many different variations.

It’s why we make even small batches of things that may go out of stock for awhile. But we also offer the ability for you to wait list and be made… So that we know how much to make, we can make more. And we’re always trying to make sure that even things that aren’t selling the most are kept available for people. Because one of the things I hate is when things get taken away, that you finally found something that really worked for you and it disappears.

51:41

Jasmine Bina:
What I’m hearing is you have a real sense of responsibility to your customers that seems.

Jerome Nichols:
Absolutely. I’ve always had a sense of responsibility to just the community and people around me. It is just kind of my natural state that when you are in my space, in my presence, it is incumbent upon me to make sure that things are chill and cool. It’s not necessarily a big servant type person, but I absolutely make sure that people have the comfort. And when I have different friends over, I’ll make sure that they have three different drinks. If they all like something specific, I will just do that. For me that’s just normal.

52:26

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I did feel that like when I had the unboxing experience and I started using your products, by the time I had gone through so many things and just as a customer, not even doing research, just casually coming across the brand, looking at some of your content. It felt like you’d created a vibe in my home. I think that’s really powerful. I want to talk about, you have a huge spectrum products, but one of your absolute best sellers that seems to get like out sized press and awareness is your lube.

And I’m going to talk about this because it feels like and it’s been researched and we’ve talked about this, wellness and self care kind of created an avenue for sexual wellness and sexual health to really come to the mainstream into the forefront. Without shame, without old baggage, without having to go to that weird sex store in that district of town, it’s suddenly like a public good almost. It’s a moral obligation to take care of your health sexually. What part of sexual wellness did you want to explore with your brands? I know that you have the lube and it’s a functional product, but what was your thinking behind adding this to your product mix?

53:38

Jerome Nichols:
Well, I didn’t add it to my product mix. I added everything else to the lube because the product that started the Butters are the Butter Original Moisturizer, but almost immediately thereafter was the lube. Because when I was thinking of this, I wanted something simple. That would be versatile. And then I wondered if I could make something that would be both like a great body moisturizer, something that would keep me not being ashy. And then also something that would allow me to have sex on the way that I wanted to have sex. Because like before I had started the butters, I was a blogger for about seven years…seven years just kind of threw me off.

I ran a blog on LTASEX.com. It’s still available actually. And I post probably two or three times a year with updated things and I’m still actually working on a book and stuff, but that is separate. Before I got into the Butters, I was doing that and I went to college for sexual health. I was in high school, I was reading how to sex books out of interest. I’ve always been a very sexually interested person.

And somewhere along the way, I kind of understood that sexual liberation equals all other liberation because sex is the one of the unifying things about the entire human race and all animal race really there’s very, very few things besides like respirate and the basics of life that we do but sex is one of those things. And for humans specifically, sex is a bonding thing. It’s a healing thing. It’s a pleasure thing. It’s a safety thing. And a lot of times we treat it as just like this scary procreative mess. And that is not how a little gay me could ever experience it really, except for the mess part and I was lucky… but-

55:48

Jasmine Bina:
Sorry, I was going to say when you describe it as pleasure bonding, healing, all those things you just said, if you take it out of the context that’s self-care, it could be self-care-

Jerome Nichols:
Yeah absolutely.

Jasmine Bina:
… it can be sex, it could be wellness, it can be health. It’s interesting. If once you unpack all the stigmas it’s what’s left, it only makes perfect sense that it would be considered part of your self-care routine.

56:11

Jerome Nichols:
Exactly. And for me, there’s no option, but to have it there, sex is just a part of my every single day life. And I think for a lot of people that is the case, whether they’re waking up and just looking at themselves in the mirror and being like, “Oh my God, you look so great. Oh, my God…” Or falling asleep at night with their hand on their chest and being like, “Oh, I like the way that feels.” Or whether it’s masturbating or whether it’s all things. Uh, just in any number of things, rather that evoke that sexual arousal, that pleasure, that awareness, that being aroused causes any of that helps you feel more grounded and safe.

I literally use masturbation is one of my mindfulness practices because it allows for extended breathing, repetition, it’s basically meditation.

57:13

Jasmine Bina:
It does force you into the present too.

Jerome Nichols:
It does. In the same way that many of my other rituals do, including all of my products.

Jasmine Bina:
So, where do you feel like the future of sexual wellness in this context, sexual self-care, whatever you want to call it, this part that you are working in, where is it going? Where do you think it’s headed? And also, what are you trying to create or push forward for your customers, especially the men because at that part interests me.

Jerome Nichols:
Although I plan a lot of things, this is not one thing that I have planned or even thought about, but the phrase that came into my mind instinctively was that it’s all good. And I mean that in like the black people, way of that, like even down to the molecular level, everything is fine.

It’s working the way it’s supposed to work. Everything exists, everything’s normal. And we kind of have to get past a lot of the stigma that’s been put on throughout society as we’ve come together and like bigger groups and made different norms. We have to peel back through that and go back and understand why it is that we’re doing a lot of things that we do. And that’s bigger than sexuality, but it’s still crucial to like our health overall as like a community and a society and as a people.

58:42

Jasmine Bina:
Right. So do you see anybody besides yourself in the landscape doing anything interesting or provocative or kind of moving the needle in a way that you admire in any of these spaces?

Jerome Nichols:
For me, that answer is hard because I respect a lot of people, but for my specific brand of sexuality and pushing things forward with open arms that are ever working to be wider, I don’t know that there is, but that gets to why the Butters exist as well, which is the sense within me that if it doesn’t exist to make it, so I’m making it. I’m making a space wherein trans people are normal. I’m making a space where the language is different. I’m making a space where things are chill and I’m pushing that message that lifestyle through the brand of the Butters. It’s that masculine, emotional penetration skill that I enjoy using so much.

59:52

Jasmine Bina:
That’s amazing. So you’re creating this space, you’re holding it for so many people and it’s… the brand is a fantastic experience. That’s why I wanted to talk to you about it, but I have to ask you right now, what are you doing personally to practice self-care?

01:00:10

Jerome Nichols:
Making sure that I take it easy on myself. That is hard for me because I am a boy and I like working hard. I like even straining my body and being put through things that are a bit treacherous. I enjoy that. It’s just a part of my nature. And one thing that I will do is I will often overwork myself because I enjoy working.

And right now I need to be sitting my down and delegating, practicing being the CEO that I said I wanted to be, practicing relying on people, practicing being a part of a community. And those things are not things that always come naturally to me. But there are things that are really important to me being able to feel healthy and safe and that this thing that I’m doing, I’m not just extending all of my care and energy out into the world and then leaving myself an empty husk. But instead I am actually being fulfilled by what it is that I’m doing. And when I can’t do as much, I can still be fulfilled because I’ve built something that people want to be around and be within.

01:01:31

Jasmine Bina:
Thank you. Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you’re new here and you like what you’re listening to, I have one request and one offer. First, we’d love it if you left us a review, I read those reviews. They mean a lot to me, but more importantly, they help us get this podcast in front of the right people. Secondly, I’d love to give you more of our brand strategy thinking in the form of articles that we write, the videos that we publish and anything else that captures our attention, just sign up for our newsletter @conceptbureau.com/insights. And I promise you, won’t be disappointed. Thanks for listening. And we’ll catch you next time.

 

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

13: Race, Identity & Power In Our Online/ Offline Space‪s‬

Author and sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom joins us for an intimate discussion on how the mechanics of the internet, social media, digital marketing and real-life institutions amass power along racial and gender lines. We discuss how certain cultural narratives create our understanding of ourselves and others, how consumption is becoming increasingly political, and the role that brands play in the larger discussion.

Podcast Transcript

July 02, 2020

50 min read

Race, Identity & Power In Our Online/ Offline Space‪s

00:00

Jasmine Bina:
Welcome to Unseen, Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. On this week’s episode, we’re talking to =, a sociologist whose research spans higher education, work, race, class, gender, and digital societies. You likely know Tressie from her podcast, Here to Slay, which she cohosts with Roxanne Gay, or the way I know her, which is through her highly acclaimed book, Thick. A collection of personal essays that capture her life through the lens of American culture and societal institutions.

Tressie’s work has had significant impact on our current discourse around race and gender. In our conversation today, we talk about how those two things operate in our digital spaces. Think the internet, social media. But also think digital marketing, branding, consumerism. All of the pieces that make our world go round. These spaces have become the new stage for police brutality, the Black Lives Matter movement, and white supremacy. Well before all of this, they housed the social and cultural constructs that brought us to this point.

I started our conversation by asking Tressie how are notions of race and racism play out in our worlds, both online and offline, and where those notions are headed. Listen closely to this conversation, because no matter who you are, it will reveal something to you about yourself and about your world that you didn’t see before.

01:42

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
There are parts of the covert and overt patterns of racism that the internet, especially platforms, are really good at exploiting and uncovering that also operate in the quote, unquote, “real world”, but they’re just more difficult to see. Then the reverse is also true. There are forms of covert and overt racism that are easier to see in the real world. So maybe thinking about it like the architecture of the real world, the physical world, obscures and uncovers different forms differently than it does online. But there is really just one big pot of stew of stuff that is happening person to person, or what we would say, interpersonally. Groups have these forms of interaction, and then there’s like the big pot of stew, which is like the culture, economics, those big ones that aren’t a place or a thing but that are still really powerful ideas.

So politics, economics, culture, consumption, that shape how race and racism play out in our everyday lives. Then race and racism shape those things. So I think it’s about what’s uncovered and the patterns of race and racism can reveal different forms of how those things work online. But I think it’s all emerging from that same sort of ooze, of stuff that creates culture and experience.

 

03:10

Jasmine Bina:
So what’s an example of a platform that kind of brings this to the surface in a way we wouldn’t normally see?

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
I can think of two examples, and I’m absolutely borrowing some work from one of my recently graduated graduate students, a big shout out to Tabitha Locher, who did a wonderful thesis about humor, irony, and racism on the streaming gaming platform Twitch. We were able to think through how something about how Twitch is designed, or the architecture of that platform shapes different kinds of racism and what we would call race talk, or the way that we talk about race in everyday life, even when we ostensibly are not talking about race.

So her example. We know that when we say that, “Oh, we don’t go to that side of town,” we know what that means, right? We may not overtly say that that is about race, but it is a certain way of talking about race. So one of the things that she finds on the Twitch platform is that because it privileges anonymity, as you pointed out, and because people are disembedded from their local context. So when you log into something that is a streaming platform, there is something about dropping into this stream of constant activity, the way that one does on these gaming platforms, that I think cognitively separates you from your real world.

04:34

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
So there are things that you would say in that space because the consequences seem different. Right? The people in the machine aren’t these sort of fully fleshed out people to you. But the problem you have there is that you need to build instant culture, instant community. So when I log on to Twitch at 3:00 A.M., from say, Indiana. I could drop into an ongoing stream of people from all across the world in different time zones, and that’s what cool about it and what is attractive about the platform to me. But if I want to be a member of the community, I need to instantly be able to communicate with these people. We need to share a language.

Here’s where the real world part picks in. The biggest ideas, the most global ideas that we share across time zones, across identity, across place, are ideas about race. So one of the easiest ways for me to become a member of community really quickly on something like a streaming gaming platform is to make a joke about racism. Or to make a racist joke. Because it works whether I am in the UK, whether I’m in Indiana, or whether I’m in Mexico, right? So that’s a way to just really quickly shortcut the community building in a streaming platform.

Another example is a platform that I use a lot, which is Twitter. Where it’s actually a little harder to do, so you see more covert forms of racism and more implicit forms, I think, of racism, on those platforms, which is why I think there’s been such a coordinated conversation and pushback against trolling, against these coordinated misinformation campaigns that so often use race and racism as part of their attacks on people.

Because on Twitter, we aren’t dropping out of a stream and into ongoing stream. You see sort of the same accounts over time. You develop a language that doesn’t need to rely so heavily on overt ideas of race and racism for you to be in a community. So when somebody drops in, and suddenly starts race bombing the conversation, it’s a norm violation, and people can feel a certain way about that.

So it’s the same behaviors, but something that would instantly build community on Twitch actually undermines community on Twitter. But they’re both pulling from the same ideas, which are, what are the acceptable ways to talk about race and racism in certain places?

07:10

Jasmine Bina:
Right. There are also visuals or memes that I think you kind of have to dig a little bit to understand that even though they get wildly popular, they are reinforcing racist beliefs. As you were talking, it made me think of, do you remember that meme? I think it was last year where it’s like, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, and they’re in a picture together, and it’s like a 100 and whatever billion dollars in one picture and not a Gucci belt in sight. Not a flashy, you know what I’m talking about? Yeah.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Yeah, yeah.

Jasmine Bina:
You’ve talked about something along these lines in the past about consumption, luxury, wearing, displaying. How does a meme like this, if we had to decode this, what is it really telling us?

07:53

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Decoding is the exact right word. So Stuart Hall is this famous cultural historian of race and racism, and he had this idea that the way that racism perpetuates itself in a contemporary society is through the way we can encode messages in our everyday discourse so that for you to get, it’s like getting the joke. Right? Which is actually it. So a joke and a meme is a really good example of this because it only works if the people who are sending the meme and the people who are receiving the meme share the same understanding about the symbols in the meme. Right?

So you could send that same thing about Bill Gates and a Gucci belt to someone in Korea, and they’d be like, “I don’t get the joke,” because consumption and status work very differently there. There’s no race attached to the idea of status symbols in other cultures. In the US, race is encoded so deeply in our ideas about class and the right way to consume things that for that meme to work, we both have to share the idea that, oh, poor people of color buy things wrong. They spend too much money on luxury consumer goods.

I have talked about the idea that the joke works if I think I am part of the group that consumes right. So the joke actually really falls apart if I go, “Hey, I actually absolutely understand why a poor person would spend money on a luxury item.” Right? It could signal belonging very critical ways to a group of people. It could be a way for you to get status in a world where there’s very little of it to go around. Listen, status makes your life easier. When I can walk into a room, and people assume the best of me, I get different access to whatever the group controls. Right? I can get a phone call sooner. I could get the clerk to respond me in a different way. I could get a teacher to speak to me differently.

So I can actually think of a really good reason why a poor person could have the Gucci belt, but if I can’t think of that reason, then the meme is funny. So yeah, memes tap into our shared understanding about race and also class and gender, I might add, and sexuality, and heteronormative. If the joke lands, it has to be because I share your ideas about the symbols in that meme. If it doesn’t land, here’s the wonderful thing about memes. We can always say, “Oh, well, they don’t matter. They’re so low. They’re such low hanging fruit.” No one’s hurt when we share a meme. But the ideas that make the meme work actually do hurt people.

10:41

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. What was surprising to me about this one too is it was so widely shared. I wonder if half of those people realize that it was resonating with them because of the racist beliefs that they had adopted. Let’s keep talking about visuals and images here. I think you wrote someplace that visuals can be hard for a sociologist because you have to break them again.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Yes, they can.

Jasmine Bina:
But visuals have been a big part of the social discussion right now. Visuals of black men being killed by white police or black woman being killed by white police or images of people who are murdered, but back when they were at their graduation or with their family. The thing about these images, as we contemplate them, is that you have an immediate emotional response. They’re easy to share. They compel you to do something in the short term. But isn’t short cutting something? Is it kind of allowing us to skip some sort of larger moral process?

11:44

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
I think so. So the thing about images. When television was invented, and became a widely available technology, there was all this fear, truly, about whether or not human beings were capable of processing images in this way. That it would sort of reprogram our relationship to reality. Now, that may have been overstated, but I think one of the things that we are really grappling with over the last few years is it may not have been as overstated as we would like to believe.

Images work because they do seem to have a direct path to our emotions in a way that text does not. You can escape into text. But you have to work at it. Right? You have to sit down with a book. You have to engage in the stories. You have to adopt the premise of the text. So you have to sort of buy into it. Visual images shortcut the buy-in. You’re in that world whether you elected to be there or not. That’s why they’re so powerful. It can play on your emotions without you being consciously aware of the fact that that is happening. 

12:57

This is what I think we lose in the process. There is a lot of social science, actually, to this, that people develop greater capacity for empathy through reading than they do through visual images. We think that might be because you have to be consciously engaged with what you are interacting with when you are reading the text, whereas images work on us in a passive way, and therefore don’t ask much of us. So once the image stops, your empathy stops. So then what’s the feedback loop? It sets up a set of incentives kind of like the way Facebook reaction emojis do, which is you start to crave how many likes you get on Facebook, which shaped us for Instagram, which made us ready for TikTok, where it’s all about the audience feedback.

That’s why the internet runs so much so on images, because it does that. It sort of shapes our capacity for feedback, but it also creates the desire for more feedback. So we’ve become the mouse chasing the pellet. So we never stop to think about it because once the image is gone, the emotion ends. So the risk of that is, what has to happen in the case of police violence and the images of it, for example, is that for a state and a place of empathy, people have to keep being abused by the police. We need another image. We need another image. We need another image, for people to care.

That’s the catch-22, and what I think a lot of really brilliant activists have pointed out. The limits of the empathy of video images of police brutality is very narrow and doesn’t develop the capacity for sustained change.

14:57

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. We’ve spoken on this podcast before about how, we’re so limited in terms of empathy anyways. We have a hard time empathizing with the group, though we can empathize with the individual. We can hear about causes for entire nations or displaced people, or it won’t compel us as much as an image of a little girl, let’s say, who’s starving someplace.

It brings up this other point too. Tell me if you agree. I feel like sometimes if you see these images, the reaction for some people is to distance themselves from being part of that system. It makes me think of the Karen meme that’s just going around everywhere. The idea that Karen can be so neatly packaged, and she’s just this other. We’re not complicit. We didn’t create. We’re not a part of that.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
I’m not a Karen. Yeah, yeah.

Jasmine Bina:
Exactly. It feels like by identifying her, by naming her, by putting parameters around her, by giving her a certain haircut and putting her in a grocery store, it’s so clear that she’s not us, but it actually erodes our potential to really understand our role in all of this, I think.

15:49

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
So labeling the thing that is happening is a really powerful tool for resisting something that would oppress you. So what starts out as a subculture in this case, young, black, online culture, I would say, creates this idea of Karen. But they didn’t create Karen. They didn’t create Karen-ism. They labeled it and they packaged it for their form of communication, which is online sharing and meme-ification. The flip becomes when we start to focus on the signifier or the package or the idea of Karen, and we stop critiquing what made Karen, and who is Karen.

I think this would be powerful if white women’s engagement with that meme, for example, should be not, “I’m not a Karen,” but to sit in, instead, the space of, “Wow, how am I like her?” Right? We don’t have the same haircut, but I’ve overreacted like that in an environment. Or I’ve also assumed the worst of someone in an interpersonal interaction. It wasn’t the grocery store, it was the workplace. Or it wasn’t at Red Lobster, it was at the bank.

But to look for points of similarity, that moves from a place of consuming the Karen meme to developing, yes, the capacity for being what we would call critically self-reflexive, which to think about yourself. Not in a narcissistic way, but to think about yourself as others experience you. Can you be reflective in that way? It’s an uncomfortable space. But to look at those memes that are about whiteness in particular, I think it’s really important. Because it’s the most unspoken of our race talk. Right? The racial ideology that we’re not supposed to label and speak about.

17:41

But to think about how you’re similar. Not to distance yourself. Because here’s the thing. Karen’s don’t fall out of the sky. They’re not anomalies. They came from somewhere. If in a culture that is as racially segregated as ours is, very few white people, for example, have non-white friends. We know it statistically. So if black people are experiencing Karens with the frequency that we can now document, then some white person somewhere knows a Karen. I mean, that’s just statistically the probable case, right?

So I will often say to people who immediately jump up and they go, “Oh, God, no. That’s not me. That would never be me.” I go, “Well, you must know someone. You must have seen this somewhere.” The real space of moving from consuming what I would call the racist signifiers, which can make you feel good in a moment. Like, “Ooh, I’m not her. Ooh, good for me, right?” And moving instead to a place of, is this good for anybody for this kind of thing to exist? Is to sit in the moment and reflect on whether or not anything about that meme is similar to you, instead of moving so quickly to the ways that you are different from it.

18:56

Jasmine Bina:
This work of being self-reflexive and seeing how you connect, can that happen online? Or does it need to, by definition, happen offline?

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
That’s a really good question. I am almost sure that I am professionally obligated to say that it can happen online. Whether or not I think, so okay, I think in the internet we have, it is difficult for it to happen online. But the internet we have is not the only internet that could be. There was a way for us to do digitally mediated or the internet connections that is not the form of platform capture that we have right now. So there’s a way for us to have these dense forms of internet based connections that are not monetized, for example. Or that are not captured in an app or on a social media platform, where I think those types of authentic spaces could be created.

20:01

In the internet that we have, that monetizes attention, that actually shrinks the size of your world. So one of the perverse things that platforms have done to the internet is that they’ve taken connections that were supposed to make your world bigger, but through marketing and targeted advertising actually makes your actual world smaller. So you have 50,000 friends, quote unquote, “friends.” But based on those 50,000 friends, the platform now delivers to you a smaller and smaller sliver of the culture, because it will only give you the things you like.

Right? So that’s the perverse relationship. So in that space, it’s really hard to become self-reflexive because you never spark against anyone else, right? Never have that moment of friction that is necessary for that space to open up. So it is possible on a version of the internet. It’s really tough with the internet that we have.

20:59

Jasmine Bina:
Right. Now, when you’re talking about the fact that the way these platforms are monetized, and the fact that the algorithm, essentially, shows you more of what you want to see, even though, let’s say, the people you are connected to is a fair cross section of the US.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Exactly, right.

Jasmine Bina:
How does this start to shift power and resources and attention capital in certain ways around race or gender or any parameter? How does it start to pull all of that?

21:29

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
When what we pay attention to becomes as segregated as where we live, the powers accrue the same way online as they do offline, which is that we narrow the pool of voices that are considered legitimate. We start to attach a value to them, whether that’s attention or money. What’s starting to happen online is those two are starting to converge as both attention and money. That’s what I think influencer culture is, the consumer power of online purchasing does to us. By turning so many of interactions in to exchanges. So we attach a value to a smaller pool of quote, unquote, “legitimate,” or desirable voices, the targeted groups, the high quality groups of users. We’ve got affinity groups. We have all this wonderful language for it, that really boils down to we are recreating the offline status hierarchy of race online.

Once that codifies, then all of the new forms of quote, unquote “disruptive technologies” really have to replicate that to disrupt. So the disruption cycle just sort of accelerates the accrual of resources to a smaller group of people. Whether again, that’s attention or their value to marketers or those who invest and sell goods online.

 

22:55

Jasmine Bina:
The way you’re describing it, it sounds like it does it even more efficiently than it might happen.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Benjamin’s a wonderful social scientist, and he has this wonderful book about race and technology where she makes the point about, that what technology promised was this disruption of the cycle of racism, because it would open up the space for minority groups to basically flatten the power differential of size. So one of the problems that a minority group has is just that there are fewer of us, right? Numbers matter. What the internet was supposed to do is connect those smaller groups to other smaller groups, and sort of level the assymetry of numbers online.

Instead, because the way platform capture works, and advertising models have driven the shape of the internet, it speeds up the process of hardening the lines of race online. It just speeds up the cycle, because it becomes so much easier to coopt those minority voices, sort of whitewash them very quickly, attach them to the more desirable accounts or brands or ideas, and make them valuable, and technology has just sped all of that up.

24:11

Jasmine Bina:
This is where I think it gets really interesting. We’re talking about resources and attention capital. I don’t know that there’s a place where you can see it more clearly than in the beauty space. You can’t talk about beauty without talking about Instagram. It’s basically where beauty brands and lifestyle brands are born. It’s where they thrive, and Instagram is setting a lot of the norms for what counts as beauty. What are some just obvious and not so obvious ways that Instagram has defined our current standard of beauty? Or maybe just amplified what was always there.

24:44

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Mm-hmm (affirmative). There as this very hopeful moment when the internet looked like a way to surface alternative versions of beauty and value and worth. Right? It was a place where you could find other people that not only maybe valued what you value, but more importantly, what we were all looking was a place where we were valued. That’s really important for people who live in a majority culture where they are the minority, because nothing you value is ever going to be thought of as inherently valuable unless it’s stripped from you. There’s nothing more a better case of that than the case of beauty, which is minority or subcultures can come up with their own versions of what’s beautiful. But at some point, you’ve got to leave your subculture, if only to go to school, to go to work. Right? To encounter the external world.

Where beauty is a very form of capital, particularly for women who have to use because of how patriarchy is set up, they have to use beauty to a certain extent to gain access to spaces where they can compete and develop themselves. So the minute that we have to trade on beauty, again it becomes valuable, and that’s what Instagram figured out. That we love to look at beautiful things, and we love to promote our own ideas of beauty, but we also like for people to pay attention to us. When those things are in tension with each other, you will start to mimic each other or mimic the dominant form of the belief system, in this case, what is beautiful, so that you can get more attention.

It is again, the attention economy of what will attract the I’s. If there’s a preexisting idea of what constitutes beautiful or acceptable bodies, then that becomes monetized on the platform, and the beauty industry has taken the Instagram, for obvious reasons. It gives them that visual story, that again tends to short circuit our path to empathy, right? That’s why we like to think of our preference for what we find beautiful as apolitical. Like, oh, no, that’s not politics. I just like what I like. I’m just hard wired to like blondes.

26:58

Jasmine Bina:
Which is a lie.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Right, such a lie. Everything that we have a quote, unquote, “preference” for, we are pulling from these big cultural ideas. But on a platform like Instagram, that gets lost. There’s no context on Instagram. There’s just the snapshot and the caption and how many people like you. There’s no context for where the idea of blonde comes from, or blue eyes, or thinness or height or long legs, big boobs. All those things get sort of excised from the culture that produces them, and suddenly it just becomes preference, and customer taste. Right? What your followers want to see.

Then it also has created a space of freedom for minority beauty influencers, to try to create their own thing, but that also allows the majority culture to take the parts that they like from that minority culture, and then turn them into something valuable without paying the people who produced it. So you see a really tiered system in that influencer culture, beauty influencers on Instagram. Where some of the most popular influencers might be from minority groups, but some of the people that are earning the most money are not. It’s the Kardashian-ization of [inaudible 00:28:17] life, right? Everything likes some of these things that come from minority cultures the moment they become divorced from the minority people. Instagram, like we were talking about, Facebook, or Twitter, or whatever, just sort of speeds up that process, and adds a whole other layer of profitability to it.

28:34

Jasmine Bina:
In case anybody’s confused, I came across a stat that said filtered photos are 21% more likely to be viewed than unfiltered, and 45% more likely to receive comments. You learn that super fast. When you get on the platform. Then there’s some more obvious stuff too. Like you described, the basic whitewashing of influencers, or even just simple things like filters that create a new standard of beauty, and all of them lighten your skin tones.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
That is correct. It’s lightening creams, it’s the digital versions of lightening creams, which is one of the number one best global beauty sellers. There’s not a culture in the entire world, and you talk about a dominant idea about race, by the way. One of the most dominant ideas about race around the world, places where they’ve never even seen an actual blonde person, right? Is the idea however, of a global beauty ideal. That is one of the most successful ideas, and it is an anti-black idea.

One of the ways that we measure that is that every society you can buy skin lightening cream, everywhere. Loreal is one of the biggest sellers of skin lightening cream all around the world. They package it for different local context. So whether she want to be fairer skinned in East Asia, or you want to be lighter in South Asia, or you want to be whiter in South Africa, right, it is the same idea all over the world.

Instagram and filters and Facetuning have just taken that idea and digitized it. So yes, every filter not only quote, unquote, “softens” your complexion, but it also lightens it, because the idea is that to be lighter is to be more beautiful, and therefore attract more attention.

30:23

Jasmine Bina:
It literally is in the air that we breathe. I didn’t even really see it that much until I started reading your book last year, and I realized how much colorism there is in Middle Eastern culture. My parents are Iranian, and it’s very prevalent. But you don’t even realize that you’re observing that narrative until, well, for me, I read your book, and then I couldn’t unsee it.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Well, that’s amazing in an I’m sorry kind of way. But yeah, that’s amazing, thank you.

Jasmine Bina:
Well, your book is incredible. We’re going to talk about it now. So your book is a collection of essays. Every one of them is profound, and all of them focus on the structural violence that is committed against black woman. You can’t read this book and not realize how that structural violence isn’t making all of us sick in some ways.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Yes. Yes. That for me is the takeaway. Yes, that it implicates us all and makes us all worse off.

31:30

Jasmine Bina:
Absolutely. Something that was interesting to me, it was clear to me when I read your book, a lot of these ideas, and this happens in our work too all the time, come back to capitalism. It’s inescapable. You have a passage in the book, and we’ve already talked about this a bit, but I just want to read this passage, and if you want to expand on it, that’d be great. But it’s a long passage, so I’m going to read it. You say:

Our so called counter narratives about beauty and what they demand of us cannot be divorced from the fact that beauty is contingent upon capitalism. Even our resistance becomes a means to commodify, and what is commodified is always, always stratified. There’s simply no other way to coerce. Beauty must exclude.

I don’t even know if you need to explain that. I feel like any woman hearing that is going to feel it, and I understand that this is from your perspective as a black woman, where it’s extremely personal as well. It would be great if you could talk a little bit about what the context around this was. What you really meant by this.

32:34

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Yeah. I was responding to several things. One was as a sort of publicly visible academic and sociologist, I often get these calls from brands, especially over the last two or three years, where there’s a lot of cultural capital attached to the brand that quote, unquote “gets it right”, it being diversity, inclusion, of what have you. So often times a brand will reach out to me saying, “Hey, we just want to strategize on this thing we’re launching. We want it to be inclusive,” and they always list as the example, the idea is the Dove beauty campaign. They want to do what Dove did with beauty. Which makes it sound like Dove got it right.

Jasmine Bina:
Oh, they didn’t.

33:24

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
No. Exactly. They absolutely did not. They’re always so surprised when they get me on the call. I go, “Well, hey, I’ll talk to you.” I already know they’re probably not going to like what I say. Because I’ll say to you, “Well, first of all, you’re starting with an ideal that I think is actually fundamentally flawed.” If you want to do the Dove beauty campaign, that’s not something I would encourage, because the Dove beauty campaign promotes this idea of everyone can be beautiful, in a context where we know that is empirically untrue.

The selling of the idea that we can individually overcome these big structural forces that absolutely do shape our lives may make us feel good in a moment, but kind of like the way visual images shortcut our empathy, it really obscures the reality of people’s lives, particularly women’s lives, where again, our value is still contingent upon whether or not we are viewed as physically acceptable.

As long as our value as human beings is conditioned on whether or not we are desirable to someone, then beauty will always be political, and when you make money on beauty, then you’re dealing in the politics of that exclusion. We have to deal with the fact that there are actual barriers to being included in that narrative that no amount of working out, eating well, shaping up, narrowing, lightening, whatever, is ever going to overcome. Until we accept that, until we get to a point that there are limits to what an individual can do, we are trapped in the very system that is abusing us for economic gain.

35:12

So what I have argued is that there is a setting yourself free when you acknowledge that I can like myself and all of my imperfections, but that the political problem is not what I have done to myself, the political problem is what has been done to me. Why do I have to consume these ideas about myself to participate in the world? Why do I have to dress this way? Why I have to perform a certain type of acceptability?

One of the things that we ask of women, particularly when they are deemed not attractive, which by definition, non-white women, by definition can’t ever really become as a group. There can be exceptions, but as a group of people, it cannot happen. So one of the things that happens when we stop accepting that that is the case, is we can say, “Oh, I can stop twisting myself into a pretzel. I can reject that. I can say, ‘I feel good about myself.'” That’s just fine. But I can reject the idea there’s something I need to buy to make myself better. That’s the economic piece.

36:20

Jasmine Bina:
It’s not easy.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
No, it is not.

Jasmine Bina:
It takes a lot of decoding and unbundling the world outside of yourself, and it’s different than what that Dove campaign was doing, which was saying, “Oh, if you’re just confident, you’re beautiful.’ Which puts the burden back on the woman. It’s a moral failing on your part if you can’t be confident in this world.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
My God. They drop us into a whole world, where from the moment you’re born, you are shaped into a performance of desire and beauty, and then blame us when we try to do it.

Jasmine Bina:
Yes.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
I mean, how perverse is that? If a person was doing that to us, we would say the person is abusive. We would say that person is emotionally manipulative and abusive. But when a brand does it, it whitewashes the abusive part of it, and I use whitewash quite deliberately there. Yes, because it takes away the violence of what that does to a person, to drop you into a system, and then say, “How dare you have conformed to it?”

37:21

Jasmine Bina:
Yes, and that was I think a tough pill for people to swallow when the reality of that Dove campaign, years later on, started to surface. Because that’s what all lifestyle branding became about.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
That’s right.

Jasmine Bina:
It was all about, you can change yourself, and you talk about this. I don’t think this quote I have here, I don’t think it’s from your book. But you had said in an interview somewhere that the lie we tell in our Western ideal of meritocracy is that there’s something that those people can do to themselves to fit in better, but the ultimate truth is that there’s nothing you can do.

This ties really well to another essay in your book, that I think is the most popular essay. It seems like most people found themselves in your essay called Dying to Be Competent. That was an example of, you did do all of the right things, and that’s when you really saw the lie. Like I said, you can try to unbundle yourself from it, but you catch yourself in it all the time. I would love it if you could talk about that a little bit.

38:24

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Yeah. This is absolutely was coming from the sociological side of me, and then the personal side of me, and it’s the point where the two meet. Which is sociologically, we’re trained to look at these big systems, and figure out how they work and who succeeds in them, and who fails in them. As a person, however, who lives in a body that the system was not designed for, I had experienced that sociology very differently than the way we sometimes talk about it, which is from a distance and with a certain amount of expertise is supposed to be separated from your personal experiences, et cetera.

Well, as a black woman who is also a sociologist, there really isn’t any such thing. Instead of saying that was a problem, I wanted to say, “No, but look how much sharper our understanding of the world is when we don’t have that false divide.” When I could speak about the fact that there was a system designed to deliver medical care to me, healthcare. I was pregnant, and I was going through the healthcare system in a pregnant, female body, which is already a very vulnerable position, by the way. Any woman who has ever been pregnant can tell you about the ways that you’re gaslit, infantilized, the way that people speak over you. They want to talk to your spouse or your partner instead of you. The way medical providers don’t listen to you about what’s happening to your body, the way they try to discipline you so you are pregnant the right way. Gain weight, gain too much weight. Don’t think of yourself as disabled even though you’re in crippling pain. Work through it, get over it. Snap back.

39:59

Oh my God, I hate this language where immediately upon having the baby, you’re supposed to snap back, meaning to your original body, forgetting the fact that this major transformation has happened to you physically. The healthcare system does that to every woman, but by design it is structured to do that to some women more so than others, and I was one of the women, that there was an assumption of competence that was afforded white middle class and upper class women in that healthcare system that was not afforded to me, despite the fact that I was very much middle class. I have all of those external markers of competency. I was highly educated, I had degrees, I was married. I had the quote, unquote, “good health insurance” from a quote, unquote, “good employer.”

But in the moment of interacting with the healthcare system at every single step of the process, I was only granted access once I would concede that I had made a mistake, that I was incompetent, that I had misread my signs of labor, that I should not have been here, that I had done something wrong. That’s a broader critique on the very idea of meritocracy in our society. This idea that meritocracy, our systems that are supposed to promote meritocracy. In my case, I used healthcare, but it’s just as true of education, of work, of technology, of democracy, the criminal justice system, that there is an assumed subject that that system works for.

41:34

But the most basic level is the person who can read English, because all the forms are in English. It’s the person who can afford a representative. Whether that’s a lawyer in a courtroom or an agent of some sort, that signals to people that you need to be treated in a certain way. But there’s an assumed subject in all of these systems, and by design, system after system after system, it becomes clear that none of them are designed for me. I am always the exception, and that there is no amount of earning, external validation, and credentials and symbols that are going to overcome the fact that this is not structured for me.

To circle back to where our conversation started, that yeah, that’s about me. But it’s also about how what happens to me impacts what happens to other people. When the system is designed to make me vulnerable, just to stay efficient, it’s going to make a whole bunch of other people vulnerable too. So yes, the thing that’s designed to exclude me by definition never stops at just me. It will always, always to become more, more efficient, so when we talk about an organization becoming lean or flexible or nimble or flat, what we’re talking about how can it more quickly and efficiently figure out who’s competent and who’s incompetent. How can it sort people more efficiently?

43:06

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
The minute we do that, it’s not just about women, you all, it never stops there. It’s also going to pick up disabled people who may also be black women, but may not be. It is going to pick up people who are not English speakers. It doesn’t stop there. It’s going to pick up poor people. It won’t stop there. It’s going to pick up working class people who are maybe just a little less working class than others. Then it’s going to tap into middle class people, which incidentally is where I think we are right now. It is middle class people feeling that they are not as different as they thought.

Jasmine Bina:
Really, who is middle class right now anyway? I mean, do any of us have savings that will last us longer than a couple of months? It’s a complete fiction.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Yes. If the pandemic has not shown us anything else, I hope it has shown us that. That very, very few of us have enough resources where we are not the incompetent subject really, really fast.

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I think very few people realize that that entire phrase was completely made up. I think as part of a political campaign. I don’t know how many generations okay.

44:10

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Oh, comes out of the 1940s, yeah. Yep. Yep.

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, I’m talking to a sociologist. So obviously you know the answer. Okay. I want to mention, you touched on this briefly. What was really powerful about this book, and a lot of your writing, is the fact that we talk to a lot of sociologists on this show, and sociology sometimes just feels very divorced from what it’s actually studying. I’ve spoken with sociologists that are experts in digital worlds just like you, but they don’t even engage in digital media.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Isn’t that weird?

Jasmine Bina:
I know. I still want to interview those people, so I’m not going to critique it.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
No, it’s totally fine. As a sociologist, I think that about my profession all the time. It’s actually really delightful for me to hear someone from outside the profession comment upon that, because I actually, and I’m in a place professionally where I’m thinking about that a lot, by the way. So yeah, no, I know. Totally happens.

45:11

Jasmine Bina:
It feels like you’re opening the door for other people in your position to start writing like this. Because if sociology, I don’t know what the ultimate goal is, if it’s not to actually put a mirror up to our faces, and effect change, right? Because I don’t know that we can trust our social systems or political systems or financial systems to make that change for us anymore. So I do feel like sociologists need other tools, and that’s what makes your writing so, I think, effective for a lot of people. That’s why people see themselves in your book, across the board, people see themselves in your book.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Thank you.

Jasmine Bina:
So you have, it seems, a real opinion on the corporate stuff of all the things that we’re discussing here. I don’t think it’s fair to ask you, “Okay, so what’s the answer?” I don’t know if that’s fair.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Well, thanks. I appreciate it, because we don’t do answers. Because nobody’s ever going to like my answer. My answer is like, more of what we’re doing now, and everybody’s over it, right? But yes, it’s more protest, it’s more pushing back, it’s more naming and shaming and organizing and being super uncomfortable far longer than we want to be uncomfortable. But yeah, nobody likes those answers, which is fair.

46:26

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, well, but if you have the answers, I would like to hear them. My question was going to be, beyond these attempts. Forget diversity, inclusion, that should be table stakes. Forget posting whatever and making sure your messaging is right. What would it take to kind of solve a problem, like here’s an example. I think it was a New York Times article about how luxury brands are boarding up their store fronts, speaking of imagery. Then they go and hire muralists to paint BLM murals. When they’re really taking their capitalist intentions of protecting their assets and wrapping it in a message. I mean, you don’t have to dig very far to see that. What kind of change would it take for stuff like that to stop happening? That is a big question.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
If we haven’t learned anything from the just phenomenal success, not necessarily good success, but the phenomenal success of monetizing our attention, in the attention economy, in the digital connected society, what I think we should have learned is that our attention is so valuable in a consumer society. Maybe even more valuable than the things we actually buy, which seems perverse to us, which is why I think we haven’t really taken to the idea.

47:50

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
That we will do these boycotts. Amazon blackout day. Literally Amazon doesn’t care. Amazon was designed to be distributed enough that no disruption in any part of its market will affect the overall health of the company. That’s the way globalization works. It was the whole point. But what does start to impact the company, like Facebook, who apparently this week is shaking in their boots over the last couple weeks at the idea that advertisers are starting to pull out, or quote, unquote, “boycotting,” but they’re not boycotting just in money. What they’re really saying is we will turn attention away, and other people saying they will follow suit.

I think our attention and what we will pay attention to is maybe more valuable than where we even spend our money because the way global capital works, the way we spend our money just doesn’t disrupt the way it did 30, 40 years ago. So for that sort of crass performative capitalism, where they quickly co-opt the images of revolution while calling in private police forces to protect their $10 stuff in a store. Probably the best thing we can do is to deny them our attention, believe it or not. Which would mean not taking the pictures of H&M got it right. Or, well, look at this brand with this really cool ad about Black Lives Matter.

49:23

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Frankly, it shouldn’t matter what Nike says about whether or not black lives matter. Nike should be held account to taxation and democratic participation in keeping our society functioning. We probably shouldn’t look to them for a consumer brand message. Now, we should hold them accountable for not being anti-black, but probably trying to seek out a message from them that is pro-Black Live Matter really isn’t the right form of politics for our moment, because it’s too easy to perform it. It’s just far too easy to perform it, and to obscure the way the business actually works.

So I actually think so many of the young activists, by the way, totally get this.

Jasmine Bina:
I was going to say that.

50:09

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
I think they get it. They’re the ones who have actually pushed my thinking on this, and have shown that this works in community after community, who I think needs to get this is frankly those of us who are maybe no longer considered young. Okay. We might need to learn it. I think sort of middle America safely ensconced in sort of our own little social world, we need to learn that message. But I’m telling you, young people have got it. They’re not anti-consumption, but they do not look to consumption as their politics in the same kind of way that some of us were raised and socialized to do it.

So I think the right answer is to deny these things our attention, to pay attention to the things you care about. Is the way I’ve heard that said, and it sounds really simple until you realize if you ever track your media diet or something, and you realize you really have spent way more time focusing on the things that you don’t want to see reproduced, and not nearly enough time promoting things that you do what to see reproduced. In an attention economy where so much lives and dies on what we pay attention to, we should probably pay attention to what we want.

51:20

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. It seems like our generation, for some reason, because we were born into this. We were the first generation. We just don’t understand the value of our attention, and we don’t have a good grasp of where we spend it. But I do feel like our children or the next generation, this young generation coming up really does understand it.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Man, do they ever. Which is, this is the natural course of things. They are supposed to understand it better. But I marvel at the speed with which they can just sort through corporate lingo and language and branding and brand speak, and signaling. I mean, they can just slice through it. The part where I think we can help is we can maybe help give them some language around some of that, what we know about consumption and about politics. I do think we have maybe more experience with that, having seen the shift happen. But they absolutely have a speed with which they can analyze those things that we cannot top.

52:23

Jasmine Bina:
Going back to Nike. So tell me if I was hearing this right. You feel like it is their job, because this is where it gets thorny for some people. It is their job to be very political with how they run their business and where their money goes, and where they invest.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Yes.

Jasmine Bina:
Got it. My last question for you. I can’t get away from the book, and it was something that I was thinking about the whole time that I was preparing for this interview. You have a collection of beautiful essays in there. What I kept wondering was, what were the essays that weren’t included?

52:57

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
What an amazing question. I got to tell you, I don’t think anybody’s asked me that. I absolutely love that question. Wow. So I’m in a creative moment where I’m thinking about the next project, so because of that revisited the development of the last book, and so I was thinking about that a lot. I think we started want, I know I started with over 100 essays. There were some previously done. There was some that were kind of seeds of ideas. But I started with a lot, and so it was more a process of integrating some ideas and narrowing than it was broadening the scope. It really was for me about focus.

When you do this type of collection, part of it was that the structure of the essays and how they spoke to each other was as much the message of the book as any one individual essay was. That whether a reader realized it or not, I hope they came away at the end of having read them in their totality together as a conversation across the essays, and that big idea was, “Hey, look what happens when we take black women’s lives seriously.” Look what happens. Look what you understand about yourself now. Look at how differently you’re looking at the things you love. Look how much better you can explain what you believe in. Look at what happens when black women’s humanity is really serious.

54:23

It doesn’t exclude. It actually includes in a way. It’s using a particular language. Black and woman, to include. We think of being particular about our language as a tool of exclusion, and I wanted to show that no, it’s an actual, a calling in, not an exclusionary process. So one of the things I did when I was going through the essays was does this serve this bigger sort of feeling that I hope people walk away with? I’m always thinking when I’m writing, did I write this for me or did I write this for the world? Because there’s a difference. There’s some things that are about me writing to myself and my own understanding, but that won’t necessarily push the understanding of a reader or push a conversation that I think is important.

So for example, there were essays where I was endlessly fascinated with something, and I just had to realize, other people maybe are not.

55:20

Jasmine Bina:
Such as?

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Let’s see. I have a whole thing about where did all of the mixed race, interracial couples come from in branding over the last couple years, and I had this theory that we could track it to the rise of interracial couples in network television, and really I ended up tagging it to Shonda Rhimes. I was like, once you gave a showrunner the freedom to cast in a colorblind way, but the showrunner was a black woman, you got these pairings of romantic couples that had never been seen on network television before. And they worked.

So brands start to pick them up as a way to signal diversity without having a diversity message. So a Swiffer now could be diverse if you put a mixed race couple in the ad. Cheerios was another good example. So I have what I call these diversions that I go down, but I thought, does it move forward a conversation, or is it just something that I think is interesting? So that’s once of the ways that I decided, and that’s an example of one of the ones that didn’t quite make the cut. But it’s not any less fascinating to me for it.

56:28

Jasmine Bina:
I was very pleased to learn through one of your blog posts that you and I have something in common. We both have read a lot of harlequin novels, for some reason.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
So many. Oh my goodness, you should have said that in the introduction. We should have started there. Okay, so did you grow up with them, or did you come to them later?

Jasmine Bina:
No, I discovered them when I was an undergraduate at Berkeley, and I didn’t go home one summer because I don’t know, I was depressed and not talking to my parents, and I was like, okay. I have to fill my summer with something, and there was a giant stack at the Salvation Army.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
That’s exactly where I would get them. Because for a dollar, they’ll give you a whole sack of them for two dollars. They’re so cheap.

57:12

Jasmine Bina:
There’s so much. You don’t have to read too many to see the same patterns emerge, and it’s like eating junk food. You feel icky after reading them. But I need to know, where are you zeroing in on this content? Why does it resonate with you?

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Oh, what a wonderful question. I now attribute it to, in part, I think I’ve just always been curious about how other people live. Nothing in a harlequin book resonates with my actual life. There’s no dukes or lords. Nobody’s coming on a horse to save anybody where I’m from. So it was quite literally like reading, I don’t know, the cultural diary of people that I would never engage with in real life. It was actually a very long time before I realized all white people did not come from a duke or a lord, and did not grow up on a horse farm in Wyoming with an attractive head of the family, who left a whole bunch of money. In the will, there was a requirement that you had to marry someone who would take care of the cows. I didn’t know that that actually didn’t happen in real life.

But I was fascinated by the peak into, and I think what I can now say it was, I was fascinated with privilege. I was fascinated with inheritance because I just didn’t operate in that way in my world. Actually, I learned a whole language of class from them, because so many of them borrow from the British system of class, which is not how it works in America. So you get these, what titles were, and how property worked, and that women were always property. I think it was a peak into trying to think about what gender meant, and how gender worked. Talk about beauty economy, right? The entire harlequin world is built, there’s not an ugly woman in harlequin. There isn’t a single one who doesn’t have flaxen hair that blows in the wind and eats all she wants and never gains weight, and she’s always desirable. So that fiction and ideology was just endlessly fascinating.

Then there was also just a little taboo breaking. I knew I wasn’t supposed to be reading them. That part’s always a little fun.

59:42

Jasmine Bina:
I think anybody would have that experience now too because there’s something weird about, they were always impossible stories. I saw the same thing, the same trope where a jerk falls in love with a beautiful woman, and he’s a total, I was going to say dick to her. He’s not nice to her at all, and she has to somehow get him to fall in love with her, but she can never voice how she feels. It always comes to this climax where she can never say how she feels, he has to just come to understand it through her withholding or whatever weird thing that she does.

Jasmine Bina:
Which is also thematically, I don’t watch too many Hallmark films, but I know you always have an interest in Hallmark films too.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
I’ve watched them all for you. You don’t need to watch them. It’s totally fine. Some people find it very weird that a scholar of race and racism and inequality and economic class would watch Hallmark movies. So one of the things, though, that I like about Hallmark movies is that there’s no guessing. So much of my professional life in the real world, especially now, there’s so much predicting we need to do, and it’s all happening so fast. So the Hallmark universe is so predictable. There’s never going to be a villain who’s motivations I don’t understand. Every story is going to end nicely. It’s going to be wrapped up.

01:01:03

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
But I also think of it as like a weird Wes Anderson universe, in that it is the exact inverse of the real world. So it has all of the elements of our everyday life, but flipped upside down. Yes, all of the world in Hallmark is white, but in that world it’s good. The residential segregation seemed to have happened, but everybody likes it that way. Yes, there are poor people in the Hallmark universe, by the way, which I find so fascinating. But they’re never hungry or cold or homeless. They’re just kind of temporarily out of money. Which is such an American fantasy, right? We all think we’re just temporarily broke.

Jasmine Bina:
Oh, yes, I know that myth. Yes.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
Right. In the Hallmark universe, it actually happens. Right, and so it takes all of these really American idea and flips them upside down in a falling through the looking glass kind of way. That as a sociologist, where my whole job is figuring out how the social structure works, it sort of de-familiarizes it, in a really interesting way. Like, Hallmark did gender and class. Flips them upside down so I can examine them, which is really helpful because again, I don’t navigate those spaces of privilege and wealth, and as a sociologist, it’s actually really hard for us to gain access to those places. If you’re not born to them, you’re not going to just walk into a really elite social group and start studying it. Power doesn’t like to be studied.

So one of the ways we can do that is through the popular culture that’s created about power and privilege, and believe it or not, I think Hallmark is an example of that. They wouldn’t say so. They think they’re working class culture. I’m like, no, this is all a love story to capitalism. It’s all a big love letter to money. That’s all it is.

01:03:02

Jasmine Bina:
Is it true that you’re going to cover this for a new podcast?

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
I kid you not. I’m actually talking about this. I’ve got an actual team of people. We’re getting together to talk about the perverse mundaneness of the Hallmark universe and what it says about our real world.

Jasmine Bina:
There must be so much to dig in through there.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
I think so. I mean, I hope it’s not that essay that I tossed to the side, where I thought it was only interesting to me. I think if we do this right, that it is interesting to people who don’t read Hallmark novels. I think this is interesting on so many different levels, once you get over the sort of ick factor about it being a Hallmark movie.

Jasmine Bina:
Right. Well, thank you so much. This was such a rich conversation.

Tressie McMillan Cottom:
It sure was. I cannot thank you enough for being a wonderful interlocutor, and having me on. This was so much fun for me.

01:03:59

Jasmine Bina:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen, Unknown. Our family of listeners is growing fast, and we appreciate each and every one of you that’s coming along for the ride, asking questions of the world, and having big conversations with us. Come join us online too. You can find me @triplejas on Twitter and Instagram. That’s triplejas. Sign up for our newsletter at conceptbureau.com/insights. We’ll talk to you soon.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Think With Us:

Strategy In Your Inbox

Join over 20,000 strategic thinkers.