Categories
Podcast

3: Women, Beauty, Money and Motherhood

Influencer-led beauty veteran Ria Muljadi gets deep with us about the current role of a women’s brand, what it means to have a realization about yourself through a brand experience, the personal impact of reconsidering your national identity, and how burnout is the new cause.

Podcast Transcript

December 6, 2019

8 min read

Women, Beauty, Money

00:12

Jasmine Bina:
Welcome to the Unseen Unknown podcast. I’m Jasmine Bina. In today’s episode, I’m speaking with Ria Muljadi. Ria is a business strategist that comes from the finance side of things. She’s the current CFO of EM cosmetics, the current CFO of Dividend Capital, which is a crypto fund founded by perhaps one of the most influential influencers around Michelle Phan and she’s the former head of finance for Ipsy. I really wanted to talk to Ria because she has a unique perspective. On one hand, she was literally there from day one, building the modern influencer-led beauty industry that we know today. On the other hand, she kind of has an outsider perspective because she didn’t come at this from a branding role. We talked about a few things. Obviously we talked a lot about beauty and specifically, if beauty is moving on from this shallow two-dimensional idea of youth that we grew up with, what is the new beauty about?

We talked about what it means to create a woman’s brand or gender specific brands and we also talked about what it means to have a realization about yourself through a brand experience, something that I think we’re all aiming for as brand strategists. Ria also shares a really profound, personal story about being an American and then choosing to change that identity when she realized that the title of being an American wasn’t giving her the life that she imagined for herself or her family. You might have noticed by now that we start these episodes with business and we end someplace really personal. Ria was exceptionally generous on both ends of the spectrum and I think you’ll appreciate it.

Okay, So Ria, I’d like to start these conversations with a big question. The reason I wanted to have you in this conversation today is because beauty is fascinating for so many reasons. It’s one of the most purely branded spaces, but what’s really interesting is, I’m hard pressed to think of another space where you have women founders creating products for women. I think it’s really easy to find products in any other space that are founded by men for a woman consistently. It’s even harder to find a woman who create for men. That’s even harder, but that’s another conversation. If you look at the beauty space, do you see anybody who’s doing anything interesting right now? Are there any women who are doing something that’s kind of tectonically shifting the space?

02:43

Ria Muljadi:
Actually, I mean, not right now, not so much in beauty for me because my background is so financial. Actually, one company I’m very fascinated with is Ellevest and with Sally Krawcheck and how she’s trying to educate women about being financially independent and to know your money because money is power and to be very smart about it. I think it’s important. I don’t think that messaging has been communicated. Money, it seems like it’s a very man’s world and no one ever thinks women need to know much about it and be very smart about it. With my background, I mean, when I talk to my family or my friends, I always try to educate them. “This is what you need to do. You need to take care of yourself.” But yeah, I think that company is fascinating. I mean, it’s really good what they’re doing.

03:31

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. The thing about money that’s interesting to me is that, I feel like whenever you dig down, money is not about money, it’s about self-worth. If you respect yourself, you behave differently with your money than if you don’t or if you trust yourself, you behave differently with your money than you don’t. I feel like I’ve lived that experience as I’ve grown up and gotten more mature. I don’t know if this is correct, but I feel like I remember that there was some criticism around Ellevest and this idea that it’s specifically for women. This is as something that happens with female narratives all the time.

Is it right to create something that’s just for women kind of? Some people feel like it infantilizes things like, you’re creating training wheels for women or you’re… Is it really about inclusivity if you’re leaving half of the population out? I think they got some flack for that. I know there was another car company too, that Pro Commercials, maybe a couple of years ago, that were about letting you come in to buy a used car, but it was for a female experience and it was less pressured and more transparent and things like that. It bothered people, both men and women alike. What do you think about that when it comes to Ellevest or any company that’s trying to create something that’s specifically for a woman?

04:44

Ria Muljadi:
I think it’s true that it make it seems like, “Oh, are you saying that woman’s not smart enough and they need more handholding?” I don’t see it that way. I just see it, because the messaging hasn’t been there, so it’s almost like you don’t know. You don’t know what you don’t know. It’s almost just like as simple as the criticism of, “Oh, if you’re buying a latte, don’t buy that latte. You need to save all of this money.” There are priorities and it’s okay to take care of yourself. You not have to be shamed for doing things for yourself. I think this company, it’s important to have that messaging and I don’t think companies run by men would actually care about these things.

I don’t think the point is too handholding because they think women are dumb, but I think it is a fact that a woman needs to be more educated because the messaging hasn’t been there. Yeah, they need to know whether you’re a housewife, whatever your profession, you’re teachers, that you do need to take care of yourself. It is important. I think this messaging hasn’t been around, so it’s good to keep repeating it. There’s a lot of questions like, “Oh, do I need to share a joint account? What would happen if my husband did this?”


They talk about uncomfortable situation like, “Oh, what would happen if we got a divorce?” And things like that. People don’t want to talk about it. It’s almost like, before it’s taboo. You don’t talk about this. Love is forever. Marriage is forever, but it’s true. It’s life. Life happens. You have kids. You have to think about that. What do you do if you don’t plan and you just think everything’s going to be perfect? Then that’s not good. You need to protect yourself.

06:28

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. So I think you bring up something interesting that I’m seeing a lot in the space around wealth management, so companies like Wealth Friends or Wealthsimple. A lot of people in that space are really leaning into the discomfort around money. Not that it’s a gender conversation, it’s very universal, I think, across the entire population and they’re dealing with all uncomfortable emotions. I think that’s a really interesting place to build a brand. Money has always been so utilitarian when it comes to branding. “We have the best APR or APY. We can give you the most options when it comes to you getting something financed or whatever. I mean, we can help you save money and we’ve kind of. I remember, Digit we help you save money by siphoning it off of your account, so you don’t even miss it when it’s gone.”

I think the space has kind of woken up and realized that the real problem isn’t how to save money. It’s the emotional reasons for why we don’t save money. I think that’s what you’re speaking to. The other thing that’s interesting here is, I feel like, and I’m guilty of this too, it’s easy to criticize these kind of early messages that feel like we had talked about, hand-holding too much or underestimating what a woman is capable of. The fact is, you need to honor them because these are the necessary stepping stones. Right?

I had somebody that I was speaking with last week on our last podcast and the term girl boss kind of felt uncomfortable for her. The fact is, just like you said, nobody was having these conversations and you can’t go from zero to 100. You need to have these halfway points, these stepping stones, so that we can reach in your consciousness, get comfortable here, make this our new baseline and then move up to the next thing. I think we’re seeing that in a lot of interesting spaces where there are kind of a lot of emotional triggers at work, especially as more and more women become founders that weren’t really addressed before. I think finance is totally 100% that.

08:27

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. I think it’s easy to assume that, “Oh yeah. I mean, a woman should have known that. It’s as simple as 401k or IRA. How could you not know about that if you’ve been working for a while? The truth is, a lot of professionals don’t know about it. When I was at Ipsy and I also take care of HR and benefits, and I work with 100s of employees repeating myself, what it means, what you need to do and these are people with graduate degree and they’re not dumb. They’re well educated, but that doesn’t mean they know these things, how the system works and how they need to take care of themselves. I think it’s important to have it out there.

09:14

Jasmine Bina:
I’m going to ask you something. I’m going to challenge you a little bit. Do you think that it’s not that they don’t know, because I feel like the information is out there? At some point we’re taught these things, but that, when we turn away from important information, oftentimes, it’s because we’re scared of something or we believe something about ourselves. I never really embraced math, even though I actually really enjoy it, but I always grew up with a story that I wasn’t good at it. I don’t even know where that story came from, but the stories affect our behaviors around these things. Did you ever get the sense that that was part of what was at play in your experience?

09:45

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah, sometimes, I think the information is too complicated that they’d rather just ignore it even competently. But when insurance company come and talk about their plans or whatever, it gets so complicated and people just go like, “Huh. I don’t know what to do. Just tell me what to do.” They just give up. They don’t want to do the research, whatever. I think it’s important to keep this messaging because people, they grow up. Right? First, maybe when you’re single, you don’t care so much about it. Then you are married, you have kids. I think, again, this messages are very important because, yeah, you do have to pay attention to it and it will matter to your life as you go through these different stages of life.

I think making sure the messaging is simple enough for people to absorb and that’s not intimidating, it’s important because sometimes it’s like, “What?” Especially in Silicon Valley, when you start talking about stock option, people are just like, “What? I don’t know. What do I do with my stock? What does that even mean? I agree to something and I don’t understand.” I mean, It’s true because I think that just the message is just too complicated and so you need a simple content.

10:51

Jasmine Bina:
There’s a way these people complicate it. You think it’s a matter of simplifying things in a matter, like overcoming any kind of biases or fears or anything like that.

10:59

Ria Muljadi:
I think part of it, maybe. There’s also a thought maybe if you believe, “I’m never good at money and sort of managing money.” It’s like, “I can never do this.” You know? I have had friends that say that out, guiding them, “You should do this and this.” They’re like, “I don’t know how to do that. I’m not good at it.” I’m like, “No, it’s not about being good. Just make good decision and plan for it.” It’s like you’re not inherently good at money. You need to learn. You need to figure it out and it’s actually very important.

11:25

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, being good at money is kind of just like, it’s a misnomer. It doesn’t even make sense. It’s not something you’re good at. Right. That’s interesting. I love it when, that’s language that like you deal with all the time. I say that, I hear it, but it never occurs to you just stop and look at it and be like, “This is literally nonsensical. You are not good at money. You can’t be bad at money. It’s just something that you decided to either deal or not deal with.”

11:54

Ria Muljadi:
Those biases definitely happen. I go to these meetings with a bunch of investment bankers. Right? Of course, 90% are men or I go to the founders and sit down with investors, mostly men, they would automatically talk to the men. They don’t talk to me, even though I’m the head of finance. I know more information about the business. I can spit out numbers and I know the data, but they don’t talk to me because of the biases. I feel it. I mean, I don’t know if it’s true, they’re just unconsciously doing it or It’s like, “She’s a woman or she’s young. She won’t know so much.” And they go to the older man next to him or next to her to talk about it. There are these biases that makes you feel like, “Do I know what I’m doing?”

There’s confirmation. Right? This messaging is like, I take care of the business. I run it day by day, but then, you see, you talk to people outside the business and they don’t even acknowledge it. It’s almost like you start questioning yourself. At Ipsy, I started quite young, and one of the youngest one, and I’m female, a minority, I’m not from Stanford, a lot of just the normal Silicon Valley head of finance. People are just like, they don’t get it. “What is this person doing here?”

13:21

Jasmine Bina:
That reminds me of something really fascinating that actually just happened with one of our clients recently. A lot of times, before you can even talk to somebody and I’m really pulling a metaphor from what you just described, it’s a thin thread, but it’s there. Before you can even like talk to an audience, you have to show them that you see them. You have to say like, “We see you, you belong here.” Then from there, you can talk about whatever it is that you’re trying to change their minds about. I see this in branding all the time. A lot of times people will talk at their users, but they never talk on their level. They never acknowledge that, let’s say you started taking online courses for something and your brand is an online course. “We see the sacrifice that you’ve made to be here. We see that you have other commitments. We see that it’s really scary to make this choice.”

You have to say those things a lot of times and acknowledge people so that they feel comfortable before you can even tell them, “This is what we believe education should be about. This is what we believe how you should approach the second phase of learning in your life.” I think that it applies on a brand level like macro, and then it also happens just in interpersonal relationships, like you described, like in that meeting.

You’ve probably already seen some of this happening in your space because you work with a huge influencer and you’ve been there since the beginning with her. You’ve seen how that space has changed, but that it’s also very much about, I think when influencers first came on the scene, it was exciting because people felt like they could see themselves in these people. The idea, the aspiration was starting to change. Right? It was very much like talking to a friend. There’s so much changing in this space. Influencers are dead. Long live influencers. I feel like we’re always post-influencer or pre-influencer. The new age is the influencer. What I’m more interested in is how the influencer is relating to the user. Have you seen anything in that relationship changing or taking an interesting turn recently?

15:21

Ria Muljadi:
Well, I think, like you said in the beginning, it’s definitely, it’s more raw. It’s more original. Right? It’s like talking to a best friend. I think people are just so tired watching all this ads on mainstream media and just people telling you, “This is what beautiful is supposed to look like.” Then you have this group of just regular people like your friends and putting makeup on and telling them their honest opinion and it’s just great. It feels fresh. Of course, then beauty brands know this and they’ve started capitalizing on it and started putting money into it. Then the relationship, I think, definitely changed because now it’s like, it’s not really your best friend because you start questioning. “Is there financial incentives behind it?” Sometimes watching social media is just ongoing ads. It just never stops. Right? In that way, it’s unfortunate because then, even though you see something in social media, I don’t think users who are smart would just believe it 100%.

They will probably look it up or read them, Makeup Top or Reddit or whatever it is, try to read it and see whether this person get paid or not, is this true? It’s not as honest and also because maybe there’s so many of them. The volume is just crazy. I can’t keep up. Before and the beginning, I know top five of influencers in YouTube and they’re the one that people watch all the time. Now, it’s like, I don’t know, hundreds of thousands, whatever it is.

Yeah. The unfortunate thing is that relationship that the trust is not as strong between the people who watch this influencers, but I think, in a way, I see it as also in a good way, is that the definition of beauty is expanding. We should see more representation in social media because before when you just see magazine, this one, it’s almost it’s templated it in a way now because there are so many type of influencers you see, even, I don’t know, all kinds of skin color, all kinds of race you see using these products. I think in a way people can relate more. It’s like, “Oh, she looks just like me and she likes the product.” Before it’s hard to find that.

17:42

Jasmine Bina:
Right. That kind of reminds me of something else that I feel like I’m starting to see that I think is kind of influencer 1.0, to influencer 2.0. That said, some influencers as they diversify like Chriselle Lim, for example, Michelle Phan, all the different new business lines that they’re moving into, you can’t go from being an influencer around one thing to suddenly having all these different forms of business without having a point of view. Michelle brings her point of view to what she does. Chriselle Lim brings her point of view to what she does. Then, you have people like Aimee Song who’s amazing and I think she makes herself very vulnerable, she’s very honest about her life experiences, but it’s hard to figure out what she stands for. You can’t stand for travel, and fashion and fun, the current things that you stand for.

If you want to stand for something and have a point of view, it has to be a bit divisive. Not everybody can agree with you. And I feel like some influencers get that and they’re really starting to have a voice around an opinion about something. Then there’s still people that are in the old paradigm that aren’t catching up. I’m starting to see that and feel it and I think that’s the first iteration of growing up that we’re seeing in this space. I’m wondering if you have a comment on that because you’re seeing it firsthand.

19:04

Ria Muljadi:
I mean, you definitely see different the types of influencers, and you see them maturing. You have, I think, a group that just wants to please everybody, so you avoid the hard topics or you don’t want to voice your opinion in one way or another, because if you do that, you might take out half of your fans. Yeah.

19:27

Jasmine Bina:
It happens. Who was it recently? I’m kind of trying to think of the influencer, but a friend of mine, Jessica Naziri, she runs TechSesh. She’s a tech influencer. When she started talking about her pregnancy and becoming a mother because she wanted to shift to parenting tech, she lost a significant number of followers, which is interesting because, I mean, she still talks about very generalized tech, and now she’s stood for something. I think the people that remains now really love her more because they want to see that perspective. They don’t need tech reviews anymore. They need to follow somebody that cares about something, so that they can participate in that experience. The other half shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

20:10

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. I think it’s question quantity versus quality. Right? You see even like, there are group of influencers that maybe the number of followers is a lot smaller, but the engagement is usually a lot higher. They respond, they answer, there are more interactions compared to maybe some influencers who have really huge following, but the instructions are not there. It’s just a number game. It’s like, what type of followers do you really want at the end of the day? I see it sometimes when evolution of whether that’s maturity and then you start figuring things out and you understanding what’s important and what matters. If you’ve been in the game for so long, the numbers won’t matter as much anymore. Then you start feel more comfortable voicing your opinion and in the beginning, maybe you’re a bit scared an obviously, there’s financial reasons for that. You have to be smart about it, but yeah.

21:07

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, totally. Okay. Speaking about point of views, I like beauty because it touches on so many emotional triggers and I feel like so many of them have been solved for, so coming to accept your body, coming to accept your diversity, being acne positive, body positive. I feel like almost everything in beauty has been solved for, but the one thing that baffles me is, how do you solve for aging? I feel brands, you hear things like, instead of talking about anti-aging, they’re talking about renewal, or regenerates or radiance. It’s like, they’re just code words for the same thing.

I haven’t had a chance to work on this problem for a client, but sometimes I wonder, “What’s the answer for aging?” Because for the aging crowd, you’re also kind of dealing with people in their 40s and 50s and I think they come from a different value system, oftentimes, not of their own making, but that they got culturally that, as a woman, your value is equated to your desirability. Can you imagine being desirable in old age? It’s hard to say where the social construct ends and the real human behavior begins. It’s hard to think of how you would change that bias or how you would make people feel that. That’s just one thing that I would love to work on that. That would be the solution of the century, if you could figure that out, I think.

22:31

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah, I think that’s a tough one because also, I grew up in Indonesia. I mean, in Asia, it’s about having clear skin and soft skin. It’s interesting and I never really thought about it, but actually my husband comes from Puerto Rico. I think, I was very surprised when I visited Puerto Rico. Their definition of beauty is very different and definition of body image and what we think of overweight or “I’m not desirable because of the way I look or whatever it is,” for them, it doesn’t matter. If they see beauty it’s like, in Puerto Rico, people are so relaxed and chill and you see people not minding their body shape. They’re still. Even my husband, he’s very expressive. I don’t know if it’s being Latin American. I never feel comfortable with that.

I don’t think my parents ever say, “I love you,” because it’s just, they don’t grow up with that, which is fine, but this expressing love, expressing care, why not? Not because of what you look like, it’s because of who you are. For me, I’m very self-conscious and I’m very uncomfortable with a lot of things, and you and me and everyone else. When I go visit there and people are just dancing or just, they wear whatever they want, whether that’s sexy or whatever it is. They just feel good about themselves and sometimes I’m like, “Oh wow, she’s brave she would do that.” They’re like, “Do that all here, all the time. It doesn’t matter.” It doesn’t matter if you wear a bikini from the definition of where I come from or where I live is overrated. I don’t care.” It’s like, you’re having fun on the beach. Who cares if you’re wrinkled, or old, or fat or skinny, whatever it is? It’s like you see all kinds of types and I just feel like, in that island, the idea of loving someone is not because of how they look. You love someone because who they are.

24:36

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I would go as far as to say that I think beauty is probably entirely a social construct or at least beauty as we understand it. It’s so influenced by what we’re told beauty is as we’re growing up and it’s impossible to escape. I think at least the good news is, these things aren’t hard-coded like you describe. If it’s so wildly different in other cultures, that means you can’t change a story for this culture. It would be a gigantic lift. I’m not going to deny that, but it’s possible. I love the idea of looking at other cultures to see what’s possible because sometimes, unless you really do your research on brand strategy, it’s easy to assume that, “Oh, we can’t change people’s minds about this because this is just human nature.” There’s so little of human nature when it comes to spaces like this.

26:25

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. I think the world seems smaller and smaller now because of information flow and I think it’s good to be able to see what other parts of the world think about beauty and what they define as beauty. When I grew up in Indonesia, I thought beautiful means having white skin. That’s why when I went to US, I don’t understand why people want to get 10. I don’t get it. It’s like, “You already have a perfect white skin. What do you want to make it dark? In Asia, everybody wears umbrella under the sun. You don’t do that. It’s your skin. But then you realize, “Oh, they just have different definition of beauty.” I think now that it’s just going, for example, like Korean beauty stuff is going into the US market. Right? People are seeing all these K-pop bands or whatever it is, and maybe it’s not mainstream yet, but at least people start seeing, “Oh, in other countries, that’s what they think about beautiful and this is what this country…” I think just having that even conversation, I think it’s good to see what other places do.

26:26

Jasmine Bina:
I’m guessing also as a founding member of these beauty companies, you have been very involved in the research and product development too because you wear lots of hats like we all do. Do you look at trends in other countries when you guys were evaluating what you’re going to do with your own brands?

26:42

Ria Muljadi:
We definitely look at trends, but also you have to adjust it, not just the transport also environment. Definitely like climate, with beauty products, it’s really impacting just because it’s trending in Asia, but it’s really humid here. It probably won’t work here. You have to think about that. Definitely, I think looking at different region and different countries, trying to stay ahead, it’s important to see what could be brought into this country and they could match.

27:12

Jasmine Bina:
Where do you think the most interesting beauty developments are happening, products, branding, anything?

27:17

Ria Muljadi:

I think skincare is really growing rapidly. I think all the data that I’ve seen, that people more and more care about their skin. Color, obviously still dominates, but skincare there’s a huge increase, peoples are getting educated. I think this ties into, beauty is not just superficial, but actually deep inside your skin actually is good. You don’t have to cover so much if it’s already good, so you concentrate more on your skin. I think it’s interesting because in Asia, we’ve always concentrated in skin. That’s always been that way and now it’s such coming into the US and that’s why I think I see the big increase there.t,

27:57

Jasmine Bina:
The thing about skin is, I think it’s a convergence of a few different trends. Suddenly the word glow showed up everywhere. Right? It was this idea that beauty comes from the inside and it emanates out of you. It’s something that you put on your skin. I think that coincide with kind of the organic wellness, healthy living movement. Something else that I’ve seen that people have written about that’s so crazy fascinating to me is, if you go and see what’s in Sephora or what’s in stores right now, there’s all food ingredients. They talk about foods like watermelon masks, papaya enzymes, I think Kiehl’s has like a kin wah thing and one of the things. You see food everywhere. This isn’t an idea original to me, but what’s been described in this space is that, people have gone from wanting to treat their skin, to wanting to feed their skin. This belief that we should be feeding it. It’s this living thing, which it is.

That’s wildly changed our relationship to it because treating is about fixing something. Feeding is about keeping something alive, nourishing it. Treating is getting, I always use this metaphor, from negative one to zero, but feeding is getting from zero to positive one. That’s a wildly different beauty story. Right? It’s not that you’re fixing your imperfections. It’s that you’re bringing out a beauty that’s already inside of you, but you haven’t realized yet. I mean, anytime you can change a user’s relationship to themselves, anytime you can change the way that they see themselves or see themselves in the world, you can own that experience and that’s huge.

I think the early movers in that space totally got that. It’s kind of the way that we think about food now. We’re also in tune with our guts. We never had a relationship with our gut before, but now we do and it affects our behaviors. It literally affects the eating experience. You’re thinking about your vagus nerve. You’re thinking about your digestion. You’re thinking about chemicals in your body while you eat. That means eating is not what it used to be at all. It’s a totally different thing. The more that these spaces evolve, they just keep overlapping, beauty, wellness, food, stress management, parenting. They’re all turning into the same thing.

30:12

Ria Muljadi:
I feel like it started because, now, people talk more about well-being, about your mental well-being and people start realizing that, “Oh yeah, it matters.” Actually, I don’t even think about it until a few years ago, I worked so much. For me, the goal was career and financial security. That was the two things that I was striving for. How do you get there? You just work all the time. This is what you do. I work. I don’t even remember. I spent more time in the office and when I get home, I work again until I crash and crash. It feels weird when you crash, because then you just feel indifference. I don’t know how to describe it. You just feel so tired and then-

31:02

Jasmine Bina:
Numb.

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. You feel numb. I started reading Arianna Huffington book on thrive and it’s called Thrive. It was the first time. I actually think, “Oh, there is such thing like mental well-being. I have to take care of myself.”

Jasmine Bina:
How long ago is that?

Ria Muljadi:
I think after my son was born, so 2016.

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, so well into adulthood.

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah.

31:27

Jasmine Bina:
You realized that and you didn’t even look at yourself that way before.

31:30

Ria Muljadi:
No. No, because I’ve been wired to, you do well in school and then you work your butt off. In Silicon Valley the mentality is, you just work all the time. That’s what you do. You dedicate yourself, your life to it. I read her book and she said, “Oh, there’s a third metric of success.” I’m like, “What? It exists? I have to take care of myself. I don’t understand what that means.” I completely read her book probably in a day and I started thinking, “Oh, this is what burned out me. This is what I’m feeling. I think that there are more discussion about it and people start talking about it like, “No, it’s not normal to be stressful all the time. It’s not normal to work all the time. It’s not normal to take two weeks maternity leave.” I thought it was okay.

32:19

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, mine was just four, but two is crazy.

32:22

Ria Muljadi:
I thought it was okay. It’s not normal to work with your laptop in the NICU when your kid is sick. It’s like, things like that kind of just turn on like something in me. I’m like, “I have to stop this. I have to figure something out to take care of myself, to be better mom, to be a better person, to better wife.” I consider myself very well educated and I don’t even think about this because I don’t think the conversation was enough and nobody talked about it enough. Now that more and more people talk about it and that, yeah, it matters, it’s important and, now, I think all of these product comes with it. Right? It’s like meditation app or whatever it is.

33:03

Jasmine Bina:
The matrices, yeah.

Ria Muljadi:
You can take a breath. Everything that’s about beauty, taking care of yourself from the inside, then you feel good, you look good and then you don’t have to cover up so much. I think it’s all, when this conversation started, it’s almost like a floodgate that people felt it, but never knew what it is. Until somebody said it, it was like, “Oh yeah, I felt that. That’s how I felt.” Then everybody talks about it.

33:28

Jasmine Bina:
You heard one right message at the right time and it just changed the way you speak. You went from thinking that you were doing everything right to suddenly realizing that you weren’t doing things right at all.

33:39

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah, because I thought that was the best thing I can do for my family, to work all the time. Because giving them the security that they need, I have to do this and dedicate all my life to it. At some point, your body tells you as your body shuts down and it’s like, “Is that right?” I was literally to Excedrin every day for years, because I have migraines in the morning, because I barely slept and that’s how I go through today. I went through the day by taking pills just to make sure I keep on working. It’s so unhealthy and now I realize that, but before I was just like, “I work all the time.”

34:20

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I wanted to have you here today, yes, to talk business, but I like to also talk to the RS people. There’s something about you from the dem at you that has fascinated me. I’m just going to give a high level overview on that. I want to hear you talk about it. I met you the day that you were leaving America and that was-

34:44

Ria Muljadi:
The last week.

34:45

Jasmine Bina:
The last week. Okay. That was last year. You told me that you had decided that this country wasn’t a good fit for you anymore for your family and so you were literally uprooting everybody and going overseas. I haven’t stopped thinking about that because you’re going to describe why in a second, which I think is extremely compelling, but I brought your story up at every dem dinner party. I kept wanting to ask people like, “Could you do this?” Because I asked myself over and over again, “Could I have done that? Could I have had the willpower to do that?”

I mean, we joke about, “If there’s a second term, we’re going to get up and leave. Where are we going to go?” I don’t know if we have the courage and the grit to start over someplace else, even though we’re very privileged and it wouldn’t be that hard. There was something about the integrity behind your decision. By the way, not everybody agreed with me. There were some people who felt like it was a cop out to leave the country like you had, which we’ll talk about. It just fascinated me and I couldn’t stop thinking about it. Please, I mean, I’ve talked too much. Tell me that process and why you did that.

35:57

Ria Muljadi:
I guess going back to my story before, then, I started realizing I have to take care of myself and my family. That should be number one. Two things that kind of triggers and it’s cumulation of several years, it didn’t just happen and on one month and we decided to just pack up and leave. First it’s the issue of safety in schools, especially. I have two kids, 11 year old and three-year-old. You hear the news, so shootings and things like that and you do get desensitized. It becomes so often that the shock factor is not there anymore and you’re just like, “Oh yeah, another one.” I was one of them. I was just, it’s almost better to just ignore the news than get stressed about it. Then one day my daughter came home and said, “Oh, we did a lockdown drill today.”

36:44

Then I don’t grow up here, so I have no idea what these are. I was like, “Is it like a fire drill or what does that mean? I don’t know what that means.” She explained what it was. She said, “Well, if somebody bad come to school, they will announce a code word and then the door has to be locked. We all hide in the closet, stay quiet. If we happen to be in the restroom, we have to lock the restroom and we stay on top of the toilet, close the door and stay quiet until they say it’s okay.” Then I was like, “Oh.” My heart was crushed. I heard them like, “Oh, you have to do that at school?” For me, it’s like, “Why?”

37:25

Jasmine Bina:
To simplify it, like an active shooter drill.

37:27

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. Like an active shooter drill. She goes, “Yeah.” And I was like, “Were you scared?” I’m like, “No, I’m fine.” She said, “We actually have done this several times. It wasn’t the first time.” I said, “Okay.” Then she said, “Well, but you know what the first and the worst part of it?” I said, “What? When they don’t tell you it’s a drill.” I know she must have this anxiety and I know that because she would say like, “Yeah, this kid, he’d stay quiet. He keeps talking.” I said, “If you do this and this was real, then next time you do it, we’re all going to be dead.” At the time she was nine, 10 and I just think a nine-year-old, a 10-year-old shouldn’t have thought about this. It’s too much. I was like, “I have to do something about it. I can’t have this anxiety.”

38:15

Ria Muljadi:
I left the US because, at the time, there was a huge riots in Indonesia and people were targeting people who looks Chinese, which is-

38:25

Jasmine Bina:
That’s why you came here?

38:26

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. That’s why my parents were like, “It’s time for you to go.” They stay in Indonesia, but it’s time for me to go. It was hard because my grandfather was a veteran. He fought for the independence of the country, but then now the country is hunting me down because of the way I look, because of race, et cetera, et cetera. It was really hard for my mom to send me when I was 16 and she’s very nationalistic. She said, “To this point, the country doesn’t want you, so you need to leave or it’s not safe for you.”

38:58

I laugh and I don’t want that for my kid, to feel anxious. It’s just not right, so that’s already started building. I’m like, “I need to do something about it. I just don’t know what it is. I want her to just be a child wherever it is.” That’s one. Then, secondly, my son was sick and he was in NICU for three weeks and we were fully insured, but we got the bill. We saw what the charges were before insurance coverage and it was $800,000 or something crazy like that. I remember at one point there was a 1 million cap and what happened if that still exists or it got put back in, that means the rest of his life. Is he not going to get insured? What’s going to happen because he does have health problems. What am I going to do with that?

39:44

Then the hospital transferred him from one hospital location to another one that’s just 15-minute ambulance ride. They billed me $9,000 because they said the ambulance was out of network. I said, “How would I have known that an ambulance with your hospital logo on it is out of network? You didn’t tell me.” It’s ridiculous, first of all, 15-minute ride for $9,000. I could have just taken him in my car and it would be the same. I actually had to fight for it and it’s out of principle. You’re really taking advantage of people at their lowest, lowest level, stress parents with sick kids, that you can’t make decision and you’re really trusting the institutions to do the right thing and they didn’t. For me, it’s wrong.

40:34

I even told my husband, if we have to pay, we can pay, but just out of principle, this is wrong. This is not right. I wrote this long letter of complaint and I said, “Yeah, I am unhappy and I don’t want to pay you. You shouldn’t be charging people this much.” And they wrote it off. They wrote it off. I think the only reason they wrote it off is because of my connection I have. I know somebody who happens to be a big donor to the hospital, but that’s because, you can say I’m privileged to do that. Right? But how about the rest of the people that are in the hospital? I just keep thinking about that because I was in the NICU with all of these parents. I thought about them and I literally say to them, “It’s paid for. Does that mean the hospital pay the ambulance company and where’s the money trail? I want to see the proof of payments. They’re like, “Oh no, there is no problem. We just wrote it off. Puf! It disappeared.”

41:26

Jasmine Bina:
It wasn’t a real cost to begin with.

41:28

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. It’s like, “I appreciate this, but I just want to tell you that this is wrong. You shouldn’t be doing this to people. You should write off everybody else’s because it doesn’t make sense.” Those were the two things, safety and health. I feel like these are the two basic needs that I should be able to provide my kids and they shouldn’t be worried about it. We started thinking about it. We started thinking of what ways and which countries and where should we take them, so.

41:55

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, in this part of the story you had mentioned to me, I think we had bonded here when we first met, because I mentioned that my husband is a Reddit News junkie and every day, I’m getting with this toxic download of everything that’s going wrong in the world. You mentioned your husband, but you invited him as a joke in the beginning to just like, “Okay, what are we going to do about it? Right?

42:13

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah, because you got anxious too when you started listening to this. I’m like, “You know what? Rather than complaining about it, let’s do something about it. What are we going to do about it?” Then he started this story, I mean like, “Okay, we want to do something about it?” “Yeah. Let’s do something about it. Let’s plan it out. Let’s start brainstorming. We’re unhappy. We are worried about the kids, their safety, their health, so let’s do something about it. Let’s do something concrete. It’s not just some dream or whatever, just do it.” It was that funny.

42:50

Jasmine Bina:
Mm-hmm (affirmative). I touched base with you after you had moved and I asked you how things were going and you related to me a really small, but very impactful story about being able to let go of your daughter’s hand when you were in public. Yeah. You don’t have to talk about it if you don’t want to, but if you want to expand on that, that’s a beautiful story that I think illustrates for people just how this is not about a move. It’s a very profound shift and just the way you’re going to live your life.

43:19

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. In here, I mean, well, we live in the US. Whenever we go in public, I was holding my daughter’s, my kids’ hands very tightly because you always hear child abduction and you look at clothes and your kids disappear and things like that. Right.? In public places, walking down the street and things like that, just never let them go. It’s probably the first thing that I teach them to do. “Always hold our hands every single time. Never let us go in public.” They’re trying to do that. After we move, obviously, it’s just out of instinct, they do that and my husband would be like, “It’s okay. You can let them go.” I said, “We’re in public. What will happen if something…?” He’s like, “Look around.” I look around and you see children running free, walking.

He’s like, “They’re fine. Look around you. These kids, they’re running around and they’re fine, so you can let them go.” I started not holding their hands and they’re fine and I can say, “Hey, get me a water bottle. Just go.” And they come back or “Give me ice cream.” They go and they come back. You start building that trust and everything’s okay. I think we’re fine. I walk down the street in the morning and you see a bunch of kids with no chaperones. They just go with that backpack and they go walk to school and these are eight-year-old kids and your kids, same at 3:00 PM when they come out of school, they’re riding their bikes and everything. It feels a lot different because I would never let my kids walk to school by herself in Santa Monica. I would never have done that.

I would drive her. I would drop her right in front of the gate, make sure she walk in, the gate is locked, et cetera, et cetera. But over there, I need to shift because I see they can be kids. They can be free and it’s okay.

45:13

Jasmine Bina:
That’s fascinating. I could talk to you about this forever, but I want to just express deep gratitude for being so sincere and honest about that story. I know it’s personal, but I know when I heard it the first time, I felt something inside of me change because I had never allowed myself to see a world different than the world that I knew I was raising my kids in today. I haven’t been able to shake the thought. I don’t know if I’m moving, but it made me look at my own life and my own circumstance as a parent living in Los Angeles, from a foreign perspective. I could really see things in a way that I hadn’t been able to see them before. I hope people listening to this have a similar experience with the story that you just told, so thank you for that. Thank you for a fantastic interview. It was fantastic talking to you about the beauty industry and your own experiences and hopefully we can have you on again soon.

46:09

Ria Muljadi:
Yeah. Thank you for having me.

Jasmine Bina:
Great.

(singing)

Categories
Podcast

2: Where Identity Meets New Behavior

We speak with luxury branding expert Ana Andjelic about the imagined communities that form around identity brands, the importance of hacking subculture over hacking growth, and the gendered stories that tap into our collective psyche.

Podcast Transcript

December 6th, 2019

8 min read

Where Identity Meets New Behavior

00:12

Jasmine Bina:
Welcome to the Unseen Unknown podcast. I’m Jasmine Bina, and in today’s episode, we’re speaking with Ana Andjelic. Ana is an amazing brand strategist. I’ve been following her writing and her work for quite a while now. She has an incredible career, and most recently, she’s been named to the Forbes CMO Next list, and she’s really just an incredible thinker in this space. 

I think this is a really interesting episode because we dive deep into a few hot topics. We start by talking about commerce first media brands, something that I think is top of mind for a lot of people who want to build something that works like a great DTC brand or works like a great community-built brand, but don’t quite understand the initial planning and things that needs to go into a company like that. We move on to talk about aspirational branding, something that is very personal to me. I do think aspirational branding is fool’s gold, and we’ll dig into that a little bit more. 

We talk about how hacking a subculture is probably a lot more important than hacking growth, something that Ana has written about a lot. Then we ended by talking about a different set of consumer narratives, specifically motherhood. That’s something that’s personal to both me and Ana, and we explore how it sits in the cultural psyche, how it’s been positioned for us as women and as a community, and what that means for how you navigate the world, both as people and as mothers, women, consumers, everything. I loved this talk, and I hope you guys get something out of it too. 

Okay so Ana, I was trying to think of how I would introduce you for this episode, and the thing is you’re so many things. I’m going to list the things that you are. You’re a strategist. You’ve had many incredible roles, but two of the big ones are, you’re the former chief brand officer for Rebecca Minkoff, you’re the former SVP and Global Strategy Director for Havas’ LuxHub, which sounds very interesting, I hope we get to talk about that. Now, you’re an executive brand consultant for companies like David Yurman and Mansur Gavriel, not to mention the fact that you’re a doctor of Sociology and you’re a ridiculously prolific writer who writes about all kinds of things, including brand strategy, retail, consumer behavior, marketplaces, everything. Did I miss anything? 

2:42

Ana Andjelic:
I don’t think you did. It’s like, I mean, I don’t know how anyone can actually listen to all of this and not be humbled. You know what I mean? I’m kind of like, “I wish she would stop.” But no, we really need to own everything we do, I think, and whatever accomplishments we achieve. 

Jasmine Bina:
Absolutely. 

Ana Andjelic:
So I’m going to own it. 

Jasmine Bina:
Own it. 

Ana Andjelic:
Thanks for the lovely introduction.

3:09

Jasmine Bina:
I think what’s fascinating about you, and what I really sensed when I first met you is, that you really straddle two extremes, you are very well-versed in the high level conceptual side of brand strategy, but also the extremely tactical side. And I think what’s interesting, and why I wanted to have this conversation with you today is, that most people are either on one side or the other of the spectrum. I know I lean on one side more than the other, and when you lean on one side, there’s a lot of room for BS. Because I think you need both ends to pin down what an actual viable brand strategy is, or any kind of strategy is for a company. And I think that’s what’s interesting about you.

I’m going to start with a big question here. There’s so much going on around brand strategy right now, people talking about the role that it plays in our lives, what it means. I think it vacillates between being something that’s really revered as an amazing superpower to be able to really think of a brand strategically, and then other times, it’s seen almost as the negative connotation to it, but there is talk that’s been going on for quite some time that you’ve also addressed about brands being the new religion. That’s such a loaded term, but I’m just going to ask you straight out to start this conversation, are brands the new religion? 

4:27

Ana Andjelic:
I did not say that actually. I think that the conversations are, the one that I wrote recently about, was more that there are no new sources of nationalism, but not nationalism in a… It was more like how do we bond with other people, how we identify with values and symbols, and what role brands play when now we don’t have the civil society institutions, and we don’t have the role that press, for example, had.

Jasmine Bina:
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

5:00

Ana Andjelic:
When I refer Benedict Anderson, who is a political scientist, and he described the imagined communities, his term is, for how he wanted to capture the rise of national consciousness in Europe in 18 and 19 centuries, and he attributed to the rise of press. Everyone was reading same things, everyone knew about same people and ideas, and what you identify with is how you’re different from everyone else. So there, the question is then, do brands now like Other Voices, for example, or Tracksmith or Rapha creating that bonding and identification, and the sense of belonging to a specific community, which is imagined because we don’t know those people. We just know that we like similar things, that we share the same values with them, so that was the idea. 

In terms of brands and religion, I love how confident you went after that. I really do, and I think that if that resonated with you, that you should certainly explore more, but I believe something has been more explored. I’ll tell you why, because there was a lot of writing and people commenting on how wellness is a new religion. Healthy eating, and then how our belonging to SoulCycle or other fitness classes or fitness group, Body by Simone or Tracy Anderson, that that actually replays the rituals and the communal aspect. We are going through transformative experiences with other people when we do SoulCycle. So that sort of that almost religious or spiritual transformation, it’s physical, but then when you look who SoulCycle trainers are, there is a lot of that element of spirituality there. 

So, I think that I was not talking about that because for me that was something that’s been already explored. I was thinking more about now that we don’t have mechanisms of social cohesion that we had in the past, which is a country club, which is, as I said, the press or the media, we are watching all the same channels, or we all hang out in the same neighborhoods or like whatever, there was something that kept society together. Now, all of a sudden, the brands seem to assume that role and for me, that’s not neutral territory.

7:26

Jasmine Bina:
Right. What are some examples? You mentioned Rapha and Outdoor Voices, is it the actual community building events that they have and it’s the in-store experiences or is it more than that? 

7:37

Ana Andjelic:
I think it goes beyond, because it’s first of all… Well, I think Outdoor Voices is a good example, so let’s stick to that one, if that’s fine with you. So when the people who are buying Outdoor Voices, they’re like, “Oh, I finally feel understood,” which is all good advertising mantra, like “Oh, we got you, we respond to your need. We recognize your need. We see you. We hear you.” So that like what the founders of Outdoor Voices figured is like, “Well, people just want to look good, they want to have fun. They don’t want to run until they throw up.” [inaudible 00:08:08] for Nike that you just want to move, do things, and look good when you’re doing that, not look like… I don’t know, like Silver Surfer or something. So I think that was the first. The product was something that a lot of people sort of identified as something they need in order to do XYZ. 

Then when you see Bandier ripped off the design, they were like, “Whoa.” because it’s such a big part of who their identity is as Outdoor Voices consumers. So think about that for a second, because you would just didn’t have that identification, you would be like, “Who cares? I’ll just buy from Bandier the same. Fine. It doesn’t really matter. I’ll just decide on price.” But here they’re not deciding on price. They’re not deciding on convenience or availability, they’ve deciding, “No, no, no. I belong to this imagined community of people who value the same things as I do. This is who I identify with, with this group of people who look like me or do think like me.” 

Then started the hashtag, the social object, which is a hashtag, which is still doing things. And it was like, “Oh, doing things is better than not doing things.” So it’s like, own it, have your life, live your life, be the boss, you know however it tapped into culture. So that’s a cultural moment of like doing. 

Yeah. so I think it is basically it’s more. I think there is just the entire brand building from saying, “Hey, how am I going to bind this community together? I’m going to use my products as symbols. I’m going to use the social hashtag as that the glue of social cohesion, because we all use the same hashtag when we are doing things that belong to this brand footprint in culture and in society. 

9:44

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I think that’s really interesting because what we tend to forget is, I always talk about how brands should elicit a sense of transformation. You should be a different person after you’ve engaged with them, but what’s maybe even more important is, that you have this understanding that there are other people who you haven’t met, who are in this imagined community who have also experienced the same transformation and that’s why you would go to bat for a brand. That’s why when Bandier does something that infringes upon Outdoor Voices, you’re going to go and defend them online, which was actually a surprising outpouring. I remember when I first met you too, you were talking to me, I don’t know if it was that day or if it happened earlier, but that Outdoor Voices was having some sample seal and the line was around the block, and you never see that with brands anymore. Not even luxury brands. 

10:32

Ana Andjelic:
Totally. You’re so right, because I was going to meet you and I was walking and I’m like, “Wait, what? It goes around [inaudible 00:10:38]?” And I’m like, ” “Who are you wait?” I ask actually, because it was nondescript and there are Outdoor Voices. I’m like, “Wow, that’s rich.” Because like they’re waiting for athleisure brand? And then [crosstalk 00:10:47] like more staff started unpacking. That was a couple of years ago. That’s a good point. That’s good. I forgot about that.

10:55

Jasmine Bina:
Another brand that keeps coming up in conversations that I’m having with our clients, or even when I’m doing user interviews for some of our clients is Glossier, which I know is a hot topic brand right now. Not least of which the reasons being, because of their really, really high evaluation, but they’re a brand that I think has built a very strong imagined community. I don’t know where I saw it, but somebody had tweeted about the fact that if you look at brands that are DTC, they have like a certain multiple. If you look at marketplaces, they have a bit of a higher multiple. But if you look at commerce first media brands, brands like Glossier that started with media first and then monetized it around a product, there’re multiples are even higher. Is that a testament to where brands are going and where actual value is? Or do you think that’s just a trend right now that VCs are getting a little short-sighted by the hype? 

11:49

Ana Andjelic:
Well, I think it is definitely a lot, like the hype machine is really long with banks and like Goldman Sachs and with VCs and then with places like Fast Company that they’re hyping the new brand models, if you will, or those who are up and coming and so on. You see that with Farfetch, which was unique, when you see that with Vivax, IPO, so you’ll see that a lot. But they’re just saying, “All right, let’s all chill for a second, and let’s just find some more objective criteria. There’s just no rush.” 

I think that what Emily Weiss is doing really well is that how considered her growth is. So that’s something that she has going on for her. She doesn’t want to cut corners, she walks the walk because when you see the product lines she launched with, it was very one product and then add another one and then another one, and then create like dog toys. It’s very focused when it comes to product. She’s not everything to everyone.

Then if you go back one step and you said for those who are media, I think she just replaced one mean of social cohesion, which is content with another, which is product. I think that she benefits from being in the industry where everyone has an opinion. Everyone will tell you an advice on beauty. That’s like [inaudible 00:13:12] low denominator. If you talk about, I don’t know, like physics or something, not everyone is going to have an opinion, but when it comes to makeup or beauty or care, moisturizing, or nighttime mask, everyone is passionate about. Everyone has an idea. So that is easy to start that conversation because the barriers of participation are low and the sense of recognition is high if you will. You’re not going to say something stupid. Everyone is an influencer in that sense, because there’s obviously someone who’s like, “how do I get rid of acne?” Five people are going to have an answer. You know? So that’s something… Well, that’s true, there is the glue is very strong there. 

13:56

Jasmine Bina:
I see. That’s very interesting. I was just talking to somebody about this recently about, I think it was Flex. It was either Flex or [inaudible 00:14:02]. They were looking at maybe launching a community in a private Facebook group, and they point to the fact that, I think it was Flex had done really, really well there. And I thought the fact that, yes, but women want to talk about this. There’s no place to talk about this and it affects us every month. It’s very top of mind and it touches on so many other issues like fertility, endometriosis all kinds of things that aren’t necessarily taboo, but people have opinions and there’s a bit of a glue there. And I would argue that that community would have done well, no matter where it was planted. It wasn’t necessarily the channel, but it’s interesting the way you described it.

14:38

Jasmine Bina:
I want to ask you, what did you think of Glossier play? 

Ana Andjelic:
What do you mean? 

14:42

Jasmine Bina:
Well, you talked about how her product launches are very deliberate and that came out to a lot of fanfare. I was very excited about it. They teased it really well, but it did seem like an extension of what they already had, but into maybe a more colorful, playful territory of a different makeup. Do you think like that was on brand for them? Like what do you think they were trying to do with the trajectory of the company with that launch? 

15:07

Ana Andjelic:
I mean, again, I’ll go back to that. I don’t think it matters. I think she has a very strong base. She is clearly profitable. A lot of brands look at it like BFF chatty tone of voice so it’s easy to have it at a very, very low price point. But that’s good because the price points are very accessible, so everyone can participate and that’s an idea. 

You know what? The other thing that’s very smart is really like her customers do the advertising work for her. You know what I mean? Because they are basically talking about how they use products, what they can do. So I don’t think that it plays any different in that sense. Yes, sure you can have its iteration and that’s smart. You don’t need to invent new products and services all the time. You can iterate in what’s been working before. So I think in that sense, it’s on-brand and iteration of what she has already done.

15:58

Jasmine Bina:
The other thing too that I think is interesting, because everybody’s trying to figure out what the magic sauce is with this brand, is that they are talking about natural beauty at a very interesting time to be talking about natural beauty. They’re creating space for a conversation around what it means to have natural beauty for girls at a specific age where they’re negotiating what their femininity means. They’re trying to figure out how they’re going to present themselves in the world and I think she created a voice and a media and a product around that idea, that new definition of beauty, new or re-imagined or whatever you want to call it-

Ana Andjelic:
Got it. 

Jasmine Bina:
… that created a little bit of tension. It got people talking and interested in a different way. It was an alternative narrative that maybe didn’t exist the way that she brought it up. 

16:46

Ana Andjelic:
I agree with that a lot. Especially think about the demographics she is after, like millennials and younger millennials, Gen Z as well. So how they actually relate to each other, to brands and to themselves and how their identity is because when you look for example, Rihanna Fenty, Beauty, her entire thing is beauty for all and she has men wearing her foundation. So for them, that is really… and she sort of introduced the 50 plus collect. Started with 40 and that was sort of something that traditional beauty industry didn’t do. 

I think this BFF tone of voice that Emily Weiss introduced and how she allowed basically her customers to do the work of the brand, not in a negative sense, but in a positive sense in terms of, “All right. We know each other already. We exchanged content. We talked about different things for years on into the gloss blog and now I’m giving you this products. There’s a bunch of products. Go show me what you can build with that.” I don’t think that any beauty company they’re talking about to express yourself and blah, blah, blah, but then there is no place for that. There is no call to action beyond just the advertising tagline in a sense, “Oh, if I’m going to experiment, however, I want to make a foundation and I’m going to share to that. I’m going to get feedback that everyone has a little influence of feedback loop in their little own community. 

Jasmine Bina:
Right, right. 

18:18

Ana Andjelic:
Yeah. And one final thing, I think that it also coincided with the extreme rise of beauty tutorials on YouTube. So let’s not forget about the entire media ecosystem that allowed that to thrive. 

18:30

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, absolutely. That brings me to the next point. You wrote something once that just stopped me dead in my tracks that I think about all the time. You said that hacking is subculture is greater than hacking growth and you had talked about Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club. I don’t want to paraphrase for you. Can you describe that a little bit more? 

18:49

Ana Andjelic:
Yes. I think that the article you’re referring to the analysis is how hacking culture is more important than hacking growth in a sense that, what we think that most innovative products and services are actually results of the effect of social influence, which means they were not able to exist in a vacuum. The social processes gave rise to them and often they mistake disruption for social influence. So what that means in plain language is, that if society is ready to embrace a trend, anyone can start one. And I [inaudible 00:19:28] Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s as examples because they’re like, “Oh my God, there was so innovative companies. They disrupted the industry and made it as well be.”

The thing is that the report a year before those companies launched, was already capturing the changing grooming habits of men. So men’s behavior was already starting to change. The atmosphere was already starting to change. Japanese have a great expression [foreign language 00:19:56][inaudible] which says, read the room, read the atmosphere. That means what is unspoken, what is going on in the zeitgeist that no one really captured tangibly yet, but it’s in the air in a sense. 

So it was, I don’t know rebellion in fashion a few years ago, or that sort of changing notions of masculinity and changing notions what men’s grooming is. So when those companies came in, they piggybacked on that wider social trend of changing notions of masculinity. That’s why I say social influence is often mistaken for disruption because what you’re seeing that those companies capitalize on social influence, basically. Their message was met with the fertile soil for people to say, “Hey, we understand. This is for us.” So it was only the fertile soil, but if they tried to do that five years earlier, three years earlier, they wouldn’t have been as successful. 

20:53

Jasmine Bina:
I don’t know if people would read this and think it’s obvious, or if they think is profound. I think it’s profound because a lot of people miss this. They think disruption has to be in the product and they don’t understand how companies like Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club can be such huge successes. It’s because they don’t understand that really… I mean if I can paraphrase, they were reading a trend before it was apparent. Trend is isn’t the right word. They were reading a real fundamental shift in what people were willing to consume, how they were willing to relate to not just a product, but also their own masculinity and their own identities. They created a story around what that could mean. They gave people a pathway to realizing what that was. That’s not a small thing. I personally feel like that’s what’s really exciting about branding. 

There’s a similar parallel in technology. I don’t remember who said it. This is a fantastic conversation of not remembering who said what, but-

Ana Andjelic:
You can [inaudible 00:21:56] babies. At least you have two. What was my excuse?

22:00

Jasmine Bina:
I should take better notes. But yes, they’re… In technology there’s a similar thing where people… It’s widely believed that when a technology comes out, it changes our behaviors, but there’s a body of research that suggests that no, people are already starting to exhibit some of the behaviors that would make that technology adoptable. So the idea was that maybe there were signs that people were more and more willing to share, to tap into the wisdom of the group, things like that, that translate into these technologies where you share cars, you read reviews, you trust user reviews and peer reviews, and that it’s not the technology leading culture, it’s culture leading technology. I think it parallels to what you’re saying here, even in CPG and DTC. 

Ana Andjelic:
That’s exactly that, yeah.

22:45

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, 100%. So you mentioned Rihanna a second ago and I wanted to pause on her for a moment. Now, tell me why you think her brands are doing so well. I know a lot of it is because of her commitment to inclusivity, but is there more to it than that?

23:04

Ana Andjelic:
I think there’s a confluence. It’s the right time. So the time is really good, and I’ll tell you why. There is a confluence of a number of factors. For one, she is this strong entrepreneurial woman. So you can’t really take that. Even if she just stayed in music, that would still be something that is. 

Then when she goes and does Fenty Beauty and when she partners with LVMH and so that is some believability there. It’s not just celebrity because brands have partnered with celebrities for the longest time to move the needle of their business so that’s not really new. Also, it’s not new that celebrities launch their own brands. Look at the hip hop scene at the end of the 90s. With Jay Z Rocawear, with Sean John and so on. So I think that’s fine. She has that going on for her, but that’s something that it’s now anyone almost. With social media, any celebrity can be like, “Hey, I’m launching a fashion brand,” or something and many of them do. 

So for me, what was more notable is, how do you figure it out which celebrity brands are going to last longer than other celebrity brands. So it’s more like do you have some wider purpose or mission here? What is your role in culture? For Rihanna it was like that beauty for all, she has that inclusivity and she uses her own success story as a role model for a lot of people to see and get inspired by that. So she has that platform, but she’s more than just herself. What she represents is like what I said at the beginning when I started talking about this is, that she is strong female entrepreneur and now the time the culture supports. We root automatically for female entrepreneurs. We want them to succeed. We identify with them. So now there is that culture that’s like you go girl. So I think that’s really good. People are going to pay attention if a woman goes for it.

At the same time, she was one of the most innovative companies on Times list in 2017. That’s because she introduced 50 shades of foundation, which is something that crazy enough in 2017, no other beauty company has done. So a pair of celebrities underpinned product innovation. And even with her image, okay, her image may be like this or that, however, you want to call it, collaboration. But even there she’s like, “Well, you know what? I’m going to release when I feel like releasing. So I’m going to have this drop model. I’m going to have a website and I’m just going to check out and when it’s there, it’s there, when it’s not there, it’s not there. Forget about the fashion calendar, forget about the fashion system.” So even there, she’s doing her thing and that sort of innovation because there is no other LVMH brand that is doing it like that.

25:46

Jasmine Bina:
How would you compare someone like Rihanna to somebody like Kylie?

25:51

Ana Andjelic:
Well, for me, the thing is, I don’t really know. It may be me. I’m giving that possibility that I don’t know what Kylie stands for aside of being Kylie, aside of Kylie. So what is that wider purpose? What is the wider mission? Like Rihanna has beauty for all. What does Kylie have? I think that Kylie does have going on for her that girl boss female entrepreneur thing that we root for her, that she actually achieved something. But for me, she was on a billionaire’s list where Pat McGrath was a makeup artist launched her line. She also is a woman of color and is a female entrepreneur. And for some reason, Kylie got way more attention in media than Pat McGrath.

Jasmine Bina:
I see. 

26:32

Ana Andjelic:
So I don’t know what is the dynamic there, but Rihanna sort of went beyond that and say, “Hey, my idea is beauty for all and I’m really delivering on this promise through my unbelievably diverse foundation line. That is something that I’m going to keep innovating.” Also, Kylie, what is her innovation and her product? That’s what I don’t get. 

Jasmine Bina:
Well-

26:56

Ana Andjelic:
Is it innovative or is it one off? So for Kylie it’s a typical celebrity brand and just uses her celebrity to sell her product. Once people cancel Kylie, they cancel her business. It’s much harder to cancel Rihanna because her products are not about to Rihanna. Her products are about your, about all of us. 

27:18

Jasmine Bina:
You’ve hit on something so big. I think it also tracks with the way brands have evolved from 1.0 to 2.0. This idea of creating something aspirational is really… I feel like so many people try to build that with their brands and aspiration, I feel is fool’s gold at this point. It’s never going to take you in the longterm, but when you’re creating something that’s larger than one person, I don’t know if that’s lifestyle or something bigger than that, but like you said, Rihanna is so much bigger than just her name and you feel that. You feel the gravity of the message whenever you engage with the brand, whether it’s at the counter at Sephora, or through any of the content that she’s putting out, or even just seeing what she puts on Instagram. It’s something that, like you said, you can’t cancel it because it’s a larger idea that, by the way, also will evolve and grow and can be reinvented and redefined and change and live a much longer life than something that’s just attached to one aspiration one person’s specific image.

Ana Andjelic:
Absolutely. 

28:20

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, 100%. So while we’re on the topic, I feel like I hear people saying influencers are dead long, live the influencer. Where are we with influencers? What’s your take on that? 

28:32

Ana Andjelic:
Influencers are not dead. They’re alive and well, and they’re moving product like nobody’s business. So let’s keep that in mind because beauty brands, I mean biggest, let’s say that the fastest growing beauty brands, comparatively, are those created by influencers or propelled by them and so on. So I think that we are now seeing… It’s like with every industry that is maturing and then you have certain practices that are no longer very efficient at the end of the day. That’s the same thing when you had for luxury advertising, print, print, print. Conde Nast, he has like black cars for everyone, refinance your… Like unbelievable amount of salaries and so on because like, “Oh, you will advertise with Vogue.” You pay him, I don’t know, like millions of dollars and you know, money makes the world go round. So it’s like life is good. 

Then all of a sudden there is changing of how you commune in new generation of consumers, new technologies of communication. And all of a sudden it’s, “Oh no, no, no knocking on the door. Vogue is calling. No one wants to pick up the phone.” You know? So that’s what I find. It’s like that early influencers, they really capitalized on that newness of the new technology and the fact that people were like, “Oh my God, if no one is reading print and everyone is on Instagram or on social media, we are going to employ influencers as media actually.” 

The problem is, no one actually said we are using influencers as media. Everyone was like very muddled about what does that really mean? Does it drive product sales? Well, not necessarily because you basically bought a TV ad. So you don’t have any idea of which percent of your advertising is working because you’re just a wellness play. Like, let’s be honest. You’re not going to necessarily drive sales if you hire an influencer. You may get impressions. You may get rich, the same as mass media. So it’s always like how you pay influencers they’re very obscured and also, what do you expect from influences? What is the ROI? What are the KPIs? Again, very obscure, but it doesn’t have to be, because if you say we are going to pay influencers CPM the same way we are paying publishers or media companies when we place advertising there? 

So, I think it’s more around strategy around it and more about business rigor than the actual, do influencers work, don’t work? They work sometimes, they don’t work other times and it depends on which area. Like Opera can do anything, but you’re not going to go Kylie for a book recommendation. You know what I mean?

30:57

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I think it’s just like what you said. We’re moving from aspiration to something bigger and the influencers that are diversifying their portfolios in a way that shows that they believe in something larger than themselves, that’s interesting. I think Chriselle Lim is… I don’t know if she’s actually announced it yet, but she was talking about coworking space for parents. I think that’s what she was going to announce, which to me sounds very exciting because it shows that this is not just trying to have her lifestyle or to emulate who she is. It’s trying to explore what it means to be a different person in this world, a professional mother, a girl boss, like you were saying, which is apparently a-

Ana Andjelic:
I hate that name. I hate it. And I hate that-

Jasmine Bina:
Why? Why do people hate that? 

Ana Andjelic:
I don’t know.

Jasmine Bina:
Why? 

31:43

Ana Andjelic:
I think it don’t… because it’s kind of like… I mean why girl boss? First of all, why infantilizing that? Like if you infantilize it, then it’s what? It’s less threatening to guys? It can’t be like a woman? You know what I mean? It’s like the fearless girl and has to be a girl because it’s like girls are not as intimidating as grown women. I don’t know. So that’s one. 

Then second of all, it just became like this blanket thing? 

32:13

Jasmine Bina:
Well, yes. So I think that’s also its strengths. I don’t know the full origin of that phrase because the first time I heard it was Sophia Amoruso’s book, which was called Girlboss. So I’m guessing there’s a reason to it and I don’t know what it is, but terms like that, even though we come to derive them after a while, they did something. They did some heavy lifting at some point. Like they-

32:36

Ana Andjelic:
For sure. I think that’s again, that thing like they capture the moment when we all are willing to support more openly and we really champion those who are very entrepreneur like yourself, you’re the girl boss but I would not… I mean, you know for me, it would be hard for me. You’re so much more. I think you’re right. I’m going to take that back because I think you’re right. They do the heavy lifting and they actually the capture the moment in a very tangible form, as words, as labels, as symbol. So, yes. Absolutely. 

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, I think so too. 

Ana Andjelic:
You’re a badass girl boss. How about that?

Jasmine Bina:
I’ll take that. Okay. Thank you. 

Ana Andjelic:
You should. Yeah, we didn’t talk about your credentials. I’ll introduce you at the end. 

33:22

Jasmine Bina:
Okay. We’ll let you do that, but let’s talk about some more personal stuff. I do want to talk about you as a person. I feel like a lot of times when I’m listening to incredible people speak, I want to know them as people. I’ll let you do that however you want. I will say though I did notice that you were reading recently, Sheila Hetty’s book Motherhood, which I’m interested in reading as well, but I know it talks about some tough things around what motherhood is. I recently became a mother. Motherhood is top of mind for almost everybody in my sphere. I think also it’s while we’re talking about girl bosses, while we’re talking about female entrepreneurs, this idea of being a woman who can also be a mother. 

I’ll tell you personally, you see the challenge for me, when I was pregnant with my twins, I saw the challenge as exciting. I was going to still stay the badass girl boss that I was, and I was going to raise these twins and I wasn’t going to slow down. I was going to prove that… I know lean-in has kind of become a dirty phrase at this point, but I was going to find a way to make it all work. I just didn’t want to believe that I would have to compromise.

Then the kids came and you realize that you still want all those things, but it becomes really, really complicated because there’s a lot of emotional stuff behind the scenes that happens in terms of, you have to figure out what a mother you want to be. You meet your children for the first time. They’re their own people. You don’t know who they’re going to be before they come. You realize that your relationship grows in interesting ways and exciting ways, but in also ways that you want to protect over time. And you’re constantly moving between, who am I as a woman and who am I as a mother? I’ve always felt it was important… I mean it sounds cliche. Yes. Everybody should be able to define motherhood the way that they want, but I feel like nobody tells the stories that are really important. One, motherhood, I don’t-

35:17

Ana Andjelic:
It’s a conspiracy. I think that’s a conspiracy of those who have kids to lure us who didn’t.

35:22

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, I don’t think it’s for everybody. Even if you’re a mother, that’s not… What I’m getting at is, even if you’re a mother, that’s not your whole being. I knew for me being only a mother wasn’t going to be fully satisfying and that’s a hard realization to come to because people will judge you for it. It’s hard to be a mother plus XYZ. That’s difficult. Anyways. 

35:48

Ana Andjelic:
So, I think what you just said is impressive and very eloquent and truly honest and amazing. I think it warrants a podcast of its own so think about it because I think that in a great number of cases, there is that lack of honesty. It’s not on purpose. It’s not intentional. It’s just that we are still conditioned to want certain things or feel like we are meant to feel or to follow a path that’s accepted and not… I mean it’s hard to self-explore and to question, and I’m on the other side of the same point that you were describing in terms of identity. Because for me, it’s like, am I missing out on certain parts of my identity if I’m don’t ever decide to be a mother? Am I closing the door? Am I not opening the door that is maybe great, that I never knew that I had in me? 

Am I a poorer person for not having kids? Or at the same time is, but do I feel that I need to have kids because everyone else is having them and that’s an expectation? I never paid much attention to what people think. I’ve been blessed with just not caring, but this is one of the things that is like on my individual identity level I am asking myself.

Then on also how we internalize society. I’m saying, “Well, am I being… ” Like the usual label is, if I don’t have kids, I’m going to be labeled as selfish. That is still very prevalent in this day and age, which is, we may be like surprised by it, but that’s am I going to be judged because I didn’t have kids? So that’s sort of like having a kid is almost like this ticket into belonging. Like doing things-

37:31

Jasmine Bina:
Oh yeah. Let me tell you. Yes. I felt like after I had the kids, there was this whole shadow world that I didn’t even see right in front of me. Suddenly, I was making new friends, meeting new people, being entered into new spaces that I just wasn’t allowed into before, because I wasn’t a parent. When you say that you were born without this gene or whatever that you don’t care about what other people think, that’s a gigantic fucking blessing. Because I felt when I was trying to make this decision for myself, I couldn’t even separate who I was from what the world told me I should be. I don’t think I even ever got there. I don’t think I ever got to a fully clearheaded space. All I know was that when I met the right person and I became more of a confident person myself, I stopped being afraid of it. That’s as far as I got.

Then other women, I think do really, really feel and I know these women who feel like it’s their calling and that’s a blessing too, but I don’t think it happens to most women, at least not in my experience. I think it takes a tremendous person to know… a tremendous woman let’s say, to really, really hear their authentic voice when it comes to motherhood because it’s tied to so many things. 

Like you talked about the selfish label. I felt an ugly label. I felt like if you don’t have children, it’s an indictment of your femininity, your value as like an actual female. Like you’re not a real woman if you don’t have children and-

39:04

Ana Andjelic:
Oh wow. I think… But you see, it’s also reflected through who we are, what we think, because I think that I am already a selfish person like just owning it. I think you see, for me, it was like, “Oh, they’re going to think like it’s ultimate selfish and that you care only about… You know, you don’t. And for you, however, that’s like retract that, how you feel about yourself, it was like, “Oh, I’m not fulfilling my potential,” or, “I’m not being fully a woman if I… ” You know? So maybe that’s your own sense of female identity, but you see how complex that is? 

And I think being able to honestly talk about it and not just be like, “Oh, I guess I have kids because if I wait, I won’t be able to have them,” that’s like the first I think decision-making process.

39:52

Jasmine Bina:
Yes, and that was the other big thing. I don’t want to mislead anyone but we heard plenty of stories of people who were afraid that they waited too long, but I was 37 when I had my children. It was only after I had them that I started to hear so many stories of women who waited quite long into their late 30s, early 40s, who were still able to have kids. I know that’s not necessarily the norm, but you’re always hearing… My husband calls it the survivorship bias. You’re always hearing the real extreme stories. You never hear the more moderate ones. 

I also feel like media is a little sexist because you always hear these negative stories in the media as well and it just feeds this constant fear machine that women have. Again, I really want to be respectful of people who have legitimate fears about things and I realized everybody’s experience is completely different. I get that, but I do not feel like enough experiences are being put out there for people to consume so that they can find themselves in other people’s experiences.

There’s one place though, and I just remembered it. So the New York Times’ conception series. Have you seen that? 

Ana Andjelic:
Mm-mm (negative). No.

40:55

Jasmine Bina:
It’s amazing. So it’s an animated series and it’s like two or three minutes shorts where women speak about their experiences with motherhood, non motherhood, abortion-

41:06

Ana Andjelic:
Well, I probably blocked it. No, I’m kidding. Mentally blocked it. Yeah, because for me it’s a conspiracy. Everyone who has kids conspire against those who don’t, you know what I mean? And they’re like, “Oh no, no, it’s amazing. It’s amazing. It’s just if you have kids, like unlock emotions.” And blah, then you do it, and you’re like, “Oh my God.” You know? I mean I don’t know, but like that’s why it was like so refreshing and how honest you were really and how complicated it is. 

41:35

Jasmine Bina:
It’s very, very complicated. Then of course, there’s the question of afterwards, like these two perfect little humans were born to me and you fall deeply in love, and then you’re suddenly have this new fear of how am I going to protect them in the world? All of a sudden, you’re trying to negotiate a career at the same time. Like all that is happening at the same time.

41:54

Ana Andjelic:
There is that also like indoctrination that is like, “Oh, you can do it all.” Well, maybe not, you know? And maybe not everything perfectly. I think that’s very detrimental that you think that you can do it all. And also why? Okay, fine. If you have financial reasons and so on, then you manage the situation, but just because you compare yourself to others and you think they do it all? Well, no one does it alone. 

Jasmine Bina:
Yes, oh that’s an excellent point. 

42:22

Ana Andjelic:
Yeah, and I think we need too more of that collective narrative of success. Who are those people who help you, who have your back, who prop you up? There is this credible narrative of success is individual achievement and that’s my problem with Cheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In”. It’s individual. It’s not a collective version of success. 

42:43

Jasmine Bina:
That’s such a good point. I feel like when I tell people about my experience, I have to tell them there are so many people helping me. And I’m so, so fortunate that I have so many people supporting our little family. That idea of the lone genius or the lone hero, it’s a very American thing. I don’t know if you see that too much outside of the U.S. I might be wrong, but if you look at all of our literature, if you look at the people that we turn into heroes, the stories that we tell about them, it is always the individual, for sure. 

43:16

Ana Andjelic:
Well, that is the… the American individualism is a very real trait so absolute that part of it is like lone inventor, the discoverer who goes into… Like the lone rider definitely is a big but I think, especially in this modern femininity, I think for so long, women are predicated, there is one seat at the table, there is competition, and I think I loved it. I’m seeing now more and more talking about like women helping each other, propping each other up, having a network. So, it’s sort of recognizing that you can’t achieve anything alone. 

And I think that is like there needs more of that feminine aspect to say, “Hey, it takes a village or it’s my entire community it’s not… ” but I think there is still undue pressure of women to do all of that, be successful in their job and be great mother and hold the family. It’s still a remnant of the past I would say.

44:11

Jasmine Bina:
Now that I’m thinking about it, I have definitely felt shame that I have needed help, which is ridiculous to think about it like that.

Ana Andjelic:
Totally.

44:20

Jasmine Bina:
… because why the hell wouldn’t I need help? And why shouldn’t I be looking for it wherever I can get it but I’ve definitely felt that and it’s very detrimental. Absolutely.

44:30

Ana Andjelic:
Yes, because not all of us need to be super women. It’s not about being a super woman at all. It’s about being smart and knowing how to emphasize your strengths and how to live a full life without killing yourself.

44:41

Jasmine Bina:
Yes, and that’s only half joking, the killing yourself part because you can get there so fast-

44:50

Ana Andjelic:
It really is. You have to ask yourself for who, for what? Who are you trying to do impress? Because it’s not even yourself. Like we would be more gentle to ourselves and you should mother yourself as much as you mother your two boys.

45:04

Jasmine Bina:
That’s very, very true. I don’t want to tie this back too much to branding, but I did want to ask you about women’s brands. We talked about Rihanna and Kylie and Outer Voices and all these women founded companies. And now we’re talking about motherhood and really femalehood, what it means to be a woman. What do you think is going on with major women’s brands? Do you feel like we’re having a true Renaissance? Do you feel like there’s something big on the horizon? What’s happening in the gender world when it comes to branding? 

45:34

Ana Andjelic:
What I think is, now everyone is on like a lookout. It’s like a high alert situation. Then across industries, it’s more advertising. Output is very aware of portrayal of women. The truth will be told, there is still too many men selling products to women and that’s very true across agencies and companies. And there is not still enough diversity. There is still not enough multiple voices overall. So let’s say that’s overall state of affairs. But I think that there is that like high alert, high sensitivity about representation. 

46:13

Jasmine Bina:
Right. I totally agree. It’s funny. I was looking for examples of men’s brands that were founded by women, purely men’s brands founded by a woman. I even put a core question up. Nobody could think of anything. 

46:29

Ana Andjelic:
But Prada is one of them.

Jasmine Bina:
But Prada is men’s and women’s.

Ana Andjelic:
True. So you wanted just men? 

46:36

Jasmine Bina:
Like some… Yeah, because there are plenty of men who have created products just for women. There’s… I think they’re called something in Alps or they’re a self-care brand for men that got big in Target recently. They, I know, are one of the few modern brands where it was, I think it was two female co-founders that founded it and created something for men. But it’s just absolutely not the norm. It goes in one direction, but not the other.

47:01

Ana Andjelic:
But I think we are still very early in that entire evolution and I think like 20 years, like next generation consumers are going to look back or advertising people are going to look back and think how primitive we were-

Jasmine Bina:
That is great. That’s great. 

Ana Andjelic:
… and how unenlightened, because right now, we are still at the stage of celebrating women being entrepreneurs. There’s that. And then we are celebrating human making things for other women. Like you’re just that. Oh, women are starting companies in fashion or in beauty or in, I don’t know, wellness. All is very like soft. 

Then I think the next step is, okay, the same way when the female CEOs of companies are there, you’re going to be like, “Okay, it doesn’t really matter if you’re a man or a woman, you can just go and if you’re passionate about making a cleanser for men or men skincare, or even if you’re passionate about providing like a software technology go for it. It doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman.” So I think right now, we’re still … because when you think about it, it’s like forever VCs wouldn’t get women funding. In the longest times, and then the VCs’ wives were like, “Oh yeah, you should fund because I would use that,” or blah. 

I mean, it’s not a blanket statement, but the point is, that first, it was very hard for women to get any funding, even the areas they were absolute experts on, maybe instinctively so. And let’s get first over that hurdle and then when a woman goes in and she’s an engineer and she wants to pitch a new, like a biosilk or there’s a spider silk, or a new biotechnology then that is going to be that. 

48:40

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. So we’re in the early stages then?

48:42

Ana Andjelic:
Very, and it’s a systemic challenge, but again, it’s good that we have words, as you said, like girl boss, and it’s good that the representation is changing and that we’re seeing more diverse ethnicities in advertising, because that’s also a challenge.

48:57

Jasmine Bina:
Yes. That’s a big conversation. Maybe you and I can have it next time. Who is allowed to tell which stories? Are you allowed to tell a story that isn’t your own? And I think a lot of people bristle at that, but it’s because they haven’t really paused to think about the question. Maybe you and I can talk about that next time.

49:16

Ana Andjelic:
Maybe next time. That’s a real… Like damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Because if you talk about your own culture and your culture happen to be male and white, then you are accused of not talking about other cultures. But when you talk about other cultures then you’re appropriating them and you’re disrespecting the depth of those cultures. So, yeah, again, let’s see how this plays out because we are seeing a great acceleration and I think there’s a great positive steps in direction of being more equal. Let’s first close the pay gap, please. 

Jasmine Bina:
I agree. Let’s tackle that one first. 

Ana Andjelic:
Yeah, yeah. 

49:59

Jasmine Bina:
Well, thank you. This was a fascinating conversation. I’m sorry that we have to wrap it up. Thank you for being so generous with your thinking and your insights and the self-reflection. It was really a delight talking to you. 

50:12

Ana Andjelic:
Likewise. Thank you for such amazing and thoughtful questions and a fantastic atmosphere that you created of honesty or of exchanging ideas. You know what? I’m going to do like few more female podcasts. This is so better than talking to men kind of like… I mean you are one of a kind like all of us are, of course unique, but I think that you’re really very special in both the way you think and what you achieved and how… You have your own company. You’re the CEO of your own company.

Jasmine Bina:
Mm-hmm (affirmative). 

50:55

Ana Andjelic:
And you have two kids and you were also very, kind of thoughtful writer because when you write, I read that stuff.

Jasmine Bina:
Good, I’m glad.

51:33

Ana Andjelic:
I mean we are bombarded with so many drifters and just like people. So it’s very hard to find someone who thought things through. That’s I think how we initially met, because I read something of yours and then I sent you a note. And honestly, I never do that. It’s just that the [inaudible 00:51:18] is very high. So I was impressed by how curious you are. You are wearing sort of many hats at the same time as well. So I don’t know how would I describe your ideas. How would you describe your… Give me like three words. How would you describe yourself? 

51:34

Jasmine Bina:
Ooh, okay. I would say definitely exploring. I feel like really, I always want to explore the frontier of whatever it is I’m studying. I try to be generous and I try to be reflective too. Those are the three words I would use. So not my titles, but the way I try to live my life, I guess. 

51:55

Ana Andjelic:
Well, it comes across very clearly. So you nailed that in terms of brand consistency. And I kind of mean for the greater things that you’re going to do.

Jasmine Bina:
Oh thank you.

Ana Andjelic:
And so thanks for allowing me to be part of your journey.

Jasmine Bina:
Oh, Ana, thank you so much. All right. Shall we talk again?

Ana Andjelic:
Absolutely. Thanks for having me. 

Jasmine Bina:
Of course.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Read all of Ana’s writing: http://www.andjelicaaa.com/

Read the article we discussed where Ana describes the value of hacking culture: https://medium.com/@andjelicaaa/hacking-culture-hacking-growth-a0cbf22917cf

Categories
Podcast

1: The New Rules of Brand Strategy

The coming wave of new consumerism, making users pay a premium for the story, and how to create brand strategy frameworks that consistently lead to defensible positioning. In this kickoff episode, Jasmine and Jean-Louis explore the edge cases of strategy in today’s marketplace, and the ideas and trends that are changing the branding landscape.

Podcast Transcript

December 6, 2019

8 min read

The New Rules of Brand Strategy

0:12

Jasmine Bina:
Welcome to the Unseen Unknown podcast. I’m Jasmine Bina. And this is my first episode with my partner, Jean Louis Rawlence. We are the founders of Concept Bureau. If you’ve come to this podcast, you’ve probably come to us through our writing or our videos, our content. We wanted to create this podcast however as a place to showcase conversations. A lot of times the content that we create is about how to do brand strategy or new thinking in the field or understanding why people behave the way they behave and how to leverage those understandings for your own brand strategy.

But we have some really interesting conversations with the people that are inside and outside of our sphere. And that’s what we want to capture with the Unseen Unknown. We’re going to bring in people who are experts in the brand strategy, domain, and people who are experts in other domains, and try to make sense of what we’re seeing in the world collectively. That’s what the name Unseen Unknown is about. It’s the belief that if you can’t see it, you can’t know it. And there are so many patterns and trends and frameworks and systems that are existing right now that are creating the machinery of this world, but we don’t understand them yet. And because we don’t understand them, we can’t really know how to use them for our purposes. 

We’re going to bring in interesting people every time, but you’re going to see a format where every month we launch two episodes. One episode will be with Jean Louis and I, where we try to talk about something thought provoking that gets you to look at the world a little differently after you listen to the episode. And then the second episode will be with an expert where we talk about things like user behavior, identities, cultural narratives, anything that’s new and happening in different spaces and verticals that could relate to our understanding of the world.

And for this first one, Jean Louis and I talk about the big questions, we talk about where are we in the state of brand strategy right now? How is the modern consumer evolving? What are the current frontiers in branding? And I mean, the not obvious stuff, what are those really what if edge cases? That’s what we wanted to explore. If you had to do thought experiments in this space, what would they look like? And so much of brand strategy is about creating frameworks, something that you’ll hear in this episode, I didn’t always believe in when I first started my career as a brand strategist, but now I’m a complete proponent of. But what makes a good, reliable, effective brand strategy framework that you can use to come to a solid answer every time? This one’s a bit more brand strategy specific, but we do expect the podcast to evolve over time. This was a great conversation, and I hope the first of many. Enjoy. Jean Louis.

03:10

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Mm-hmm (affirmative). 

03:12

Jasmine Bina:
I’ve been working with you at Concept Bureau for at least three years now.

03:16

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. 

03:17

Jasmine Bina:
You have completely changed the way we do everything when it comes to strategy. And so I think you can handle a big question to open this up

03:27

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Okay.

Jasmine Bina:
Okay. Where are we in the state of brand strategy right now?

03:33

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Okay. It’s an interesting question I think kind of like whether or not you appreciate what brand strategy is and kind of like how it operates. In some way or another, a lot of people are asking themselves this question. The way I see it is that if you kind of take a very macro view and you look at kind of like, you go all the way back before 1950 even, you can see that there’s a kind of a very linear progression going from features to benefits, to experience and really kind of behind all of that is this gradual moving up into what people are buying is stories and brand as opposed to the products. And there’s a lot of reasons for that. 

I think one of them is very simple. It’s just the mechanics of brand is that you used to have so few brands that when you bought something everyone knew what that represented about you. And it was very clear that you bought a Rolex and the features of that Rolex said something about you. Now, if you buy a modern DTC brand, if you don’t know that brand, then it doesn’t make a statement about you. And so really it’s not the features anymore that define what you buy, it’s the brand, it’s the stories around them. 

04:42

Jasmine Bina:
I tell this to people and either they, I think gloss over it, and think they really understand that. Or they just don’t believe that people have untethered themselves from buying actual products. I think in some spaces we’re still buying products, but those are spaces that haven’t really been disrupted yet. When you are buying something from Hims, when you get a membership to The Wing, when you buy Ritual vitamins, any of these things, you’re truly just buying a story.

05:18

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Well, I think one way to look at it that is maybe an effective lens is that when you think about there are just so many companies out there, how do you make that decision? This is kind of where the brand becomes important. The brand has become a proxy for how to figure out who to trust. And so in that view, yes, you may still be buying products at the end of the day, but it’s the brand that is letting you make that decision of who to buy. And I think that’s kind of the important distinction where it’s, they have a worldview instead of just a product view.

And so when you decide like, okay, I want to buy vitamins. There’s so many places to choose from and it’s overwhelming. So you have to find some kind of proxy and maybe you find it in the reviews, but the reviews always couched in some of the narrative. And so at the end of the day, your biases will always lean you towards something. And it’s the brands that you end up picking that will make that decision for you.

06:17

Jasmine Bina:
So truly you really believe that it’s the worldview that helps people make these decisions?

06:25

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. I think it’s … We see a lot of brands, especially CPG brands kind of move into content. What they’re really doing is they’re moving into culture, they’re having a cultural narrative and they’re starting to shape these things. And that’s the story, it’s the sort of who am I in this world. And that’s what brand is addressing. And I think that’s kind of one interesting point here especially in Western societies where you have the middle-class is pretty much one of the only demographics globally that is not seeing kind of an increase in wealth that everyone else is. If you’re at the very bottom of the economy, there’s a very good chance that actually things getting better at some rate, minimum wages broadly kind of creeping up slowly. 

There’s a lot of pressures to have more programs to support them, there’s that. If you’re the bottom end of society, things are going well, in the developed society. If you were at the extreme top end, we all know the stories about wealth inequality. And if you look at developing economies, you have the same kind of story. They’re actually doing much better, the rate of progress is really there. But in Western middle class, you have kind of a rate of decline instead.

07:41

Jasmine Bina:
So you’re saying around the world generally speaking, there is this overall growth, except for when you come to a place like America, and if you look at the middle class, we’re not seeing that. 

07:52

Jean Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. The relative income, income has been going up, but it’s not been going up to match inflation.

07:57

Jasmine Bina:
Is it just income or are you talking about happiness too?

08:00

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Well, I think everything sort of goes hand in hand. I mean, my view is kind of economics sort of defines the world we live in. And so happiness is to some extent a function of that. But if you look at the cost of goods and services, you look at just the overall, the macro economic picture. It’s not just kind of have incomes gone up, it’s are we working more or less? Is that money carrying us more? And the bottom line is everything has gotten more expensive, and relatively if you’re in the middle class, you’re earning less. 

08:27

Jasmine Bina:
And also would you say probably the sense of security has gone down too when it comes to finances?

08:32

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Oh, absolutely. I think there’s so many different things. And so kind of within that, there is some kind of search for meaning that is maybe more prevalent in this group of people in lieu of not having kind of the growth and prosperity that kind of does that for you. I think there’s definitely a cultural subtext there towards brands, and that’s maybe why, at least in my view that we look for brands that kind of insert meaning into things in a way that maybe we didn’t before. 

09:03

Jasmine Bina:
That’s interesting. It’s kind of dovetailing with something that I talk about a lot and finance is one of these things, but generally our cultural institutions have started to crumble and evaporate. I’ve said this many times in different ways, education, the institution of marriage, the career ladder, financial stability like you’re talking about. It’s your hypothesis that because we’re losing meaning in a lot of these things that used to hold meaning for us before we’re open to hearing a new world view or to purchasing meaning in some ways from brands. But we’re giving them permission to go into that space. 

09:41

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, no, totally. And I think another axes of that meaning is this, the notion of belonging. If you look at brands, it’s kind of interesting where we’re starting to see that the value of engagement in a lot of these brands is kind of more important than the value of awareness. They know that once they get a core community around them, that community will be so engaged that it’s kind of more economically viable to focus on keeping that engagement of the community rather than kind of drawing awareness. And the subtext of that is what they’re doing is they’re building tribes, and that’s kind of another source of meaning in our lives. And that’s a very fundamental evolutionary mechanism that addresses us. And it’s become really prevalent. 

If you look at a lot of these brands, it’s the communities that have created value for them. And a lot of M&A kind of reflects that, that it’s these organic tribes that drive much larger valuations for these companies. That’s the source of value there, it’s almost having the people. That’s why when they have cultural conversations, they’re able to show those values and actually connect with an audience. That’s why content works because you’re touching culture. And because you’re able to kind of create a worldview that people can kind of [crosstalk 00:10:57].

10:58

Jasmine Bina:
Let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about content. There’s content that touches culture and reflects culture. Then there’s content that sometimes if it’s done right can actually create culture.

11:08

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
I think we’re at a turning point right now. I think we’re kind of at a expansion point in branding where there are so many new ways. We know the mechanisms to reach people more and more is content. And the big part of that is because the cost per acquisition for ads is just getting increasingly expensive and increasingly competitive. And so the best way to do it is organic. So it’s actually a pretty good return on investment in the long term. 

But yeah, I think we’re still figuring out how to do this effectively. It’s kind of like when you look at partnerships with influencers or youtubers, we’re still … To some extent, some people have done a pretty good job of finding that balance of how to create an on-brand advertisement or connect that, but that’s definitely the minority and we’re still figuring that out. And I think this is definitely an expansion point where people are trying a lot of things, and over time we’re probably going to see a few of these things work quite well. The challenges is obviously, it’s one thing to kind of have someone say, “I like this brand, I trust this brand.” It’s another thing to kind of have a standard format for how to discuss culture. I think it will always be evolving to some extent in terms of the type of conversation and the tone and the way it’s told. But as a kind of primary channel for a lot of brands, I see that as being very fundamental moving forward.

12:29

Jasmine Bina:
I think that’s something that a lot of times when we speak with companies, it’s easy for them to miss. You can’t contribute to a culture or to a tribe if you’re not experimenting. You can create a six month or 12 month plan, but you’re not creating content that’s moving anything forward. The brands that push conversations forward are the ones that I think consistently will end up on top. I mean, provided that the product fits the market and everything like that. I think one that I’ve really been impressed with lately has been Mailchimp with all that, the whole new content studio that they’ve developed in house and the short form documentaries that they’re creating and that amazing podcast with Shirley Manson, and a lot of the multimedia content that they have.

If you really look at it, they are … you were asking yourself, why isn’t email management platform creating content that’s touching on such deep human emotional values? If you listen to these stories on the macro, you start to understand that they’re talking about entrepreneurship, and they’re saying that entrepreneurship and risking something is a very important part of the human experience. 

13:41

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
No, for sure. When you really think about what’s happening there, if you watch these things or listen to these podcasts and kind of really internalize that, you are using that as a vehicle to kind of define who you are as a person, that’s an incredibly intimate relationship you’re having with a brand that didn’t really exist to that extent before. Before the people would tell you what they do and how they are, and maybe they would go as far as to say, kind of tell you who you are for buying these products. But now it’s going kind of more and more internal into kind of this very intangible world of kind of worldview and values and kind of like who are you? Who am I to you? Those sorts of questions. That’s kind of a very big progression from where we used to be with brands. And I think a lot of people don’t appreciate the magnitude of that.

14:34

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. I think a lot of brands don’t appreciate the magnitude of effort and vulnerability that it takes to actually do that. And I know that from experience and that’s a huge takeaway if you’re not willing to take risks in order to just inch the conversation forward a little bit, then you’re really missing an opportunity. 

14:54

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Well, I think in some ways you can … If the function of these conversations in kind of defining culture in one way or another, whether you do it through content or not, is to create a tribe and create an identity around a worldview. If your worldview is something everyone can agree on, it’s not really a worldview that defines you, that can kind of specify that. And so to some extent if you’re not on the edge of something, you might as well not be having that conversation at all. If it’s not controversial, then it doesn’t matter if you identify with that to some extent.

15:27

Jasmine Bina:
Something related to this that I want to ask you about, that I want to make sure we cover in this podcast with you and future guests too, is we understand the market, we hope we do. We understand how the climate is changing. What about the consumer? How is the consumer themselves evolving?

15:45

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, I think it’s a really kind of interesting question. It kind of builds on what’s changing in brand strategy. It’s responding to how the consumer is changing. For sure the way I see it is through the lens of Maslow’s hierarchy, where for a long time products were about survival. Then for a long time kind of about belonging and acceptance and kind of moving up into esteem. For a very long time the pinnacle of a brand was providing esteem to you. And mostly that was in the form of luxury. You bought a Chanel bag and that was kind of … it was valued because it gave you esteem. And what’s interesting about esteem is really what’s the value that’s being provided is in everyone else’s view of you, or at least the perception of that. 

And I think where we’re moving now, which is very interesting and is markedly different is kind of, at the very top of the pyramid is self-actualization, it’s kind of who can you become? And the difference there, the important distinction is esteem that kind of, the permission is given by everyone else to you, and in self-actualization you’re giving it to yourself. 

16:54

Jasmine Bina:
You touch on something here that I think is hard to articulate sometimes, but I see it with luxury. Why are luxury brands struggling? And it’s because they’re failing to adapt the fact that we’re all moving up the pyramid, right?

17:08

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Jasmine Bina:
They’re still stuck in esteem. And it’s hard for these brands to really have a world view that can lead to some sort of self-actualization. When your entire heritage is about craftsmanship, and we’ve been around since 18 or whatever, and highest quality and artisans and things like that.

18:02

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
And so scarcity still exists, but it’s kind of evolving there. I think that’s the one place that we’re seeing some success. But for sure elsewhere, just the luxury market kind of falls apart because the values are like, if health is the new luxury, there’s no … scarcity is not a mechanism of that. 

18:20

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, I gave a talk on this at a graduate school in Paris. And I got a lot of pushback from students who did not like it when I discussed this very same thing. And I’m not saying that luxury is going to crash and burn, at least traditional luxury in the form that we know it today like the Chanels and Diors. But I do think that if they don’t start to evolve, there’s going to be a slow, painful death. I think they can coast for a while on what they have. Look at something like Gucci, they’ve gone from an interesting place where before they were all these other brands gatekeeper. It was about this same kind of scarcity, the same kind of authority, and being at that level of the hierarchy in Maslow’s triangle.

But now they are collaborating with all of these cultural keystone people, all these movers and shakers, and they’re expanding the brand so that’s malleable. You can actually literally play with the fabric of the brand. And they’re adopting the world views of these incredible collaborators that they’re working with, and that’s how they’re adapting. And I think that’s actually kind of profound and worth applauding. They’re evolving in the right way.

19:39

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, for sure. I think one kind of industry which is a good kind of microcosm of this is athleisure. If you look a lot of the kind of traditional incumbents that have gone into athleisure, it’s really an extension of the same story. There’s an aspirational lifestyle. And it’s generally kind of to some extent inaccessible costs so that there’s some scarcity there. And what’s kind of interesting is if you look at outdoor voices, which is coming at a very different angle, I think Tihany, the founder, said something along the lines of our real competitor is people’s image of their own body. Now that’s a completely different value system, that kind of coming at this. And you can see the breaking point here where you have the aspirational lifestyle is an extension of the model of esteem. It’s aspirational because of how it’s perceived, the value exists because of how everyone else is seeing it. And if you live that lifestyle, then they see you a certain way. 

Yeah, for sure. I think one kind of industry which is a good kind of microcosm of this is athleisure. If you look a lot of the kind of traditional incumbents that have gone into athleisure, it’s really an extension of the same story. There’s an aspirational lifestyle. And it’s generally kind of to some extent inaccessible costs so that there’s some scarcity there. And what’s kind of interesting is if you look at outdoor voices, which is coming at a very different angle, I think Tihany, the founder, said something along the lines of our real competitor is people’s image of their own body. Now that’s a completely different value system, that kind of coming at this. And you can see the breaking point here where you have the aspirational lifestyle is an extension of the model of esteem. It’s aspirational because of how it’s perceived, the value exists because of how everyone else is seeing it. And if you live that lifestyle, then they see you a certain way. 

And so back to our earlier point about content and worldview, that matters suddenly a lot more because if self-actualization is kind of discovering your potential, then education and kind of informing people of how to find that, and kind of those new values become very important to do that. And if this is a completely new behavior set that we’re emerging into, then we need tools to kind of enter that world. I think the second response to how the consumer is evolving is I have this thesis that we are kind of currently living at peak complexity. My kind of analogy for this is that if you look at how many decisions you make a day, right, and you kind of map this out over a hundred years before and a hundred years into the future. 

Right now technology so far has increased the number of decisions we make. We kind of have so much more information that we have to flood through. It’s not only like how do I get to work on time? What road do I take? What do I wear because of the weather? You’re also kind of like, what do I share on social media? Who do I share it with? What are the hashtags? Is this kind of on brand for me? What is the information I consume? There’s this kind of endless hosepipe of stuff being blasted at you. 

22:27

Jasmine Bina:
Can I make a little comment on the social media piece? I don’t know, like a month ago it was suggested to me that I just take a day off Instagram and I’m very active on Instagram. I love creating stories. It’s my one favorite creative outlet every day, crafting things from my feet. I really engage with my readers. I pose questions. I share my life. I talk about brand strategy a lot. But I took that day off. And I understand people talk about like, “Okay, get off social media so you’re not always comparing yourself.” Fine, that’s one thing that can lead to kind of like … it’s an emotional burden. 

But I didn’t realize how much creating content for Instagram was fricking exhausting. So many choices you have to make, so much creative thinking and deciding what to include, what not to include, how you’re going to tell the story. It’s actually a really complex process to create something valuable on Instagram that will only be watched 15 seconds at a time. And I felt like I got so much time back, but also my attention, because it fragments your attention so much. You’re paying attention to it throughout the day like every hour, it really just shreds apart your time. And it’s an invisible form of complexity that I think there’s so many different forms of invisible complexity in the world. And this is one that I think we’re all experiencing without realizing.

23:54

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Absolutely. There’s a huge kind of decision fatigue, which really is kind of draining your emotional energy and your ability to handle everything else. And you can look at news a similar way where you have so many headlines now are the word that I hate the most is slams. This person slams this person. It’s like, “No, they made a statement and they have a strong opinion.” Okay. That sensationalizing it to hijack our emotional energy because that gets attention. And that’s the kind of the unit economics of news. That’s how that industry operates is clicks, which is attention. 

And so yeah, I think more than ever there are more decisions that we have to make every day. We have climbed the mountain of peak complexity, but the reason why it’s the peak and not just kind of an ascension to an even higher summit is, I truly believe that now that the world is this complex, it’s created a lot of economic incentives to bring that complexity down. We are looking for things to tell us what to do, what to buy, how to operate, what to watch. We are looking for aggregators. And I think the easiest way to see this is if you look at the influencer market. We now use influencers to some extent as a proxy for a lot of opinion making and decision makers. 

25:14

Jasmine Bina:
Okay, let’s pause on this for a second. The huge consensus, the first half of the conversation that the world is having about influencers is that we aspire to be like them, that’s why we value their opinion. But you’re saying that there’s also something else going on that we’re not paying attention to, and that they’re actually making the world less complex for us. 

25:53

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Absolutely. And I truly believe that in 10, 20 years that you will probably be able to walk up to someone and say … and they may not see it this way in themselves, but you could ask them, “Who are the five, 10 people that you follow that define your opinions?” In one way or another they will have an answer to that. And there’ll be different buckets. There’ll be, who do you follow for political opinion, or who do you follow for fashion advice, or who do you follow for kind of like, how do you navigate your opinion around the climate change issue and these kinds of things. One way or another we’re starting to use these people as a proxy, because there’s just too much information to sift through.

26:11

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. And we’re really thirsting for it too. I think it was Chris Dixon, I follow his newsletter. I think he’s the one who said it, that the way he deals with that is that he just finds his trusted aggregators. And that was years ago, and before I think we even had a real consciousness around the word influencers, and that’s basically what he was saying, your trusted influencers.

26:36

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. If we were to paint a picture … Maybe this is a bit techno-optimist, but in 10 years there’s a good chance that with self-driving cars, one big bucket of decision-making is gone. When now with Alexa and a lot of these kinds of shopping AI is starting to get to a point where instead of kind of the onus being on you to sift through hundreds of products, they’re able to kind of be much more smart about their recommendation.

27:04

Jasmine Bina:
I’m not entirely sold on that. 

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Well, maybe not now, but I think we’re starting-

27:08

Jasmine Bina:
You know why I’m not sold on that? Because those voices don’t have a worldview. I would rather see what the founder of The Tot is recommending for laundry detergent for my kids than to ask Alexa what laundry detergent I should get for my kids. Because Alexa doesn’t share my interests, but the founder of The Tot absolutely shares my interest for sustainability, for safety, for all that stuff. 

27:28

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, I totally hear you. The way I see it is that in a sufficient amount of time, you’re going to start seeing those things automated and aggregated. I definitely believe that in 10, 20 years, it wouldn’t be surprising at all to see kind of a chat bot to kind of take who you follow and recommend shopping decisions based on what those people buy.

27:52

Jasmine Bina:
Oh God, that would be so amazing, because even going through the influencers recommendations, the influencers that I follow is a task.

28:03

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. Well, this is the thing. I think we’re starting to see that there’s so much value now in decreasing complexity for ourselves. And so we’re probably within a give or take 10 year window of what could very well be the most complex time in all of human existence, both past, present and future. And so when you look at that, then how is the modern consumer evolving to go back to your question? It’s definitely this complexity axes is defining a lot of decision-making and kind of the subtext of this point is that what you actually have is the platforms consolidating influence. 

Because if you look at Instagram or you look at Amazon with Alexa and you look at these different platforms, suddenly by using these proxies, you’re having your decision-making controlled by fewer and fewer stakeholders. And really to some extent on Instagram, you have to ask how much is Instagram as a platform facilitating this and kind of incentivizing certain kinds of behaviors versus the influences themselves. Because how visible the advertising is, how well they can kind of do product placement without it appearing as product placement, the line between having an opinion and endorsing something for a paid deal. Those are really under the control of Instagram to set the terms and the culture for that.

And so to some extent, what we don’t realize is we’re giving up a bit of decision-making power, actually quite a lot. And this is the problem, brand is kind of the carer, but a lot of these influence techniques and right now we have targeted ads, and people don’t appreciate how incredibly effective targeted ads are. You can not waste a cent on advertising to someone who’s outside of your target demo. It doesn’t mean everyone’s going to buy, but it means that the only eyeballs you’re touching are the ones that are absolutely primed, and it’s becoming far more sophisticated. And to think that it’ll stop here is kind of to not have studied history. 

30:15

Jasmine Bina:
And we all know, I mean, you and I have both experienced this, we’ll be talking about something. We could be talking in the middle of a damn forest, and we’ll mention socks, I don’t know, like Fruit of the Loom socks. And then once we get back to the city, we’re going to start seeing ads for Fruit of the Loom socks. We all know we’re not only being watched, but we’re being listened to.

30:40

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, 100%. And I think it’s one way, that’s kind of another way this plays out. It’s not only the kind of targeted ads and everything, there’s another mechanic. And I think it’s especially visible in sneaker culture where you have, if you look at what people are doing, you have Kanye West who wears a pair of sneakers that makes a statement and people talk about that because it’s culturally relevant, there’s something going on there, it draws attention. And then you have these people who are by no means influencers, have a small following. But what they’re trying to do by participating in the kind of the sneaker market and sneaker culture is play by the same rules as these influences that they follow, or these celebrities. They’re buying these sneakers to make the same kind of statement that let’s say Kanye West or whoever is making. 

Now they’re making the statement to a very small set of people who maybe will appreciate that, but they’re trying to play by the same rules. And I think we can’t underestimate how much this culture around influencers is kind of trickling down to the layperson, because to some extent it’s still very aspirational. I read about a study recently where so many people, just average consumers will buy clothes, wear them once for an Instagram picture and then return them. Influencers they get sent clothes, they do that, that’s part of their living.

32:03

Jasmine Bina:
I’m pretty shallow when it comes to Instagram, but even I have not done that. 

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
But this is-

Jasmine Bina:
Certain regular people are doing that.

32:10

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Regular people. It’s trickling down. These behaviors, people are trying to emulate. And I don’t think this is sustainable in any way. I think this is kind of maybe a fad, I read recently about, this is kind of … There’s so many lessons in history, you can learn if you just study it. And what’s kind of fascinating is most people don’t appreciate that after the printing press was invented, there was kind of a hundred year period of intense conflict around religion and all these things. Because some of the information was much more readily accessible. 

Now, most people have no idea that happened, but with social media, you have a radical change of social norms. The radical kind of increase in the availability of information in a very short period of time. And it shouldn’t be no surprise that we’re going through similar growth period where there is rapid change and not necessarily in a positive way. There’s arguably a lot of conflict. I mean, we don’t need to get into how there’s all these influence campaigns that are very subversive using social media. But just in the context of brand and how consumers are changing, this is absolutely kind of a critical moment where we’re redefining what norms are. And to some extent, a lot of these things might be very unsustainable. And so they’ll reach a breaking point and have to change.

But this kind of the economics and the lifestyle of influencers defining kind of the aspirations for brand and that trickling down to the lay consumer, that’s probably something that won’t, or can’t last. There’s so much friction and tension and pressure for consumers, and there’s definitely already starting to be a bit of a counter culture emerge around this. I don’t think anyone knows where that’s headed, but I think it’s kind of something to keep an eye on in the sense that this is a very dynamic playing field that is changing rapidly. And just there’s always this frustration where people see how everything has changed so much before us and assume that it won’t change as much in the future. 

And if history has taught us anything, it’s only going to change more. And so when we see how all these norms are changing, we’re not reaching a new plateau, we’re kind of exponentially accelerating. And with these new technologies that are, again, going back to that peak complexity point, becoming proxies for decision-making and consolidating that influence, that’s only going to accelerate. And so as far as how people are evolving, it’s that self actualization piece and put it in the context of incredibly dynamic environment that almost year to year you need to touch base on and also industry to industry. 

A lot of what we talked about is kind of relevant for fashion, but when it goes to workplace culture and how kind of business consumers are changing, it’s a completely new set of things. It’s also evolving at a rapid pace and it’s also arguably moving towards self-actualization, but the one kind of constant is that things are changing very aggressively.

35:09

Jasmine Bina:
Okay. As an example, what do you mean about what’s going on in business and workplace culture?

35:14

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Well, in that environment it’s very much about upskilling. Well, there’s a few components, one is kind of upskilling. Going back to our earlier point, people are looking for meaning.

35:24

Jasmine Bina:
Okay, just to be clear upskilling you mean taking a workforce, giving them new skills so that they’re basically upgraded or more sophisticated in their skills for the future of work? 

35:35

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. At least my take is, it’s not so much about the kind of economic potential. It’s more the meaning component. There’s a lot of studies out there right now that kind of show that people are willing to make pretty significant compromises in income and kind of where they live and living quality, because they want to pursue meaning, they want to pursue jobs that are more fulfilling even if they pay less.

36:02

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. You and I have seen this in our research a lot. We’ve worked with a lot of companies that are in the workspace or in the workspace space or in the skills space, it’s something having to do with people evolving their professions. And we see this a lot, work has become the new religion and not in the kind of funny tongue in cheek way where we’re worshiping our bosses and slaving away at our desks. But truly that where we used to find meaning in religious systems, we’re kind of looking for that same meaning in work systems now. And that’s why we’re willing to upskill ourselves to be lifelong learners and to jump ship so frequently between careers and jobs, sometimes taking a sideways step or a downward step, because it’s the meaning that we’re thirsting after.

36:52

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, 100%. And so it’s a similar kind of thing. If you look at that, it’s less about esteem and it’s more about self-actualization, kind of the value goes inwards and it goes like, how do you want to feel purpose? 

37:07

Jasmine Bina:
The thing about the self actualization is that business owners really need to keep in mind that this really destroys a lot of the systems and frameworks that they still take for granted. People still assume in the workplace example, I can see even founders that we’ve spoken to still assume that people are motivated by better jobs with better pay. And that’s just not true because we’re not … remind me again, what was underneath the self-actualization?

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Esteem.

37:41

Jasmine Bina:
Esteem. We’re not looking for esteem anymore. We’ve leapfrogged that. And when you’re looking for self-actualization, this career path of moving, getting better at your job, getting a promotion, getting a better job, more money, better promotion, go to a different company, better job, more money, better company. That’s not the path anymore because we’re not driven by esteem. And you cannot underestimate the fact that when we’re looking for self-actualization, so many of the old rules don’t apply. Okay. This is all really interesting stuff. I hope you didn’t already tell me the answer to this next question. I wanted to ask you, where are you seeing some exciting things? You’re a very much a futuristic person, you’re a futurist, you love to speculate about where the world is going. What are some of your really fringe ideas that can somehow be traced back to brand? 

38:37

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Well, I think one of the kind of more interesting areas is we spoke about tribalism and community, and this is starting to become such an important part of these brands, is really kind of, this is how you construct your identity. And so there are some brands that are doing really interesting work here, but we’re still very much kind of this Cambrian explosion of new formats of how to handle and run communities. And there’s so much more equity that’s sort of tapped into that, that we need to extract or brands need to kind of find a way to pull out. 

One example that you’ve written a lot about is the ordinary, and how there is this incredible amount of organic engagement where they don’t tell you how to use their products. And so the community has stepped in and done that for them. And people have spreadsheets on how to use all these different active ingredients, because they only sell the active ingredients, they don’t sell kind of these fully fledged things, you have to figure out what’s right for you. And the product is very much designed in a way that it forces kind of community engagement. That’s very, very interesting and quite unique to the skincare space. You’re starting to see that around, New York Times does a really good job with the Conception series and the Modern Love series. 

Jasmine Bina:
Which I love. I love both of those series. 

39:58

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. They’re giving a voice to this community or these communities to talk about the difficult parts of motherhood

40:06

Jasmine Bina:
Yes, that’s a good example of a brand taking risks. And this is risky stuff that they’re talking about, very, very debatable meaning of life stuff, and inching the conversation forward despite how deeply uncomfortable it is. 

40:22

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. But I think if you look at the mechanics of what’s happening there, The New York times is not telling you anything about what it’s like to be a parent in the modern era or what it’s like to have a modern relationship. They are giving that community a platform. And I think that’s the difference there, is that what’s so evocative, what’s so powerful about that is it’s not a gatekeeper telling you how to live. It’s them using that platform to really elevate that conversation. 

40:54

Jasmine Bina:
I would push back a little bit. They are still filtering the stories, get on there, and there are specific stories. 

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Well, okay, that’s fair, that’s definitely-

Jasmine Bina:
This are like stories from the Bible Belt, these are definitely like New Yorker, Southern California stories.

41:05

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Okay. You are right. There’s a lot of editorial discretion, but it’s just the difference compared to all the brands is the rules of gate keeping have changed here, I think that’s the point. And that they are kind of creating a community around this, something that you can identify with. And you’re absolutely right, it is a subset, it’s a small group of people that view it a certain way. That’s definitely interesting. 

One thing I think is almost not as exciting as it should be is DTC, or maybe that’s the wrong way to put it. It’s just the story of DTC is a very old story in my eyes, where you have someone coming in with a single product that wants to be best in market, [Casper 00:41:46], the very, very kind of the prototypical example of this, or even Warby Parker. They come in, they say the industry is stagnant. There’s all these problems. We have the new best product and they come in with one product and they try and win the market there and then expand horizontally from that. And we’ve seen this a lot. I think one of the problems is that people don’t appreciate the economics of this, is that it works really well in certain industries where there are gatekeepers where there’s a lot of stagnation.

Jasmine Bina:
And difficulty to change, a lot of vested interests and systems and things like that.

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. It doesn’t mean it works for every industry.

42:19

Jasmine Bina:
Well, yeah, also a lot of the advantages of DTC have totally started to disappear, even old companies like Walmart are starting to act more like DTC companies, people are getting really smart to the game. I don’t know that there are too many more built in advantages to being a DTC company first anymore. 

42:42

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. I think for a lot of startups it’s the de facto cause, but it’s not what it used to mean for a lot of people, because a lot of the low-hanging fruit has been disrupted, but also if everyone’s DTC then it doesn’t have the same cache as it used to. Everyone is saying that we have something new and better and they’re trying to be best in class in these very narrow fields. And so it’s kind of, the mechanics have changed. And if you look at some of the kind of the winners in the DTC market and you look at where they’re going, they’re moving into content, just like everyone else, they’re becoming kind of building their tribe and kind of having those mechanics, and DTC is really just not a sort of disruptive format, it’s almost a de facto format.

43:27

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. And I think we went through an uncomfortable period over the last couple of years where people were still being seen as disruptive by virtue of the fact that they had taken something that was brick and mortar and made it DTC. But that model is not disruptive, that’s what they were missing. Warby Parker, Hims, all these other brands, they didn’t do well because of the DTC model, they did well because of something having to do with the product but more importantly with the brand.

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah.

43:56

Jasmine Bina:
Okay. I’m going to push you a little bit further. I want more extreme edge cases. If we’re really looking at the current frontiers in branding, not the obvious stuff, but like I said before, those real edge cases. If you had to do a thought experiment about something really fascinating that maybe on the mid to long-term horizon, what pops into mind for you?

44:20

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
I think one thing, we know that brands can be really, really powerful, and really effective at kind of changing mindset and pushing the cultural conversation forwards. What I don’t think we’ve seen anywhere near enough of, that absolutely there’s so much opportunity for is brands that don’t focus on built around businesses. What I mean is, if you take climate action, there is so much equity there to build grassroots brands. A good example of this done right is the Me Too movement. There is a very dishonorable brand around that. There is a strong story. There’s a cultural narrative. They’ve done very well. 

But you don’t see a lot of Me Toos for other spaces or other issues, other causes that aren’t economically incentivized by a product and kind of trying to capture some value. And so it’s kind of interesting, it’s something we haven’t seen a lot of to create kind of grassroots brands, those grassroots action, and definitely kind of a lot of organizations that spin out of these things, but not really strong brands.

45:25

Jasmine Bina:
I suspect part of it is because people believe that a cause cannot be a brand. People believe that a cause should be enough, but causes are problematic. They inspire guilt, like climate change, equal rights, things around the family or children, they inspire guilt and that works in the short-term. You feel guilty for a short period of time. You pay to have your guilt absolved in the form of a donation, but you don’t want to be fricking constantly reminded of this thing that makes you feel guilty. And to their credit, the people behind these causes truly feel the need to make change happen. And they feel that their cause should lead. But I would encourage people to think that the causes may be a secondary message. 

46:18

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, now I definitely agree that to some extent if you can change culture, then that sort of trickles down to everything else. And so the power of brand, I just don’t think these people fully appreciate how effective brands can be at shifting the narrative and creating new norms. Absolutely I totally agree that there’s this way too much guilt in all of these different causes, and the organizations that have created narratives that don’t use guilt, they don’t have strong brands, they haven’t kind of built those vehicles. And I think part of it is that it’s a kind of a tangential investment, or at least it feels that way, that in order to change culture maybe that means that you have to be playing strongly in the content space. And that feels like a waste of money when you should be spending money on all these kinds of direct awareness things.

Jasmine Bina:
Exactly.

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
But it’s really kind of the short-term versus the long-term.

47:12

Jasmine Bina:
And it’s missing the self-actualization piece, might give to Smartwater, I want to buy Smartwater or any of those other water brands that build a well someplace in an impoverished community. Where’s the self-actualization piece for me? That sounds so counterintuitive when it comes to cause-based issues, but that’s how you captivate people for better or for worse. 

47:35

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Now they need to tap into current values. If you look to Maslow’s hierarchy to use that as a kind of lens, they’re not even at esteem, they’re down in the survival safety kind of bracket, and it’s a completely different set of needs. And if they don’t start operating like a modern brand, and the thing is, there’s so much equity to do that. In a lot of ways they are trying to change culture. In a lot of ways they’re kind of pushing things forwards beyond what a lot of these brands are doing, they’re far more kind of high-minded and aspirational in the good sense of like, this is what the world can become.

Jasmine Bina:
The parallel here is they have a really good product. 

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yes. 

Jasmine Bina:
They have a really good product, but it’s not being branded correctly.

48:16

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. Definitely as far as kind of like the real front is, yeah, brands around non businesses, I think that’s something interesting. The other thing I kind of been keeping an eye on is political brands. Definitely we’re starting to see the kind of the individual brand really, really, really become effective in politics. And that’s something that is definitely going to keep evolving. One thing I’d love to see personally is we have this kind of demonization of people changing their opinions in politics, and it’s so counter-intuitive.

48:51

Jasmine Bina:
But what are you saying here? That we demonize people change their opinions? 

48:56

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Absolutely. And there are so many studies that back this up, that if you have a politician that you like and they change their stance on something, even if it’s to be more aligned with you, it’s seen as a sign of weakness and you’ll strategically maybe not vote with them because you think everyone else sees it as a weakness too. It’s really kind of, there’s a very toxic brand around the fact that as a politician, it’s dangerous to evolve, which doesn’t make any sense. If there was ever a field where you would want to kind of change your opinions and evolve and be seen as a dynamic figure, that would be the one.

49:29

Jasmine Bina:
Is this only in America?

49:32

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
I mean, I can’t speak for the world obviously, but I definitely think it’s something in the West.

49:36

Jasmine Bina:
Did you see it in the UK?

49:38

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
To some extent, definitely to some extent there’s definitely bias there. And I think it’s a very fundamental thing about how we kind of see people that’s kind of, we put integrity over everything else and that’s kind of the wrong horse to bet on. What I would love to see is to see someone build a political personal brand that accommodates that kind of personal evolution, that would be very, very interesting.

50:07

Jasmine Bina:
You’re saying a politician that creates a brand around the fact that they are constantly exploring, learning and evolving their opinions.

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yes. 

Jasmine Bina:
Ooh. I feel like-

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
It’s a tall order. 

Jasmine Bina:
Okay, here’s the thing. I think people have a hard time letting politicians do this because they confuse changing your opinion with changing your values.
Okay, here’s the thing. I think people have a hard time letting politicians do this because they confuse changing your opinion with changing your values.

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah.

50:29

Jasmine Bina:
And that’s what’s difficult for them, especially in a two party system. Andrew Yang kind of I think could be a little different here as a candidate. I think, I mean, I’ve watched him for a couple of years now and I’ve seen him speak and I’ve been a little involved in what he’s doing, and he promises scientifically based research-based public policy.

50:56

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, he’s starting the conversation in a very different playing field, which is really refreshing to see, that he’s kind of bringing the conversation to where the evidence takes it rather than kind of coming in with values driven approach, which is really what the vast majority of politics is about. It’s kind of like, what are your values? And kind of like if you support that, then you kind of go along with the policy. For most people that’s kind of how they operate there. So that’s, yeah, definitely political brands, think a lot of frontiers there-

51:27

Jasmine Bina:
That’s really interesting. You’re right. That is one place where I don’t know, I mean, I’d have to really think about this. I don’t know what it would take to change people’s perceptions around that.

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
It’s such an entrenched bias.

51:40

Jasmine Bina:
Okay. I’m going to move this conversation forward. It relates to what we’ve been discussing here, because if you look at things like politics or the Maslow’s hierarchy that we’ve been talking about, this idea of non brands. When you want to approach these things and create new strategies that actually change perceptions and behaviors, we’ve learned over and over again it has to start with a framework. Frameworks are tools that we use to deconstruct why something works the way that it works and reconstruct something that works in a different way, the way that we want. That’s so much of brand strategy. And you actually taught me this when you started working with me at Concept Bureau, this business was very different. It was very creative. 

I’m very much a storyteller and an artist. You come from an engineering background, you studied aerospace engineering, that’s your profession. And I remember it really rubbed me the wrong way that you could take something that felt very human and organic to create a brand, to create a story, and apply these very stark principles on it. And of course I was wrong. And this is what strategy is, it’s building these frameworks. I’m going to ask you, what makes a good, reliable, effective strategic framework.

53:01

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
That’s a big question. I mean, I always try and approach these things from a very kind of first principles standpoint. My process is kind of always the same regardless of what I’m sort of working on when it comes to strategy, which is that there is a phase at the beginning where you want to explore every possibility, is kind of this vast expansion. There’s everything that can be done, there’s maybe everything that should be done that is everything that you would want to do this strategically makes sense, but you really want to start kind of factoring in everything. And so you start with expanding all the possibilities, whether you’re exploring kind of the cultural frontiers or you’re exploring the product level decisions. It’s always what is possible and then finding a mechanism to contract that down.

53:51

Jasmine Bina:
You’re saying a good framework will let you go super wide at first and then give you a device for going very narrow again. 

53:59

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, I see it as sort of an oscillation where at every stage of kind of gathering insights and making decision-making, you have to take into account sort of all the opportunities, all the possibilities, and then contract that down to what should be done. And then again, from what should be done, what is the extreme range of consequences of that? And then again, condense that down. And so it’s that-

54:21

Jasmine Bina:
Can you give an example of what that might look like.

54:23

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Okay. If we’re talking about the education space, for example, and we’re talking about the cultural frontier sort of where are we headed? There are so many different cultural narratives that we may want to play into in this space in terms of maybe we go with themes in terms of the future of work. Maybe we work against the narratives about work and talk about the individual. Maybe we talk about the actual experience of learning.

54:49

Jasmine Bina:
Maybe we talk about the materials, the coursework, the teachers, the philosophy behind teaching, the history of education. It can touch on so many different things. How we gather in spaces even, or the meaning of the classroom, or different learning styles as an example. Okay, so it can go super, super wide.

55:48

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, you need to kind of get this macro view of where is everything headed? And then within that see kind of what are the interesting points? Where is that real equity to move things forward or to be part of that forwards trajectory? Because some of these things just happen as a consequence of things changing. Some of these different changes or trends in culture are leading these changes. And so where do you want to play in? When you figure out where you want to play, then you have a subset of, okay, these are the cultural narratives. And then for example what you may do is you may look at, okay, what are all the kind of equity we have in our product and our community in terms of a brand? Where are all the points of value that we have?

You would explore all of those different things, and then you would condense that down into, okay, what are the points of equity in our brand that we have that our competitors don’t have, that kind of are a little different that are kind of like give us room to grow and evolve, that are in the trajectory of where new value is being created. And so kind of in line with inside of the cultural trajectory is kind of what is the brand equity we have in our product. And then you do the same thing looking at your audience and you would find, okay, what is there trajectory? And so all of these things you’re kind of expanding and contracting down until you get to the kind of the art of it. 

Because to some extent you can systematize a lot of these things. You can get a lot of the insight building and the criteria for a brand to be fairly scientific. But there is always a bit of a leap and maybe I haven’t come up with the right framework yet, but there is a bit of a gap between knowing what the brand needs to do and then finding the narrative to sort of artistically express that.

56:50

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah. Well, we talk about this all the time. I think that’s where the art meets the science. When you’ve done all of your strategic work, you will ideally end up with a catalog of like, this is how our brand needs to operate through this, this, this, and this, needs to work like this, this, this, and this, and needs to change this, this, this, and this. You don’t want nine answers for all the things it needs to do. You need to find that one answer, that one mechanism that answers all those nine things. That’s the artistry. It’s finding that one piece that solves so many different problems that you’ve surfaced in the strategy, research and development.

57:29

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. And just to add to that, I think once you get to that central narrative, this is the story, this is the kind of the belief and the values of the brand. That’s kind of the contraction of that entire discovery phase, kind of creating the criteria, having a very strategic belief in worldview. And then you get to the same thing again, and then you have this huge expansion of, okay, this is all the ways that we can express that, this is all the ways we can have this conversation, all the ways we can turn that into experience. And there were so many different ways. One of my favorite mechanisms for kind of discerning a good strategy from bad strategy, there was a great article in the Harvard Business Review. And it was a very, very simple anecdote that works so beautifully. It was basically that if the opposite of your strategy is not a strategy, then you don’t have a strategy. 

58:17

Jasmine Bina:
So many people hear that and just don’t get it.

58:20

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. I mean, the example I think they gave was looking at some kind of service company.

58:28

Jasmine Bina:
I remember the example. I think it was a financial services company that said we are going, our strategy is to give the most competitive products to our customers with the best service. And the opposite of that would be, we would give the least competitive products to our non-clients with the worst service, but that’s not a strategy. 

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
No one’s going to do that. 

Jasmine Bina:
So you don’t really have a strategy to begin with.

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. I mean, if that’s not a strategy, then yeah, no one’s going to be moving in that direction.

58:54

Jasmine Bina:
Because a strategy is not a best practice. A strategy is how are we going to do things in a way that we can own and carve out a niche for ourselves in the market that would be hard for others to follow. 

59:07

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, for sure. And it’s always a good heuristic just to measure these things by it. You mentioned a good point about best practices and it’s definitely kind of in the latter stage of a brand strategy where best practices become really, really effective. But yeah, at a very broad level, kind of going back to the bigger question around, how do you create a framework? There is a lot of, sort of science, a lot of formula that you can provide to get all the insights and condense them down. But there’s definitely just that last sort of 5% of knowing what it needs to do and then knowing how it does that, that to some extent that’s the value of the experience, having someone who’s experienced in this and knows that best practices can guide you, but there’s always that little bit of a gap.

1:00:01

Jasmine Bina:
It’s a last mile problem. Getting to that last mile, there are systems and ways to get there super efficiently, but making that last mile happen is full of friction and it’s super hard.

1:00:13

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. And I think if we could figure out a formula for that last one, then that’d be AI coming to eat our jobs soon enough. 

1:00:22

Jasmine Bina:
To wrap this up, I think this was a great conversation. What a lot of people don’t actually know about you and me is that we’re not only partners in Concept Bureau, we’re partners in real life. You’re my husband, and we met about three and a half, four years ago. Now I had started this agency before I met you for a number of years. And then you came and completely changed everything for the better and just completely changed the way I approach things, the way I saw brand strategy and really just took this company to the next level. And that’s also when I started publishing a lot too.

And people ask us all the time, how do you do it? I could never work with my wife or husbands. And it wasn’t easy all the time, we definitely earned our strides. I’m very, very strong-willed and passionate is the word I would use. And you are also equally strong-willed and passionate about your ideas as well. I’m going to ask you not just about working couples, but to create a true partnership because so many of our clients that we’re meeting more and more of are actually founded not by an individual founder, but by co-founders. So many huge, amazing business successes of our times have co-founders behind them. And that’s a very intimate relationship to have someone because you’re literally building a life together in many ways. What is your advice to people? I don’t think I’ve ever really asked you this. What is your big takeaway from this huge experiment that you and I have undertaken? 

1:02:01

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, it’s a big question. I think what makes it especially difficult in terms of what we do is the fact that it’s creative work. If you’re two accountants working together it’d be a very different story because you could argue there’s creativity in accounting. But the point is that with creativity you’re really putting your ego on the line. You’re saying, I have this idea, what do you think about it? And they’re not always good ideas. And the process of collaboration often requires shooting people down. And if you don’t do that, then you don’t have an effective culture to work in. 

And so to some extent, I think one of the biggest challenges is ego. And it’s not easy, but learning to kind of separate your ego from a lot of these things, because the bottom line is you have a shared goal and you’re working towards that shared goal. And the thing that gets in the way is the ego. It’s not anything else usually, it’s usually somehow you’ve hurt my feelings in one way or another and we pretend like it’s creative differences, whatever. But really I think a lot of disputes come down to that. Ego I think is definitely a big part of working well together, trying to get rid of that, trying to create a culture where you’re almost encouraging that. I think the more you encourage failure, the more you kind of can throw things at the wall and see what sticks.

1:03:27

Jasmine Bina:
Yeah, that works too. I’ve never been good at failure ever. And I have always had a fixed mindset that I am only as good as I am and I constantly have to prove that to the world. Instead of a growth mindset that believes that I can get better. Accept that I’m not at the level I want to be at, but I can get better. And I’ve really had to push myself out of that mindset in the course of my career and working together was kind of a crash course in that. But creating an environment where you are constantly failing as part of the process, failing by design. I think people get that on paper when it comes to product dev or UX or things like that. But we never think about it for when it comes to interpersonal relationships or professional relationships.

1:04:12

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, definitely. I think part of that is that it’s not a true failure to some extent or not a valuable failure, unless you can pause and reflect on kind of that experience and how to move forwards from it. A lot of the time you fail and it’s frustrating and it dims your ego and it creates that little bit of tension and that just kind of continues under the radar. And I think part of it is that you have to kind of get back to that point especially if there’s some contention where you can kind of realign on values and say that, where like … Or at least when you have that success after those failures that you have that kind of alignment and that shared vision, because otherwise you’re sort of, you can be working against each other, even though you’re trying to do the same thing, so I mean, yeah.

1:05:05

Jasmine Bina:
I think also framing the failure. I know in the beginning of our working relationship I saw failure as failure, period. But now we’ve made a real habit of when we looked back at our failures, we look back at them in a grateful way, kind of fondly. We laugh about it or we tie it to like, oh, because of that failure we went to this whole new space and we had this other success. It’s how you perceive the failure that I think matters. And that’s a habit that you build with your partner. It’s not something that comes naturally. You have to constantly recontextualize what it means to not get it the first time.

1:05:44

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah. I think the soft way of addressing it is to call it iterations, and that’s really what … I mean in branding that’s what we do. And I think what we’ve found over time is that the more we do this work, the more you need to kind of get it wrong because then you’ll learn. That’s the only time you’ll find out what’s right. A lot of the time when we’re dealing with an executive team and it doesn’t quite feel right, that’s the first opportunity they have to actually articulate what it is that is right. If you don’t have that, if it’s always, yeah, this is good, yeah, this works. That’s the worst possible thing. It’s the same kind of situation.

There’s always this anecdote that I appreciated where the worst people to work with are the B players. The A-players are all-star, they’re great, they do the work and they’re fantastic at it. The C players are so bad that you get rid of them straight away. It’s the B players that aren’t quite enough to get rid of. I mean, that’s more about kind of hiring and employees, but it’s the same kind of attitude where if you think it’s not quite bad enough that it needs to be addressed, that’s probably absolutely when it needs to be addressed.

1:06:57

Jasmine Bina:
Okay. Yeah. I would also say just as a last note, for people who maybe are thinking about working with their partners, it’s very, very hard. But if you can get through the hard parts, it’s extremely rewarding and worth it. Because imagine if you could take your successes at work and have them have a halo effect over your personal life too, and that’s the benefit of this. So yeah, anyways, I think this is a good place to wrap up the interview. We explored a lot of interesting things when it comes to branding. Hopefully this has set the tone for what people can expect from the Unseen Unknown. We have a lot of really interesting people who are on the roster for interviews that are coming up. Thank you, Jean Louis, and talk to you again soon.

Jean-Louis Rawlence:
Yeah, that was fun. Thanks.

Categories
Marketing

These Are The Brand Moves You Should Be Paying Attention To Right Now

The Smithsonian shows that our collective scrambling to define the canon is, in fact, a rebellious act. Alrosa begs the question of ownership. Outdoor Voices pulls a Mariah Carey.

I write a lot about defining strategy and how to build a brand. My goal is to always look for companies that are doing it right because those are the ones we best learn from (although it would be much easier to simply point out the ones that are doing it wrong).

Strategy, however, is only half the equation. The way companies bring those strategies to life can reveal a whole new world of learnings. Their tactics, decisions and moves are all signals to the consumer and to the marketplace.

They show us both what people want now, and how much they are willing to tolerate in being pushed into the future.

Here are some recent brand moves that have definitely edged the conversation forward.

The Smithsonian shows interest in obtaining the artwork of migrant children detained at the border.

You couldn’t hear this story without feeling something. After CNN shared images of drawings by migrant children who were recently released to a respite center in McAllen, Texas, the Smithsonian reached out to inquire about obtaining the disturbing works of art. Many of the works depicted heavy metal cages and towering authority figures in hats.

Via The New York Times.

The Smithsonian describes itself as a museum, a research and education organization, and an “opener of doors”. But this move is about much more.

The brand signal here is clear. While other museums exist to celebrate America, the Smithsonian is here to hold it accountable.

  • The Smithsonian has accepted the fact that every act is political (and there’s good reason for that, as Professor Scott Galloway has explained). By collecting these works, they act as the ultimate witness to America’s actions — a very provocative role to play as a brand.
  • There’s perhaps no stronger way to flex your muscle as a brand than to choose which voices matter. It’s especially poignant as they’ve chosen to highlight the wordless voices of children. It opens up much more opportunity for discussion in a way that public outcry and political reporting can’t touch.
  • Art has always been controlled by the gatekeepers of history, but it looks like that’s changing. Gatekeepers only have control if you give it to them, and in the art world, there is a stubborn old guard that refuses to open the door (and perhaps that is the “door” that the Smithsonian references in their description).
  • This reminds me of other brands that are experimenting with the fabric of culture and history like Otis, an alternative investment platform that deals in items of cultural currency like Air Jordans and KAWS works. They’re democratizing both the investment itself and the act of choosing what is worth investing in.
  • There are also the admirable efforts of companies like Fast Retailing (Uniqlo’s parent company) who may not be acting as a cultural gatekeeper, but say something about it when they make genuine efforts to hire refugees.

Alrosa creates digital passports for diamonds that beg the question of ownership.

Alrosa has tested out an interesting new initiative for its gems: electronic passports that “will tell the buyer the gem’s age, the place and date of its extraction, as well as the time and place of its cutting and the craftsman’s name and background.”

If you haven’t heard, millennials are cooling on the complicated idea of diamonds. Alrosa is hoping transparency and proof of sustainability will change that. It’s a noble brand tactic but not a strategy. Causes are never strategies, but that’s beside the point.

What matters here is who is executing the initiative. Alrosa is the world’s second largest diamond miner. You may own one of their stones but you’d never know it.

They are a producer taking on the responsibility of a retailer in branding the product, proof that everyone in the supply chain is in the business of branding now.

  • Calling it a passport is interesting. The word passport is on-the-grid, not off. It’s about permission to move freely. It’s about having a state given identity.
  • If you grew up in California like me, you were exposed to nonstop Diamond Exchange television ads touting “GIA and EGA certified”. The GIA (Gemological Institute of America), a monolithic governing body that works to standardize the trade, recently added a 5th “C” to their list of Color, Cut, Clarity and Carats — Country of origin. Major move, if not more symbolic than anything else.
  • This reminds me of brands like Toogood who use labeling as a way to create meaning and connection with their products. Their garments have large tags sewn into the lining with a record of its name, designer and country, among other details. Blank lines for “Sold By” and “Worn By” complete the story once they’re filled in.
  • These moves by Alrosa and Toogood both convey a philosophy about what it means to “own” or use something. Do we really own a fine item, or are we just using it for a portion of its lifetime?
Toogood label.

Outdoor Voices flexes their muscle by refusing to tell an athleisure story.

A few people this week emailed me a New York Times interview with Outdoor Voices founder Ty Haney. It was this quote that caught their eye:

“We’re not up against the Nikes, Under Armours and Lulus of the world. What we’re up against is people’s negative perceptions of themselves.”

But in product terms, Outdoor voices is up against other sportswear and athleisure brands, and that underscores the brilliance of this quote. Ty Haney is talking from a brand perspective, not product. She knows she’s selling a story first and foremost.

  • If your brand isn’t informing actual business decisions — not just marketing or design — then you’re not really building a brand… and Ty Haney backs this up with a mention of the new Exercise Dress. If exercise + dress feels weird to you, that’s a good thing. Outdoor Voices’ brand has actually informed their product design. That tension you feel in the name is because they’re not creating athleisure, they’re creating a new definition of what it means to be active.
  • Netflix’s former VP of Product Management recently said, “at world-class companies, you often see exceptional teamwork between marketing and product teams, where the marketing team defines the brand, and the product team helps bring it to life.” This is where brand-led companies are going in the future.

  • Speaking of Netflix, this reminds me of CEO Reed Hastings once saying that their biggest competitor was “sleep”. That’s a baller claim. When other companies don’t even register on your radar, you’re sending a bold message to the market.
  • Branding genius Mariah Carey owns this move. When asked about other mega pop stars like Jennifer Lopez or Demi Lovato, her simple response is “I don’t know her.” It’s the shade that’s launched a thousand memes.

What else?

Have you seen any smart moves in a vertical? Is someone forcing a new conversation?

Let me know in the comments or email me at jasmine@theconceptbureau.com.

Categories
Brand Strategy

Language Is Changing Entire Industries Right Before Our Eyes

This is what the business of identity looks like.

If you want to know the values of a culture, look at its language.

In America, we’ve come to talk about time through a very distinct metaphor hiding in plain sight:

  • Can you spare some time tomorrow for a quick chat?
  • Let’s make this worth our while.
  • I’ve invested a lot of time in this project.
  • Thank you for your time.
  • Don’t forget to save time for the Q&A.
  • Use your time wisely.

In American culture, time is a valuable commodity as pointed out by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their fascinating book Metaphors We Live By. You don’t see this in the languages of other cultures like those in the Middle East or Africa because their cultural values are markedly different than ours.

In this country, time is quantified. It is saved, protected, counted and measured. Just like money.

That’s because of how our concept of work evolved in the US. We pay people in hours, we rent hotel rooms by days, budgets are created annually, interest accrues over months and so on.

When we treat time like money, we give it the same inherent qualities and meaning. It takes up the same space in our heads as money does, and I’ll stress again that this is not a universally human concept. It is distinctly western and borne of our modern relationship to work.

Our words betray our history. Our common metaphors and devices map us to our shared evolution over time. What we say is tied to who we were.

You can see the same relationships in other places, too, like our use of war terminology in everyday vernacular in the U.S. to the new text and emoji languages that have sprung from the mobile screens in our hands.

Language is something we live inside of. You simply cannot separate it from the human experience.

John McWhorter talks about how texting norms like “LOL” have evolved to mean a lot more than what they initially stood for.

 

Language can bring us close and at the same time throw us into discomfort. If you’ve ever read Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, where the first person narrative of a mentally disabled protagonist was told through a stream of consciousness, you understand how quickly language can destabilize you while pulling you into a completely foreign world.

It has the capacity to change how we see our own bodies. In a recent profile of Loom, the ultra popular health education center in Los Angeles, a student stumbled upon a linguistic relic many of us have overlooked as women, but founder Chidi Cohen has not:

At the end [of the class], she passes out a variety of vibrators, anal plugs, and lube so that her students can feel their rumble, weight, and viscosity, respectively. […]

“You don’t stretch out?” someone asks, eyeing an enormous mint-green phallus.

Chidi Cohen lights up. “That’s a wonderful question,” she says… The idea of tight and loose is, again, really patriarchal. Exactly the type of junk we’re trying to dismantle.

(emphasis added)

Language like this is so deeply embedded it escapes our noticing, but it always leaves a fingerprint behind.

This same interplay between words and identity is happening in business as well.

You may not realize it, but new cultural values are seeping into nearly every industry by way of the words we use, effectively shifting our relationships to our peers and ourselves.

That’s no small thing. It’s opening up new opportunities for brands and categories that weren’t viable before, making branding itself about so much more than product.

If you’re a founder, you should realize that above all else, you’re in the business of identity. Your words and your messages (written or otherwise) are all pulling from a living language that defines who we are.

In fact, the language of every medium is going through a renaissance right now, but when it comes to business, some especially interesting changes are taking place.

The Language of Extremes: A New Relationship With The Other

This chart, created by researcher David Rozado, tracks word usage in the New York Times since 1970.

A snapshot of how our moral language has changed in the last 30 years, by researcher David Rozado.

There’s something happening here and different people have different opinions on what that is. Rozado, the researcher himself, sees it as a “peek at shifting moral culture.”

Others, like VC Paul Graham, saw it as a reflection of the news industry’s subscription model and the need to skew politically in order to win an audience:

The most interesting insight, however, came from my twitter friend Zach Shogren who pointed out that many of these terms didn’t even exist a few decades ago. Those that did exist had a completely different significance.

It’s a huge emotional burden to carry these words in our everyday language, but many (including myself) would argue a necessary one. We hear them and we ask ourselves if these words encompass us or not — if they perhaps encompass those we know or those we don’t.

Terms like triggering, micro aggression and cultural appropriation allow us to see actions that were always there, but imperceptible to us in the past. Other phrases like implicit bias, fat shaming and white privilege codify things that we have always felt, but could not fully name or explain. These words make the invisible visible. They force a new field of vision whether we like it or not.

When you can articulate human experiences that you didn’t have the words for before, you’re creating a dichotomy of 1) intimacy through revealed experience, but at the same time 2) an otherness that demarcates yourself from your peers.

Does that dichotomy sound familiar? It’s the dichotomy of tribes.

We all know about the concept of tribes in marketing thanks to Seth Godin’s genius, but what’s interesting about our new language of extremes is that it points to an evolution in how tribes operate.

Our most vibrant modern tribes are not about shared interests. They’re about grappling with who we are. And we’re inventing terms as part of that exploration.

Many strategists and marketers talk about how tribes are connected to a larger altruistic belief about how the world should be, and in some cases that may be true, but the most powerful tribes of today help us form a culture around the questions of identity.

Certain brands, and their tribes, know this.

As the brilliant brand strategist Ana Andjelic has pointed out, many of the influential brands we call disruptive are actually defining culture, not disrupting an industry:

Insights from brand strategist Ana Andjelic.

Yes, social influence is the real disruption, and language is a leading indicator of where the social signal is headed.

Patagonia, Harry’s, Dollar Shave Club — they burrowed themselves within a subculture and grew it into a mainstream vehicle for identification.

You don’t buy Rapha because you have a shared interest in cycling. You buy Rapha because you want to see how far you can push yourself physically, and that originated in a subculture mentality.

Rapha advertisement, 2019.

Rapha, in the macro, is making a comment on identity. Not just any identity, but the hyper specific identity of their tribe.

They’ve seen the language in the landscape, either through words or cultural touchstones, or any other number of communication mediums.

That New York Times chart is telling us that our identities are top of mind for us as a culture. We are moving in a million different directions trying to figure out who we are by way of our extremes.

If this new language is about defining ourselves by defining the other, then brands are a framework for turning that language into a conversation.

The Language of Wellness: A New Relationship With The Self

Self-care is a miraculous term because it has completely changed our relationship to our bodies and ourselves, especially for women. But it comes from very, very deep roots in marginalized communities, and later the civil rights, women’s, and LGBTQ movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

According to professor and writer Jordan Kisner:

The scholar Matthew Frye Jacobson points out in his book Barbarian Virtues that immigrants arriving to the United States from Southern and Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth century were deemed “unfit citizens” because they lacked the “ideas and attitudes which befit men to take up . . . the problem of self-care and self-government.” The same arguments were made to deny women the vote. Consequently, self-care in America has always required a certain amount of performance: a person has to be able not only to care for herself but to prove to society that she’s doing it.” […]

In 1988, the words of the African-American lesbian writer Audre Lorde became a rallying cry: “Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.” In this formulation, self-care was no longer a litmus test for social equality; it was a way to insist to a violent and oppressive culture that you mattered, that you were worthy of care. Lorde’s quote remains the mantra of contemporary #selfcare practitioners.”

(emphasis added)

Self-care, remarkably, comes from a wildly different place than you’d expect, but in America has always carried the tension between doing something for oneself versus doing it for an audience — a tension between being run into the ground versus carving a safe space for yourself.

After 9/11, the concept of self-care started to get louder in the mainstream consciousness and after the 2016 election, reached a fever pitch by way of the “the grand online #selfcare-as-politics movement”.

Except by then it was no longer driven by the marginalized people who founded it, but rather by affluent white women — the kind you often see on Instagram who popularized the version self-care you may be familiar with today — who felt “a new vulnerability in the wake of the election”.

Self-care is a term that’s permutated between fear, strength, politics, personhood and cultural appropriation. The most authentic version of the phrase is not a marketing gimmick. It came from some place real.

That’s why it has been so powerful in changing our behaviors.

  • Self-care and sex: Today, you can find sex toys like PlusOne in Walmart (Walmart!) because they have been rebranded as self-care and sexual health tools for women. They’re right there, sitting next to the yoga equipment.
  • Self-care marijuana: CBD and marijuana are experiencing a golden age of adoption under the term self-care and wellness. It’s hard to say if increased legalization created a new narrative or the other way around, but it most likely worked both ways as changing attitudes and stories helped tip the balance of law. Gossamer, Dosist, Beboe and countless others have mushroomed in the D2C landscape under the consumer spell of self-care.
  • Self-care and beauty: Beauty is going through a huge boom in large part because we’re no longer using skincare just to look good, but to feel good, too. Ask any number of beauty CEOs from companies like Milk Makeup and Glossier and they will tell you that beauty is about having an experience that makes you feel empowered and strong.
  • Self-care and fashion: Sports brands and athleisure companies have had tremendous success selling the idea of wearing their clothing when you’re not working out. Meanwhile, a brand like Nike, who has a long heritage of fetishizing the lean, athletic body, is able to successfully spearhead discussions at the other end of the spectrum around body positivity, fat shaming and ableism.

Why have all of these industries blown up under the wellness umbrella?Because self-care has given us permission to look at ourselves differently, touch ourselves differently, relate to ourselves differently… all without saying SEX, DRUGS or VANITY.

It has created both a literal language and an experience language that’s opened up entirely new industries and audiences.

Everything means something.

Language is the most powerful brand tool you have. Whether your use it in conversation, listen to it for signals or map it back to a hidden meaning, it will always give you more than what is on the surface.

Any of these insights can be applied to industries I haven’t mentioned, and many other doors can, and will, be opened through the language we use.

Everything means something. Don’t choose your words lightly.

Categories
Marketing

The New Definition of Brand: A model for every business activity

[Photo by Jeff Frenette.]

3 Ways To Redefine Your Business Through Branding

Your brand is a series of consistent decisions that bolster your positioning and demonstrate what you stand for. You should be able to take any business decision — HR, sales, communications, operations, PR, product, UX/ UI, or otherwise — filter it through your brand identity, and arrive at an on-brand answer that you can act on.

That’s not an exaggeration. The best brands do it every day, from high-level strategic decisions to day-to-day tactical actions.

On a strategic level, we see numerous examples of companies that based their business choices on their brand strategy:

  • WeWork moved into living spaces and childcare because of their belief in utopian communities. Rather than following their capabilities into new co-working formats, they followed their brand belief into new centers of citizenry.
  • Apple saves all of their PR announcements for a few highly publicized events a year because they believe their brand is about an elite experience, not a continuous rollout of features.
  • Four Sigmatic, a beverage company selling popular mushroom coffees, recently launched a new category of products in the beauty space because their brand isn’t about health drinks, it’s about optimizing the body.
  • Airbnb released a hosted city experiences product as a vehicle for their ‘belong anywhere’ brand belief. The brand was the basis for the product.

On a tactical level, we see companies make small (but meaningful), everyday choices that bring their brand strategies to life as well:

  • Zappos trains its customer service team to have longer, more meaningful and textured conversations with users, often providing backstory and personal feedback on the items. It’s a costly tactical choice based on their strategic commitment to being the anti-Amazon.
  • Red Bull often dropped hundreds of empty cans outside of nightclub dumpsters in the early hours of the morning so that clubgoers believed the drink was for hardcore partiers. Their strategy to reach an untapped influencer market led to a clever WOM guerrilla marketing tactic.
  • Harry’s Razors creates emotional video content around men’s issues to push forward their belief in challenging toxic representations of masculinity. The content is dictated by the brand, not SEO.
  • The Ordinary deliberately packages their beauty products in identical, hard to understand packaging labels so that users spend hours figuring out the routines and combinations are right for them. This clever packaging tactic has created a huge online community of beauty fanatics that share advice and ingredient recommendations — a testament to The Ordinary’s strategy to turn everyday users into discerning beauty experts.
The Ordinary product packaging.
Typical product description from The Ordinary.

Brand strategy is a daily choice in every department, in every activity.

That’s because brands exist between the lines. Consumers understand a brand by the decisions it makes.

If your brand isn’t informing actual business decisions — not just marketing or design — then you’re not really building a brand.

It follows, then, that the way you define the word ‘brand’ is critical your company’s trajectory.

Do you subscribe to any of these definitions?:

  • The sum total of all your touch points with the customer, or, as Seth Godin put it in 2009, a brand is “the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another.”
  • A brand is a feeling, which is often synonymous with an aspirational aesthetic or thought leadership
  • A brand is a unique voice or personality. Taken to the extreme, brands are one of the 12 brand archetypes like The Hero or The Outlaw.
  • Brands are an intangible asset — the line of goodwill on an organization’s balance sheet that captures the extra premium a customer is willing to pay above and beyond the actual product

Most people use at least one of these definitions. The problem with all of them, however, is that they describe a set of static characteristics.

The new definition of the word ‘brand’ captures, instead, a measurable change.

Whatever your story is — and by story, I mean the narrative that ties your product, voice, UX, team, history, roadmap, everything together — it needs to create a new sense of meaning that didn’t exist before your brand made it a reality.

Brands are not fixed characteristics. They are dynamic movements that make something matter.

A brand is the creation of meaning where there was none before.

That’s vitally important because it changes the way a business functions.

So how do we take this new definition and bring it home in a way that is actionable within a company?

As with all things branding, there is more than one way to arrive at the right answer. Here, I offer three ways to slice the challenge and move forward.

These are only a few, certainly not all, ways to articulate the act of ‘creating meaning where there was none before’.

You need to be deliberate about which definition you choose (or create) for your own brand because how you define it will ultimately dictate your strategy — and your strategy will dictate whether you win or lose in the market.

1. Brand Is A Gateway

LEGO has used their brand to create meaning for parents where there was none before.

Every time you catch a hidden hidden joke just for adults in their movies, come across LEGO FORMA kits for stressed out professionals or see a print ad meant to make a 30-something chuckle, that is the brand winking at you and whispering, ‘you should play at every age.’

“Things About The Lego Movie You Only Notice As An Adult” | Looper | August 2017

 

LEGO’s brand creates new significance for parents who believe they were supposed to stop playing a long time ago. Non-children are given opportunities to engage, and they’re hidden right in plain sight… a sort of peekaboo game in and of itself.

Lego ad designed to engage parents in play, March 2018 (Agency: BRAD)

While Sesame Street and Disney also nod to parents in a similar way, LEGO is different because it opens up a space for change that didn’t exist before — a space where parents have permission to be children again. There is meaning in that transformation.

When a brand acts as a gateway, it promises a change in the user.

When we come to understand that we should ‘play at every age’, we realize something about ourselves, and we understand that to go through the gateway is to emerge someone different.

Brands like LEGO are constantly working to show adult users what their experience can be like on the other side. There is a clear vision of before and after that forces a reaction.

To be a brand like this is to create meaning in the act of crossing the threshold.

It informs their decisions to release adult products, inject tongue-in-cheek double meaning into their content and move into media. The business sits on top of the brand, not the other way around, and that makes the meaning they are creating that much more impactful.

2. Brand Is A Remix

Greek philosopher Parmenides of Elea said Ex nihilo nihil fit, or rather, nothing comes from nothing.

Every new material, creation or concept is borne of others that already exist. The deeper you get into branding the more true this seems. It echoes another common refrain often heard in the marketing world that ‘everything old is new again’. Every new idea is a remix of ideas that came before it.

The thing about remixes, though, is that even though they may not come from new origins, they do take us to new places.

Vitamix, remarkably, created a cult around the humble kitchen blender, and they did it while charging people upwards of $500 at a time.

Vitamix: Make the World a Better Place

 

It’s easy to see the stoic machines as wellness status symbols today, but you have to remember that in 2013 consumers had no idea that the words “luxury” and “blender” could work together so well, nor did they think they needed a 2-horsepower engine to make their morning smoothies.

The Vitamix brand wasn’t just about healthy eating. It was a very deliberate remix of extreme power wrapped up in notions of self-care that could demand a premium price. It combined the story of strength with gentler beliefs that were starting to emerge around wellness, to create an audience that looked more like a trendy club than a demographic — skewing toward affluent, health conscious men despite the fact that the company came from pretty granola beginnings in the 1930s.

Vitamix created meaning around the everyday luxury of smoothie making that didn’t exist in the mainstream before. Certainly not in the kitchen. There was a new significance to the appliance that only occurred when two different narratives were combined.

The company radically grew sales through Costco, primarily via energetic demonstrations over a loudspeaker and free samples of whole fruit margaritas, green soups and nut butters circulating in the crowd. It was a spectacle that combined their power-driven angle with a luxury price point that only made sense in a store that promised middle class luxuries in a highly curated format for older millennials.

And you may not realize it, but you see Vitamixes every day at your favorite Starbucks. Sure they’re a corporate client, but Starbucks is also a strategic bit of product placement in the movie that is millennial life. That same kind of product placement has sold out Oatly oat milk in the US.

Brand remixes have occurred in other areas of food, too, specifically in the celebrity chef space.

Why was Gordon Ramsey such a sellable brand?

Because he operated from the belief that you can be a crass and vulgar person but still make highly refined food. You can literally feel the tension in that combination, and it forces you to love him or hate him.

Why was Rachael Ray able to create multi-billion (not million) dollar businesses on the back of her name?

Because she dared to not only celebrate low-brow cooking, but venerate it. She cooked 30 minute meals out of canned foods and pre-cut produce, and was proud of it.

They were both remixes that made people see something they couldn’t see before. They created new meaning where there was none.

3. Brand Is A Key

I’ve talked about brands as master keys before. A good brand strategy will solve 5 problems with 5 solutions, but a great strategy will solve 5 problems with 1 solution.

When a brand is a key, it creates new meaning because it lets people enjoy contradictions without having to account for them.

In other words, it lets people have their cake and eat, it too.

Costco uses a master key to solve a few brand problems at once. They’re a physical retailer living in a world where online marketplaces like Amazon have taken over in both selection and last mile delivery, and yet Costco keeps growing.

Once lumped in with Walmart, Sam’s Club and Target, Costco has somehow managed to develop a brand image that resists discounter stereotypes, compels people to make long and inconvenient pilgrimages to it’s locations, and all without spending money on a PR or traditional marketing.

They solve all of these problems with one choice — to position their brand as a pillar of honesty — their master key as a brand.

Retired CEO Jim Sinegal once said, “We try to create an image of a warehouse type of an environment […] I once joked it costs a lot of money to make these places look cheap. But we spend a lot of time and energy in trying to create that image.”

Costco spends significant money to create a raw, unfiltered, un-marketed experience. When you shop there, you get the distinct feeling that you have behind-the-scenes access without the selling layer. It’s been engineered to feel like an honest experience.

There are no point of sale ads, no finished floors or ceilings, and product is sold on the same crates it’s shipped on.

Even though they force consumers to buy huge quantities, they make no secret of the fact they they markup prices by no more than 15%. They choose to keep very little mystery behind their business practices.

Every year around the holidays you will hear provocative stories about Amazon’s poor worker conditions and failure to treat temporary workers with basic respect.

But every year, you will also hear stories about Costco’s incredible work policies, high pay hovering around $20 per hour for a floor worker, and the fact they remain closed on major holiday moneymakers like Christmas, Thanksgiving and Easter because they believe in respecting their employees.

When a brand is a key, it opens up the possibility of two worlds at once. You can be a deep discounter and yet at the same time be premium. You can follow stodgy business models but be perceived as nimble. You can be cheap, and yet generous. You can be a complete inconvenience and still be a pleasure to use.

When contradictions occupy the same space, they create a new meaning around what is possible.

 


 

When a brand creates new meaning, it creates value that people are willing to pay a premium for.

You can create many truths from this one starting point. Every tool you use is a way to find that first thread that will weave the story. Your definition of a brand is one such tool.

The longer I do brand strategy, the more apparent it’s become to me that there’s no single way to get there. Each of these three definitions is an entry point. Somewhere to start. You’ll see that different brands follow different definitions, and in doing so, land in different areas of the landscape.

Your goal is to use (or invent) a definition that gets you as far out into the field as possible.

Categories
Strategy

Dirty, Ugly Shame Stories: The Next Frontier of Brand Disruption

[Photo by Sharon McCutcheon.]

If your users carry a shame story with them, you need a very different kind of strategy.

There are pockets of shame hiding in everyday life, and every one of your users encounters them.

Some of us feel shame about status symbols like money or marriage, while others may feel shame about personal shortcomings like fear or failure.

Shame is a universal part of the human experience, and is always borne of a story: stories we tell ourselves, stories that have been told to us, or stories we’ve co-opted from culture and community over time.

It’s also an important emotional trigger to study because unlike other triggers, it causes us to behave both irrationally and severely. There are few other things that sting us as deeply as a shameful memory, and no greater negative driver in our behavior. We’d go to great lengths to erase the cause of our shame if we could.

If a specific narrative makes someone feel devalued, wrong or guilty because of the expectations of their societal group, then it is a shame story.

Shame stories start to appear when our reality does not match what we feel is expected of us by others.

By that definition, they are intrinsically tied to the role we play in the group.

And when you look closely, you start to see that shame plays a role in many more industries than you may realize.

Some are obvious:

  • Fertility (both male and female)
  • Pain Management & Mental Health (cannabis, ketamine, suicide)
  • Sex (less so dysfunction, more so pleasure and deviance… which is fascinating in its own right)
  • Dating, Marriage (a woman’s worth as she gets older, a man’s worth based on his career/ height/ hair)
  • Illness (especially when it’s terminal or dehumanizing, like cancer)

But some are not as obvious:

  • Finance (money and self-worth are basically the same thing)
  • Food (what we eat and how we eat is extremely personal, and a reflection of what we think we deserve)
  • Parenting (the secret struggle between autonomy and giving yourself over)
  • Beauty, Fashion (fitting a standard that is often classist, sizeist and racist)
  • Higher Education (or lack thereof)

I call these stories dirty because as individuals, they make us feel wrong.

I call them ugly because as a society, we don’t want to look at them.

The next time you feel shame because someone cheated on you, or you refuse to leave the house because you’re ashamed of how you look, or you experience shame because you could not perform at work/ in bed/ as the breadwinner for your family, take note of its unparalleled power over your perception of reality. Even in the face of one hard fact —that none of these situations are your fault — you will continue to hurt yourself privately.

If your customers are fighting against a shame story somewhere in their lives that’s relevant to your brand, it wields the same kind of power over them, too.

You’re up against something very big and very strong, and you have to respect the different behavioral outcomes it creates. Fighting a shame story requires a different kind of brand strategy.

We see this as an increasingly important brand challenge because the low hanging fruit of structural disruption — access, supply chain, cost, distribution, etc. — has been exploited.

The next wave of disruption will happen on a cultural level, and shame stories are the structural dinosaurs living in our minds.

If you can effectively dismantle a limiting narrative for your audience, you can create a new reality for them… and creating a new reality is the ultimate goal of branding.

A new reality means new behaviors, new truths, and new opportunity for your company to speak to your audience.

Don’t just expose it. Replace it.

The hardest thing about shame is that we hide it.

Guilt is something we confess or share, but shame is something we work hard to conceal:

Shame is often confused with guilt — an emotion we might experience as a result of a wrongdoing about which we might feel remorseful and wish to make amends. Where we will likely have an urge to admit guilt, or talk with others about a situation that left us with guilty feelings, it is much less likely that we will broadcast our shame.

Mary C. Lamia Ph.D.

The very nature of its secrecy leads to a different set of behaviors.

People who feel shame over things like addiction, bullying or failure can project it in blame and anger… oftentimes even rage.

Others find ways to make themselves small in an attempt to ‘disappear’.

If you’re a CEO or strategist seeing these behaviors in your audience, it can be incredibly easy to read them the wrong way.

A nootropics brand founder might see an over-indexing of bro-culture on their platform and interpret it as bonding, or a the founder of a beauty brand might see its female customers hesitating to use bolder products and interpret it as lack of confidence, and they’d both have a good chance of being wrong.

Unlike other emotions, shame thrives the most when it remains hidden.

A lot of brands in the fertility space know this.

Many, like Modern Fertility, Glow, Extend Fertility, FertilityIQ and Dadi have worked to start an open conversation around the topic for both men and women.

FertilityIQ website, March 27th, 2019. “The very best information you wish you never needed.”

It’s clear from their messaging, product bundling and brand stories that they want to start a discourse around something that has historically stayed behind the closed doors of a physician’s office.

I commend them for that.

What’s missing however, is a new story.

Shame stories don’t die just because they see the light. They die when a new story supplants them.

Shame is a weed, and one of the best ways to stop a weed is to grow something else in its place.

Unfortunately, old fears and biases don’t get erased simply because we talk about them and make them more normalized. They go away when they are written over with something else.

Modern Fertility marketing email, March 27th, 2019.

Messaging like “The very best information you wish you never needed” or “We won’t tell you you’re infertile” are not new stories.

They are versions of the same fear-based, private shame stories women have carried all of their lives, only now made public.

True, these brands are giving men and women new, democratized options for accessing the tests they need, without the gatekeepers that may have deterred them in the first place… but there is a much bigger brand opportunity to be had here.

Couples are ready for a new story that will replace the old one. They’re just not hearing it yet. Until they hear it, the shame (and its behaviors) will persist.

An adjacent industry that is successfully supplanting and old narrative with a new one, however, is sex.

Kill the old audience.

Just like fertility, sex used to live behind a gatekeeper (underground sex shops and far corners of the internet). Just like fertility, it could cause both great pain and great happiness. And just like fertility, it was a vessel for all kinds of shame that few would talk about.

Even as we move into a new era of female-forward sex brands and body positive movements, sexual health has been regarded as a fringe concern. You might not feel embarrassed to walk into an Adam & Eve, but you’re not going to talk about the details of your sex life with your yoga class either.

But that’s changing.

When sex toy company Dame Products launched in 2014, the founders realized that their audience overlapped more with a yoga crowd than with a traditional sex/ pornography crowd. When they saw that, they decided to position the brand squarely in the wellness space.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Dame Products (@dameproducts)

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Dame Products (@dameproducts)

Wellness is an empowering narrative that stands tall in the face of anything shame-based. Consistently, throughout every touchpoint in the UX, both on brand properties and off, Dame communicates this new wellness story in different ways.

They make no secret of the “pleasure gap” they doggedly seek to close, have an active Dame Labs that invites users to join their people-centered research (regardless of gender or sexual identity), and most importantly, employ very clear design thinking because “we felt our products should look like beauty tools.”

“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.”

-Oscar Wilde

As a result, sex toys like theirs were taking up space on shelves typically reserved for beauty, health and fitness.

As Business of Fashion pointed out last October, Dame was a signal that sex-care is the new self-care:

Sexual wellness is shaping up to be the next big opportunity in a category increasingly focused on wellbeing and ritualistic me-time. […]

It helps explain why US pharmacy chain CVS sells a rather stunning assortment of 48 whirring options — merchandised next to straightforward sexual health products like condoms and pregnancy tests — and family-friendly Target stocks 74 different models. Talk about self-care.

What Dame and others did was not only replace the old story with a new one (which in itself is remarkable), but they effectively moved the discussion from a group of people in the sex industry to a group of people in the self-care space.

They killed the old audience. Instead of having a hush-hush conversation about sex with one group, we were having it with another… our yoga friends.

The most important part of the shame equation is the group. Without the group to measure ourselves against, we would not feel shame.

The group is part of our social survival. They bind us, and our behaviors, to the people we care about, and reveal just how hyper-aware we are of how others perceive who we are to them.

If brands are tribal experiences, then shame lives somewhere within that tribe.

But if you kill the old tribe and create a new one, the equation falls apart. A new story can thrive someplace more fitting.

Give it the time it deserves.

Shame stories, just like shame itself, take time to dissipate.

They’re always old narratives.

They’ve been around for generations, long before your brand came on the scene. People may want to give them up but it’s scary to change your personal truth overnight.

However without fail, positive stories win in the long run. As a strategist, I’ve always believed this:

You will always have the choice to go positive or negative in your strategy. Tell the scary, shame-based story or the positive, goal-oriented story. Neither is inherently wrong, but some do work better than others.

Charity, global warming, war — why do none of these narratives work to permanently move people? Because they’re shame based. They inspire guilt. They create a feeling that may motivate in the short term, but most people want to avoid and escape in the long term.

16 Rules of Brand Strategy

But giving it time doesn’t mean just waiting for time to pass.

It means constantly telling and retelling the new story in new ways, and never letting the dust settle on the new reality you’re creating.

It means killing off the old audience over and over again, no matter how many times you have to do it.

Addiction, mental health, illness, marriage and dating — brands have been trying for years to change these stories, and the ones that will succeed are the ones that keep making noise.

When people start waking up, it will be the persistent brands who are there to meet them.

Giving it the time it deserves means using that time wisely. You can create a safe space that gently nudges your user in a new direction, and gives them the room they need to start changing the story for themselves.

Categories
Startup

The tipping point of trust

It’s the most important destination for your brand and users. This is how to get there.

[Photo by Oliver Sjöström.]

I had a prenatal massage at one of my favorite spa chains recently, and struggled with trust in a way I’ve never experienced before.

I love massages. I always have and I get them regularly. But a prenatal massage is different. You can’t lay down in the same positions or put pressure on certain body parts like the stomach and ankles. You feel stiff on the table, but because the hormone relaxin has actually loosened your joints, you may be far more flexible (and prone to strain) than you realize.

Overall, it’s like discovering yourself in a new body, which means I wasn’t in my favorite spa getting my 60 minute massage.

I was a new consumer buying a new service for the first time, and any trust accumulated between me and the brand up until that point had been wiped out. I was experiencing this with a fresh perspective.

Instead of zoning out the moment I laid down like I usually do, I was tense for the first 45 minutes before I could finally relax for the last 15. I simply couldn’t ease my body or turn my brain off.

I was unable to give myself over to the process because there weren’t enough brand interactions to get me to the tipping point of trust.

The brand had done nothing to indoctrinate me into our new relationship, and I had no way to frame the experience or contextualize what was happening.

Although the masseuse was well rated, kind and continuously checking in with me to make sure I was comfortable, I was missing the cues that should have told me, “this is what to expect”, “this is how you know it’s being done right”, and “this is what you should care about.”

Without those cues, I simply didn’t know when I could relax and I didn’t have the permission to let go.

The tipping point of trust is the moment that we go from thinking about an exchange to purely experiencing it. Depending on the business you are in and the customers you are speaking to, you can think of it as going from shopping to consuming, witnessing to being, or conscious to subconscious.

Users cross the tipping point when:

  1. they are willing to be vulnerable enough, and
  2. that vulnerability is rewarded.

Your job isn’t to get rid of the vulnerability. Vulnerability is an important relationship-building tool. Your job is to make that vulnerability worth it.

Trust is inherently tied to risk, but you don’t gain trust by making risk go away. You gain trust by making the risk worth it.

When you give people permission to be vulnerable and then reward them for it, you create a strong bond.

23andMe understands this. There is a great deal of inherent risk with their product, but instead of focusing on mitigating that risk in their brand positioning, they work to set a narrow field of expectation that users can measure their experience against:

 

 

When users take the leap and contextualize their experience not as a black box DNA test, but rather as “Meet Your Genes” — or put another way, a colorful way to familiarize yourself with anthropomorphized genetic personalities living in your body — they are rewarded with an easy understanding.

You know to interpret your results with a sense of playful discovery. You know to connect with your genes as if they are friends living inside of you. You know to see them not as cryptic markers that control your life, but rather as personified characters that answer to you when you ask them to reveal themselves.

That brand positioning primes you for a very different kind of experience.

(I‘ve written’ more about my own experience with this, and identity narratives in branding here.)

This also underscores something important: the tipping point is reached with the brand and not the UX.

Many people think that you get to the tipping point of trust with good UX moments or product features, but neither of those things can give users the context they need in order to have the right kind of experience going in.

They can certainly build trust incrementally, but they do not change the overall mindset of the user like brand can.

Brand is where you start.

The Nature of Trust and Control

Trust has been defined and redefined many times in the past few decades. It’s a tricky word to describe, like ‘cool’ or ‘porn’.

There is one recent definition, however, that works well in a branding context:

The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the truster, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.

Mayer et. al., 1995:712

Trust means giving up control in one way or another, but in a user context, giving up control is scary. As brands, we work diligently against that fear, trying to offer control through transparency, dashboards, customization or any other number of features that put our customers in the driver’s seat.

On their own, these features fall short of true control because in the end, they’re just band-aids for the symptom.

No company can ever give 100% transparency. Dashboards are limited by definition. Customization usually only goes so far.

A far more powerful way around the trust issue is to change the way your user perceives control in the relationship to begin with.

23andMe moves the center of control from your genes (which comes from a very strong historical narrative, by the way, that says everything about a human is genetic) to you as an individual.

Genes are made to be coaches, HQ operators, friends and so on. They help, but they do not control us. They guide, but they do not command the quality of our lives.

For a silly brand campaign, it’s actually quite smart in changing perceptions of what genes are and how we should interface with them. Genes don’t control us. We do.

Control is in the perception. You can shift the center of control by shifting the paradigm.

Framing For The Tipping Point

Another way to think about the tipping point of trust is to think about framing.

Brands are framing mechanisms. They inform us how to embrace and internalize an interaction.

At the extreme end of the framing spectrum, we run into a bias called the framing effect. The framing effect is our predisposition to assume there are certain boundaries to a choice or situation, based on the information at hand:

The framing effect is a cognitive bias where people decide on options based on if the options are presented with positive or negative semantics; e.g. as a loss or as a gain.

People tend to avoid risk when a positive frame is presented but seek risks when a negative frame is presented. Gain and loss are defined in the scenario as descriptions of outcomes (e.g., lives lost or saved, disease patients treated and not treated, etc.).

As a former publicist, I can tell you this happens a lot in political reporting.

Take a look at the recent coverage for the Green New Deal and you’ll see that most of the headlines asked “Can we trust this deal?” rather than actually trying to understand what was in it.

The framing proved very powerful — from the beginning, we were primed to see it as problematic and unfeasible, even without knowing what it was comprised of.

You can literally watch hours of segments about the Green New Deal, as Vox reporter Carlos Maza did in the video below, and realize that none of them actually explain how the deal works:

 

 

Granted, the policy set forth was still lacking in certain details, but that’s not atypical for a proposal like this where further explanation is released later. There were plenty of details right there in the deal that were simply never covered in the press in any meaningful way.

Tactically framed political reports and articles are positioned so you don’t think to trust the content, you think to trust the critique.

Framing can be dangerous, especially when you have a lazy or jaded audience that’s become more accustomed to reacting than investigating.

But if framing can obscure the things that should matter, it can also force us to care about things that may have not mattered before.

Wilkinson Mazzeo PC is a small legal duo in San Diego, California that has used framing to completely change the way their customers view both the law and lawyers:

https://wilkmazz.com/ March 13th, 2019

I often write about large brands in B2C or D2C, but this is a strong example of how the same branding principles can be applied to B2B, or smaller to medium-sized brands (although Wilkinson Mazzeo does have impressive clients experience under their belt).

As you go deeper into their website you realize this company is having a completely different conversation about law, entrepreneurship and community than anyone else in the space.

They say that they are “humanizing the practice of law”, but I would argue that even more importantly than that, they are reframing both what law should be, and what we should care about as consumers of that law:

Wilkinson Mazzeo’s love letter to the creatives they serve.

You can’t explore this website as a creative or entrepreneur and not start having a conversation in your head. “Does my lawyer think like these guys do?” “Would my lawyer care as much?” “Is my lawyer creative enough to protect my company?”

“Have I been thinking about law in the right way this whole time?”

Emily Wilkinson and Sam Mazzeo have reframed the conversation to get you to the tipping point of trust very quickly. Whereas you may have observed the brands of other law firms in the past, you come to quickly experience the brand of this one right now.

They even have merch. They have merch because they know they’re not selling legal services, they’re selling a relationship based on trust.

Just like when you wear a Patagonia shirt or band tee, you’re celebrating your relationship with the other party.

Wilkinson Mazzeo’s merch.

Most importantly, they make it easy to leave your biases about lawyers at the door when coming to this brand.

Framing for the tipping point of trust changes the reference points people use to gauge your brand.

Understand how to get users to the tipping point of trust first, then create the signals that will guide them there.

There is a certain kind of vulnerability required here in order to converse with this brand. You have to be willing to forget what you thought about lawyers. You also have to connect with these two specific lawyers as friends first, legal practitioners second.

Once you do, you’re rewarded for your vulnerability and start the relationship from a very different place.

That tipping point is the most important place to get to for this brand, or any other brand.

Find it and then steer your users toward it.

Categories
Brand Strategy

Mining for your brand’s “big idea” to unlock new markets

[Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash]

The only rules worth following are the ones you write yourself.

Very few companies understand the big idea behind their brand, if they even have one.

They may know their mission and vision. They may see how they plan to disrupt their space, or have a feel for what the big idea is behind their product, but the big idea behind a brand is something very different.

Your brand’s big idea is a notion or concept that changes the rules for everyone in the space — you, the customer and your competitors.

The rule used to be that food programing on television was a specialty genre. Food shows and channels were niche, much like crafting programs or channels centered around sport.

Then 9/11 happened and suddenly people were looking for comfort.

One of the first places they turned to was The Food Network. There was such a huge influx of viewership, that the company chose to rethink the very concept of their brand.

They quickly understood that food didn’t have to be about food. Food could be about entertainment and safety — a notion that was unthinkable even a few months before that point in history.

That’s a huge change in the rules.

When you change the rules, you change the paradigm. The Food Network’s big idea not only affected them, it affected their customers and perhaps above all, affected their competitors.

Alton Brown recalls that time and what it did for the landscape:

It spawned an entire comfort culture that led to the proliferation of experiential wellness and self-care, ASMR and mukbang videos, and hygge, among other things. All ways to shut off our brains and simply absorb feel-good sensory content.

Changing the rules creates a new lens that hasn’t been considered before by the user.

Very few companies today — even many of the buzziest or well funded — have a big brand idea behind them, and that’s because they’re tapping into a rule set that already exists.

Great Jones makes beautiful, affordable cookware that millennials love, but they’re playing by today’s rules of what it means to be a good host and transitioning to an adult life.

Great Jones, February 27th, 2019.

They, along with others like Year and Day and Misen, have a huge opportunity to redefine the spaces we eat in. After all, gender roles in the kitchen have changed, this is the first time in history when entertaining a dinner party does not have be precluded by marriage and homeownership, and the role of the celebrity chef has altered our relationship to food altogether.

Any of these new millennial-facing cookware brands could capture the latent value of these cultural shifts by creating a narrative or context to understand them in.

They could write new rules around the intimate act of eating in the home or what it means to reclaim the cooking and eating space that was once so politically charged and gendered, but is now up for complete redefinition. There is room for a brand to lead this conversation and create the new rules of engagement around it.

Instead, they’re playing by the old rule book that Le Creuset wrote decades ago: embody the role of a good host, create something beautiful that guests will remember, and have that picture perfect adult life. Basically the same roles and relationships we’ve had to eating and cooking for a very long time now. The same rules our parents and grandparents operated in.

Brands following someone else’s rules leave money on the table.

They can get very far, and perhaps even win, without a big idea propelling them, but let’s be very clear about what’s really happening here — they’re creating a brand for today, playing by today’s rules and today’s values.

Even though Great Jones and Year and Day both have very specific visual styles and motifs, illicit a general feeling very well, and have seemingly figured out product-market fit, there’s more to be had here.

Those that create a brand for tomorrow by defining a new set of rules and pushing users into that unfamiliar future are far more defensible in the long run because they are creating their own authority and their own playing field.

There is no doubt that The Food Network has benefitted tremendously by spearheading a big idea.

It led to celebrity chef franchises (unlike any we had seen before), food and cookware (both chef-driven and private label), and a major event circuit. This is an entire world of market opportunity that didn’t exist before they changed the rules.

It’s risky but when done right, a big idea with new rules means new market opportunities as well.

If you’re building something meaningful, you need to start mining for your brand’s big idea now. Here’s how to know it when you find it, and how to leverage it to create a whole new roadmap.

Your brand’s big idea must create new rules that make old norms obsolete.

This is the first sign of a big brand idea.

You’re not just making things better or more advanced in a way that evolves current norms. When you change the paradigm of an entire space, there simply is no room for old norms to exist anymore. You’re creating a whole new reality.

If you take a look at The Cooking Channel, a graveyard for old food programming and spinoff of The Food Network, you can see that these brands literally live in two different worlds.

Every user touchpoint from the videos to the cookbooks and community either falls into the old or new paradigm. A show on The Cooking Channel such as Cook’s Country is not a passive experience, nor does it trigger the same entertainment signals in your brain.

The community that’s formed around the show does not engage the way that you might see around The Food Network, celebrity chefs have very different relationships to their audiences, and the overall experience is wildly different.

You couldn’t even evolve The Cooking Channel’s programs, non-TV content or community to fit into The Food Network. A Cook’s Country chef isn’t going to show up on an episode of Hot Ones like Alton Brown did.

The brands are on two different planes.

A typical episode of Cook’s Country on The Cooking Channel (PBS).

 

Big brand ideas are hard for this very reason — you oftentimes have to scrap everything you know and be willing to build from the ground up.

The idea is bigger than the sum of your product and your user. It’s a new lens that changes the way we see (and behave within) the world.

Big ideas are debatable, risky and likely to fail.

Big ideas are not guaranteed to work.

Your audience is always ready to be pushed into the future, but sometimes we push them too hard, too far, or in the wrong direction.

The Food Network’s big idea was highly debatable (especially for its time), risky and likely to fail. But it worked.

Then again, so was Snapchat’s big idea, as I wrote back in 2016:

According to Evan Spiegel, “It’s not about an accumulation of photos defining who you are … It’s about instant expression and who you are right now.” If you think Snap’s new Spectacles product is a misguided step into hardware, consider it from that strategic narrative. Spectacles are about reliving memories, not creating a curated online album like every other social network out there.

Snap Inc.’s strategy created pressure to move into a different market. Killer strategies pressure you to make divisive decisions. They pressure you to change your consumer’s behavior and mindset.

They also pressure you to talk directly to audiences that are on your wavelength, and force you to risk not talking to the rest of the world.

They’ll push you to do the impossible. In this case, that means winning where Google Glass failed, with an arguably simpler product no less.

Snapchat and Google both shared a big idea around how we experience life through AR and shared content.

Neither of them could make it work, but rest assured there will be other companies with other attempts, and each time the big idea will be just debatable as it has been.

That doesn’t mean, however, someone can’t figure it out. It only means that we’ve tried to either go too far, too soon, or in the wrong direction.

Big ideas will open new doors that sound crazy (at first).

Hardware sounded crazy for a social network. Private label goods sounded crazy for a television network. But in both cases it was the big idea that revealed those new market opportunities, and once the gates had been opened, it didn’t sound so crazy anymore.

If your big idea leads you into new categories and products, then you’re likely on to something.

You can think of big ideas — and brand strategies by extension — as master filters.

When you’ve nailed down that big strategic idea, you should be able to filter every choice through it and arrive at an on-brand decision.

Everything from product to communications, customer service, UX, partnerships and collaborations, HR and hiring, executive team, sales, operations, business development… everything should be filtered through your big strategic idea to make sure you are arriving on an on-brand decision.

It is a filter for every choice that matters, and the choices that matter the most are the ones that move you forward in your market.

Use your big idea as a filter for your product roadmap and you may find that the obvious choice for your brand is no longer the right one. Big ideas will move you into weird, scary places sometimes, but that is where the true opportunity lies.

Fewer and fewer companies are winning by staying in their lanes.

Categories
Brand Strategy Video

TLDR Strategy: Brand Tension

insights in culture

TLDR Strategy: Brand Tension

When brands create tension, they force people to move.

Tension turns people into lovers and haters, but the one thing it doesn’t allow is for people to sit still. That’s good, because the last thing you want is a brand that’s ’nice’ or a brand that people are indifferent to.

Tension can come from a few places, such as comparing what is to what could be, or unearthing a new belief. Whatever the source of tension is, it 1) has to be about the user and 2) has to be consistent.

When done right, it creates loyalists and avid fans.

When done wrong, it can make people angry (Pepsi, anyone?) This video shows you the right and wrong way to create tension that actually moves people.

Read the full case study on “The Magical Art of Making People Move With Brand Tension” with examples, here.

Written By
Jasmine Bina​

You might also like

Think With Us:

Strategy In Your Inbox

Think With Us:

Strategy In Your Inbox

Join over 20,000 strategic thinkers.