Categories
Podcast

26: How Consumers “Know” Things In Today’s World

From the way we create our identities and manage our health, to the way we employ therapy-speak at work and vote in elections, it’s apparent that people are increasingly being guided by feelings and intuition in places where they may have once relied on reasoning or ideology.

This noetic, direct-knowing way of moving through the world may sound familiar to you. Perhaps a colleague was “guided” to change careers, or a friend decided to “detox” their personal life. Maybe you, yourself, have dabbled in any form of “energy” practices.

None of these major decisions came from religious ideology. None of them came from scientific reasoning. They came from a third place of intuition, and this is an important cultural shift that revalues knowledge in our world.

When 87% of Americans believe in at least one New Age spiritual belief, it’s clear this third place of knowing is growing. But what is really interesting is what we see when we drill down into that majority.

What we find is not so much spirituality but instead the very definition of noetics: knowledge that is felt to be true, inside, by the self, with intuition as its defining experiential characteristic. 

In this house episode, Concept Bureau Senior Strategist Zach Lamb gives us a clear, compelling look at what this third epistemology actually is and how we’ve seen this new belief system emerging for the past few years in our work at Concept Bureau.

It is a domain that is both needed and felt, but not yet surfaced in our culture… and that is the formula of a golden opportunity.

 

Podcast Transcript

NOVEMBER 20, 2023

24 min read

HOW CONSUMERS “KNOW” THINGS IN TODAY’S WORLD

00:12

Casie:
I think the older I get, the more I realize I just want to be spending time in a way that fills me up. So I’m obsessed with utilizing my time in ways that I feel are fruitful, that make me feel alive. As weird as that sounds, that’s what I’m trying to explore, I think, on a continual basis so that I can feel like I’m not just a robot doing my job and going to the grocery store and doing laundry like we all have to do, like how do I wake up?

00:47

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. The woman you just heard speaking is Casie Cook. She lives in Minneapolis and she’s a highly creative person in a creative field with a great successful career. She also has a podcast and she’s just written a book, and you might’ve heard something very familiar in what she just said. Casie wants to always be waking up. She wants to feel alive and not succumb to the robotic routines of the ordinary life and daily work. You might feel this way too. It seems like most people have been talking and feeling like this for a while, but what’s interesting is that my conversation with Casie is about how she chooses the things that she consumes in her life, from experiences and people, right down to her purchases. How do people like Casie, who represent a growing mindset of people in the world right now choose the things that they will buy, whether it’s goods or experiences, products or services? How does Casie make her decision?

01:50

Casie:
Everything that speaks to you is just holding up a mirror. And in my mind, the world is like whatever is in your line of sight and in your consciousness is just somehow mirroring back to you something in yourself. I feel like, how else would you make decisions? As a person, I’m super OCD. I am always in my brain, and I remember 10 years ago my therapist was like, “You need to live less in your brain and more in your body.” And I was like, “In my body, how do I live in my body? What does that mean? Because I think my thoughts in my head,” and I was thinking, she’s like telling me I should work out more or something, and then I realized that, “Oh no, she’s telling me to feel first and not think first.” And so that, I mean it was 10 years ago, changed how I approach everything, every decision I make, from whether I’m going to go to this coffee shop or that coffee shop. Even the other day, I’m staying at a hotel right now.

02:55

There’s two coffee shops right next to each other. They’re literally on the street next to each other and I can just feel my body almost just going right before going left because that’s what I was drawn to. It’s a pull to, “Oh well, this is the obvious choice for you, Casey, because you know yourself.” And the more deeply that you know yourself, the easier I think those things are. It’s all a feeling toward, and that only came from getting out of my head and overthinking everything over the last 10 years since my therapist first said that. You can’t rationalize the world. The world is chaos. We’re just moving through an insane expanding universe. If you know yourself well enough, you can feel through anything.

03:42

Jasmine:
Casie feels her way through life. It’s not about expert reviews or what her friend said or what’s cool or ticks off the boxes, or what’s best or proven or special. It’s something else. In this house episode of Unseen Unknown, we’re talking to our Concept Bureau Senior Strategist, Zach Lamb, about this new way of knowing the world. Zach calls it noetics. It’s something that he’s been studying and recently wrote about in his article, The Noetic Future of Culture and Brands. Noetic Knowledge prioritizes intuitive knowing. It’s not science, it’s not religion, and it doesn’t replace those things either. It’s this third new thing, it’s inner wisdom, a subjective experience that you feel to be true within yourself. And when you hear Casie talk, it’s clear that it’s what she feels too. It’s her compass for navigating the world even down to how she acts as a consumer. Because in a world that as Casie describes it is chaotic, it seems that our old ways of understanding what is right and true and worth having aren’t enough anymore.

04:55

Zach:
Noetics, it’s an epistemology. Epistemology just simply means the study of how we know what we know, not focused on the what, just what are the rules that govern how it is we can know anything. What qualifies this knowledge and what doesn’t. So as an epistemology, noetics refers to the kind of knowledge that we derive internally. It’s our inner wisdom, our inner knowing, knowledge in the body, things like that. It goes by many names in culture, vibes, intuition, gut feelings because it’s a murky concept, but we all have it. Everybody has noetics inside of them. It’s knowledge that we just feel is true. We can’t really explain where these feelings come from or how we have them, but everybody’s familiar with, “Oh, I just know that I know.”

05:36

Noetics as a form of knowledge, then what’s different about it from say, scientific knowledge or in the older times of religious knowledge, it’s entirely subjective. It’s really, really hard to share and convey how it is you know what you know. You just know that you do. So there’s a share ability problem, but it feels so true to the person experiencing this inner form of knowing and it has implications for expertise in who we look up to and trust in society because we used to trust God or scientific knowledge, and now we’re increasingly trusting ourselves in this inner form of knowing.

06:13

Jasmine:
So when you say noetic knowledge or inner knowing, vibes, what would you say to somebody who said, “Isn’t that just intuition? Hasn’t that always been around?”

06:21

Zach:
I think I would respond to that person to that question with, what is intuition? Nobody can really answer that. Everybody talks about intuition, but nobody knows what it is. The best definition that I could give you, which again just is mine, is that it’s feelings that have some sort of significance attached to them. Then you have to ask, what is that significance? Where does that come from? And then you’re quickly opening up a whole can of worms that leads to spirituality, perhaps. I don’t even really know what intuition is, but yet it’s something that we all have.

06:52

So what I was trying to get at with summarizing this research that I did was that there’s a lot of signals in culture, a lot of things that are starting to point to, more and more people are trusting their intuition saying, “Hey, I’m going to tap into this. This is a thing, or my noetic knowledge, and I’m going to start structure my life and live according to these feelings that I have about myself and about the world in a much bigger way than ever before,” so that it’s rising to this level of science and religion as an epistemology that structures how people want to live and the things that they do and ultimately buy. Yes, it’s intuition sort of, but it’s all these other things. And the argument that I’m making is that it’s getting much more important and much louder in culture. More of us are acting on it.

07:38

Jasmine:
So we have scientific knowledge, we have religious knowledge. Somewhere among these two things, we have this third epistemology, which is the noetic knowledge coming through. Why now? Why do we see this coming through in culture now? The way it sounds, it could have emerged at any other time. Why are we seeing it now? And I do see it the way you describe it, I see it. I’m sure people listening see it as well. I mean, is there something special about this current time in our culture that has made noetic knowledge able to come through the surface?

08:04

Zach:
Epistemologies first and foremost, there’s stories. They’re mythologies about the world and how the world is structured and how you’re supposed to live and what you’re supposed to do, what constitutes the basic fabric of everyday life. And so if you look at epistemologies as stories, they tell different stories. So the story of science historically has been that humans are above nature. It’s our duty to control, use nature for our benefit. We’re separate from it. We’re not animals. We’re this thing that’s above. We are the smartest thing on the planet and we have to steward all this stuff. We have to control it and ideally use it for our own benefit, and that’s what we’ve been doing for the last 500 years, and it is led us to this place where we now have this environmental crisis and we’re trying to figure out what we should do about this globally destructive version of capitalism that we’ve been on.

08:51

So in some sense, you can look at that story as needing to be replaced, needing to be updated, needing to be refreshed. Likewise, religion, the story of religion is not that humans are at the top, we’re at the bottom. God’s at the top and this is the way of the world and follow these rules. Everything is usually written down here and just live this way. Both the stories of science and the stories of religion in this sense are depersonalizing. There’s not a space for me and how I think and feel in either of these scenarios. And so noetics is really, really ripe for this time where we’re turning inwards, we’re turning into ourselves for, “I’ve got to trust me because I can’t trust society around me.” There’s countless examples. It’s in the news all the time of all the things like at the level of the social that are causing us to trust ourselves more and each other less, and it’s certainly institutions and experts and science less.

09:43

 

Obviously, we’re now increasingly living in post-truth times and who knows what AI is going to do to that. So are we going to trust in that? I’m going to trust in me. And if you think about it in the personal level, as I mentioned at the start, we have this existential need for order and control of our lives, “Just give me a meaning system that helps me make sense of the world and knows my place and helps me feel good.” We used to get that level of meaning from work, family, our class position, gender. There was so many rules and so many boxes. You’ve written about this and talked about this breaking down with high fidelity society, so that induced a meaning crisis. And John Vervaeke’s got a great YouTube series on the Meaning Crisis where we have to try to make meaning for ourselves now. It’s like it’s up to me to become something in a way that I can’t just take for granted and assume an identity.

10:31

 

So who am I going to be? What am I going to do? So there’s a lot of internal focused questions that are coming into the picture increasingly more and more. Last thing I would say is there’s some problems with the current narrative stories on the level of the spiritual, because if you go back to 10,000 years and before the epistemology then was just nature. We were just in this subservient position to nature. Imagine if you’d see a tornado, what would you think? Imagine if you saw a total solar eclipse, you wouldn’t really know how to think or act. You would just be in awe of these forces around you. So life was filled with a lot more wonder and enchantment and mystery. What’s great about science is that we’ve led to this massive technological progress, but the flip side of that is that it has stripped away a lot of this awe and wonder and mystery in daily life.

11:21

 

Sure, there’s still a lot of big questions that we don’t know that’s exciting, but just the fact of daily existence, there isn’t this enchantment that there used to be. Also in this research I was seeing a lot of what’s going on with all of the resurgent, new age spiritual stuff. Why is belief in reincarnation coming back? Why are tarot cards sales up? Why is hashtag witch such a huge hashtag on TikTok in the billions? There’s obviously a hunger for mystery and enchantment and wonder in this narrative society that science and religion had built. The narratives of science and those stories, it’s leaving out that wonder. And so noetics comes in and says, “Well, maybe there’s multiple intelligences. All things are interconnected and we feel that there’s a planetary intelligence at work here.” These kind of stories they’re really ripe for right now. I listen to a ton of science podcasts myself.

12:19

 

You’re always hearing scientists with a new book coming out about awe sciences or, I was just listening to one this morning about Interconnected is the name of his book, and there’s another one that was Planetary Intelligence. So it’s really creeping into the scientific zeitgeist too, even though I’ve been vilifying science so far, this notion of interconnection. So basically, long story short, the old narratives are dying and we need to replace them with new ones, and that’s going to come from this internal place of inner knowledge. It’s really this journey inward that’s going to create new narratives and new stories.

12:52

 

Jasmine:
And just to go back to something you said at the beginning of this, when you were talking about how 500 years ago, if you go back and look at American governance and history, when we were starting to really develop the land, the kind of language that you see in paperwork of the time or edicts or whatever, laws about how it’s our God-given decree, it’s our responsibility to shape the land, to create dams, to move mountains, to build things. People actually believed it and it’s such a stark contrast to where people are today, and it’s crazy that, that’s just been a few hundred years and we speak so differently about the land around us, but it’s hard to imagine that that felt so right and so true and so pure.

13:38

Zach:
I think that raises a really interesting point because I don’t want people to think that these epistemologies replace each other. Just a new one gets added, and when you’re talking about our God-given right to steward the land that was coming from God and then we get science to help us do that, things get added. And noetics is something that’s ancient. We’ve had this inner wisdom and inner knowing as long as we’ve been humans. Right now we’re actually remembering it.

14:04

Jasmine:
Yeah. It does feel like a returning to something the way you describe it. So give me some examples. What’s a signal of noetic belief that I might see in my own social circle or in the market or in certain categories? What would I point at and be like, “Yep, that’s noetic knowledge?”

14:19

Zach:
You’re seeing noetic knowledge when people talk in a way, or about things that can’t be proved objectively but are nonetheless deeply felt, deeply held and then acted upon. You see a lot in the personal lived experience, discourse online and trauma discourse, there’s this sense of the body keeps the score that famous book about trauma, it’s in the body. I feel that my truth isn’t being heard. I feel that society is structured in such a way that I’m not able to thrive, I’ve kept out. When people talk about coming home to themselves, finding their authentic selves, any sort of interrelationship about self in relation to society, that’s really noetic because where is that coming from? That’s coming from an internal understanding of a feeling and who they are and what they are in the world. So that’s a really loud one that really rings true of that inner knowing.

15:10

You also see it a ton in all of the psychedelics discourse today. Psychedelics, perfect noetic technology. You can’t get something better. You can’t go farther inward than that generally. So it’s just shining the spotlight on that noetic sensibility. Clearly culturally, we’re craving that. The old narratives of the scientific era was that, we were going to advance by going outward to the stars. We’re going to colonize Mars, we’re going to colonize the galaxy. It’s looking like actually the stars are in. We’re going to go increasingly inward to go forward, and I already alluded to just the growing spiritualization in all of its forms, from the deepest realist or to just the stuff that can seem trivial and light.

15:52

Just taking it all together says, “This is a loud signal of seeking for something,” and I was interpreting that from the research is what we’re seeking there is that mysticism, that wonder, that connection to that sense that something is gone, so I also think that that is coming from within. You also see lastly, so much discourse about, “Can we just live differently? I want to live in a commune with my friends or I want my chosen family. I feel that you’re my family.” Just new forms of community that are updated for how we feel now, and we didn’t get to really choose all this stuff before.

16:26

Jasmine:
And this is daily life, when we zoom out and look at this in industries among brands, what are you seeing there?

16:35

Zach:
Post-truth categories is what I’ll call them, anywhere where trust has taken a hit and accompanied by the felt sense of, “This could be way better. This isn’t serving me,” so the obvious ones. Noetics can be an opportunity for brands and categories that are traditionally playing in science, health, medicine, wellness, therapy, education, really all the basic modern institutions. You’re starting to see a lot of startups that answer, “This could be better. We know you feel this way,” and that’s what’s really interesting about noetic brands is they don’t offer you a story about become something else. Emotional benefits have always been, “If you buy our product or use our service, you’ll feel this way about yourself,” whereas it’s shifting. Brand benefits for noetic brands are like, “Yep, you are validated. You should feel this way. You’re right to feel this way. Your sensibility was right.”

17:27

So brands are stepping in to validate those feelings in a really interesting way. It’s a much deeper narrative than values-based branding. We’re all very familiar with what that sounds like. You take a stand, it’s usually implicitly an enemy that you’re against. That’s how brands have positioned a lot in the last decade or so, but I think noetics is an invitation to deeper narratives that touch a lot of this more existential stuff that we’ve been talking about. Even Febreze I think I uncovered in the research, Febreze was starting to engage customers on existential terrain. So it is just an opportunity to deepen the conversation beyond values. I think I saw something too in this research that Unilever was going to be giving a values-based mission statement to all 400 of its brands. It’s like just show us how saturated values-based branding is, and there’s an opportunity for this more soulful, feelings based, either you get it or you don’t kind of brand opportunity.

18:32

Jasmine:
All right. So if I’m a brand that’s leaning into noetics and it makes sense for me, what is that really going to do for my users? I’m guessing it creates more of a stronger emotional bond. You talk about validation, but tell me more about what this does for the relationship that the user has with the brand.

18:46

Zach:
Yeah. It cements that bond because it says that you’re on my tribe and you see the world and you share my… I don’t want to use values, but you share my noetic feelings about the world. I have these preexisting truths and intuitions and hunches that I’m carrying in, and what I’m looking for from brands again, is not to be transformed, but to be reaffirmed. So in that sense, they’re offering us a world to live in that feels comfortable and feels safe. So for instance, Tia Health is one of the health brands that I’ve mentioned that’s branching out from just a classic expertise model. If you’re pulling your kid out of school and putting them in homeschool, you’re getting your internal feelings validated more than you’re getting education, and if you’re buying a gun, you’re getting validation and identity reinforcement, not necessarily safety.

19:34

So all roads lead to this sense of validation. I think maybe you’ve noticed consumers tend to be experts on a lot of things these days. I don’t pity a brand that’s trying to be an expert right now because it’s so complicated being an expert when you’re trying to say that, “I know more than consumers,” and so it’s the business of validation and being for some and not for all, just giving them these signs that you’re living a good life.

20:00

Jasmine:
I do want to add a little more context to what you said about Tia Health. So Tia Health does offer incredible healthcare, but I think what you’re saying is that really what sells for them, what is attracting their users is the fact that they’re leading with this story of validation, understanding, seeing people that feel they haven’t been seen before, which really spoke to me as a woman. I think these were all easy examples. I’m assuming you should be able to apply this noetic framework to any category, so let’s take another category. Let’s try something like travel for example. If you had to say how all these epistemologies work together in travel, how would I see that in that space?

20:41

Zach:
Yeah. Let’s say I’m taking a religiously motivated vacation. We won’t call it religious but sacred. You’re going to visit the Cannon, you’re going to visit the wonders of the world. You’re going to visit the Louvre, you’re going to go to sites that have ancient significance, these things that are given a religious cast, anywhere from actual holy sites to just modern holy sites like the Louvre. This feels like I’m paying homage. I’m acting as a pilgrim. I’m seeing the things in the book that I’m supposed to see, whereas if I’m going to take a scientific vacation, I just saw something last week about high end travel to Antarctica. That’s a very huge expedition that feels very scientific. Or maybe we want to retrace Darwin steps and go to the Galapagos Islands or take an African safari. These things feel very, the classic mode of being of science, “Let me get out there and discover.”

21:31

And earlier a bout of research I did on direct to consumer anti-capitalism, I found Viking Cruises was offering people the opportunity to go collect ocean water and then get back on the cruise ship and analyze it for acidification in the waters. While you’re on a $10,000 cruise, you’re acting as a scientist, so these things like that. No wedding vacations, it’s like, “Oh man, I like the vibe. I really wanted to go because I thought it felt good,” or I’m trying to have a peak ayahuasca experience in Peru, not just in my city. I need to take this very sacred to me, that’s the difference, sacred to me.

22:10

Because I just described the religious Cannon, but noetics just feels sacred only to me, or maybe I want to go to Burning Man and ideally not get stuck there and get out, or go to Stonehenge things that feel sacred and personally significant to me. You can see how this gets really, really complicated in this era of noetics because it is so subjective and it’s that thing to me, and it’s just a natural extension of reality tunnels and tribalism and post-truth, and so many different epistemologies. It’s like, of course, we’re going to have this noetic rise when we live in that world.

22:41

Jasmine:
What would you say to people who, like me, when I first heard your theory on all of this, who bristle at all of this? Because there is something that I would imagine it’s going to make a lot of people feel uncomfortable. It’s almost like a step back into the dark ages, especially after we saw what happened with COVID and people were using their personal truths, their own direct knowing, their own beliefs and intuition to exert their choices over others. What’s your response to that?

23:13

Zach:
I don’t think we can roll it back. I think yes, noetics is a further evolution into this journey that we’ve been on as a society for 20 years, and there’s no stopping it. I hope that we can see the positivity here. Yes, there are a lot of affirming feelings. All of, for instance, the stuff that’s been happening, you just mentioned Tia Health, and all of the stuff that’s been happening with lived experience and your personal truth and all of the understanding that’s come from that. It’s like with any new advancement, we’re on this increasingly complex journey that’s going to always be good and bad, and it’s just the new world we have, and personally, I just hope that we can somehow figure out how to live in this multiverse together of different realities versus needing to make all of the other realities subscribe to my reality. If we can just get that honeycomb piece, then we’ll be good, but that’s my hope.

24:07

Jasmine:
Okay. So now I feel like the other big elephant in the room is AI. AI to me feels very opposed to everything that you’re discussing in Noetics. It’s almost like they’re in reaction to each other in some way. What do you see happening in the tension between this noetic felt personally known, intuitive truth versus AI, which is almost like an absolute truth?

24:31

Zach:
All of the stuff that I’ve been talking about, all of the old stories and all of the critiques of scientific society and those narratives, and also the desire for more wonder and enchantment and awe, that was all happening before AI. So AI comes onto the scene and suddenly we have to ask questions of, what is a human? What is human knowledge that AI doesn’t have? What’s unique and special about me? Talk about that scientific narrative of human beings at the top, how do we even live in a world where human beings are not the smartest thing on the planet, and maybe there’s so many different forms of intelligence now and a lot of them are smarter than us, so what are we going to do? What does that even mean for our future? The questions that it has caused to arise are as big and deep as they get, and so what are you going to lean on to answer those questions?

25:16

The hunch that I have is that noetics and inner knowing is just going to get more important, more special to us because it’s going to be likely the thing that we feel that we have that defines our sense of intelligence. And as I mentioned, it’s such an interesting time to be alive because you don’t have these moments often where you’re living through a period of profound bedrock level narrative reinvention, and I think we’re going to get through it. I think it’s going to be rocky for 10, 20 years, but I think that we will get through it and it’ll be interesting, and I think noetic acknowledge it’s really going to be, like I said, the thing that we think is us, that’s what my intuition tells me. So I think it’s just going to get louder and more important in society.

26:10

Jasmine:
That’s it for today, friends. Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you feel that this podcast has added any value to your work or life, please leave us a rating and a review. Those ratings and reviews mean a lot and they help our audience grow. And don’t forget, you can always get more of our brand strategy and culture articles, videos and podcasts at conceptbureau.com. While you’re there, you can also sign up for our awesome newsletter that will deliver valuable thinking to your inbox a few times a month, and I promise you will love it more than any of your other newsletters. It’s a big promise, but it’s true. Thanks for listening. We’ll see you next time.

 

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

25: Bizarre, Strange and Highly Relatable

In this house episode, we speak with Concept Bureau strategist Rebecca Johnson about the concept of “weirdness” and brands. 

All humans are weird, and brands that are willing to venture into strange and bizarre territories have a chance to connect with their audiences in a deeply emotional way. From Puppy Monkey Baby to the Pet Rock, we analyze brand weirdness’s impact on consumer engagement and differentiation. 

Weird is risky, but it’s also highly relatable when it’s done right. It can engender a form of trust that brands don’t usually experience with their users, while also signaling a brand’s values and vision. 

It’s also a strong force of creativity. Everything new feels weird at first. Instead of shying away, Rebecca talks about how to lean into the odd side of human nature and create something novel.

 

Podcast Transcript

OCTOBER 23, 2023

25 min read

BIZARRE, STRANGE AND HIGHLY RELATABLE

00:13

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. We’re all familiar with brands getting weird. It’s somewhere on the spectrum of relatability, where we go from, “Hey, what that brand did is cool, they totally get me,” to, “Oh my God, what that brand did is so weird. I cannot believe they totally get me.” But weird, although it can be relatable, is also divisive.

00:35

You may have heard of Collina Strada’s fall 2023 fashion show entitled, Please Don’t Eat My Friends. It was a decidedly weird show with models in hyperrealistic animal prosthetics and an overall vibe of animalia. The New York Times’ Vanessa Friedman described it best when she said quote, “Friends of all ages, sizes, and physical abilities strutting the runway in a room painted earthy green, or only partially strutting. The rest of the time they were crawling, hopping, prancing, sniffing the audience, and otherwise giving into their inner animals, all the while wearing deer ears, a pig snout, a dog’s head, a toucan’s beak, and other assorted creature-feature prosthetics, created by the makeup artist, Isamaya Ffrench. Imagine Animal Farm meets The Wind in the Willows meets a spirit retreat and you’ll get the idea.”

01:26

Fashion critics like Vanessa Friedman loved the show, but other people not so much. What’s interesting, however, is not that some people like the show and others didn’t. People disagree on fashion shows all of the time, but rather that the people who loved it really loved it, but the ones who didn’t love it really felt something else.

01:45

Audio Clip:
I think these animal collections have a deeper meaning, although it creeped me the hell out.

01:51

Audio Clip:
Collina Strada’s 2023 New York Fashion Week show was called, Please Don’t Eat My Friends. Critics called this a nightmare. What the hell? This is freaky.

02:01

Jasmine:
You can go on YouTube or Instagram or TikTok and see more comments that show how people were either really thrilled by the weirdness or instead very disturbed by it. The power of weird is that it makes people feel things, and if you dig deep, you will find that the good kind of weird, the kind that makes people feel something so intimately that they are forced to engage with it usually has an incredibly deep well of meaning beneath it. In today’s house episode, we’re talking to our concept bureau strategist, Rebecca Johnson, about how our sense of weird is evolving and why it’s becoming an important cultural force that brands need to pay attention to. To understand all of this, we need to understand how extreme emotions like this operate, and it starts with a really important question. Why does weird matter?

02:51

Rebecca:
First, we have to acknowledge that humans are weird. We do weird things. Sometimes they’re explainable and sometimes they’re not. But some of the weird signals that we do see do actually say a little bit more about who we are as people. And so when we think about brand and we think about the consumer, we have to consider the weird as just something that’s part of the human experience.

03:12

When we see certain weird signals in the wild, I don’t necessarily always believe that they’re there by chance. So when you take a closer look, there’s usually something more beneath the surface than what we initially think. Take for example, in Seoul, Korea, there’s this annual space-out competition and basically people compete to be the most spaced-out- looking person in the room. So it’s a very strange site. You just see a bunch of people sitting on the ground facing the same direction, and what they’re doing is they just look completely zoned out. They don’t look fully like they’re there. But this happens every year. And this was created by an artist named Woopsyang, who used it as a protest against a culture that craves constant productivity. And this event was essentially created as a way to embrace the value of doing just absolutely nothing.

03:56

Signals like this tell us a little bit about where we are today. In a world where we’re obsessed with productivity, spaced-out competitions or zoning-out competitions feel necessary even if they look really weird or out of the norm.

04:09

Jasmine:
So I’ve read, obviously, all of your writing on weird. You’ve also written a lot about relatability in brands, and I feel like weirdness and relatability can cross over. Sometimes if you go deep enough into what feels weird, it actually starts to feel a bit more relatable. Where do you see these two intersecting?

04:28

Rebecca:
We live in an era today where the baseline measure for trust is now relatability, and at its simplest, it’s just one’s ability to relate to someone or something. Relatability is crucial because it affects who we trust and how we make our decisions. And culturally, we’ve lost a lot of trust in our major institutions, like our medical system, education system, and it’s also given rise to a lot of different voices in the room. And so now you have scientists who used to be on the same page fighting and conflicting with each other, doctors who are doing the same thing.There’s just thousands of different opinions, and what’s ended up happening is that people have started to gravitate to the voices that sound and feel the most familiar. And so that is what relatability is.

05:13

And so for example, we follow influencers who are like us. We see ourselves through these people, and that’s essentially relatability. And we follow them for our medical advice, our financial advice. And there’s something about them that we follow, it’s beyond sort of their expertise. We follow them because they have a similar story or similar background, maybe race or ethnicity. Those are baseline things. But sometimes even their humor, for example, could be something, a reason why we follow certain influencers and why we are more prone to follow their advice.

05:41

A classic platform is TikTok, which is the ultimate relatability platform with an algorithm that caters specifically to all of your niche interests. And once you start spending enough time on TikTok, you start to feel like you’re looking at a virtual mirror. You start to see a version of yourself being reflected back to you. But now brands have, obviously, capitalized on this and attempting to hop on popular sounds and try to create relationships with their audience. But ultimately, hopping onto trendy sounds isn’t quite enough. You have to uncover the things that your audience feels and experiences below the surface, bringing those things out into the open. And when done successfully, it creates a great deal of a validation to your audience, to an audience that’s also craving to be seen.

06:24

 

Reddit, for their first US TV campaign, did a campaign called Find Your People. And it was a great example of this in which it showcased three different scenarios in which even the people that were closest to them didn’t really get them. And the only way they felt seen was through these Reddit subreddits.

06:41

 

So for example, the first person is sharing a shower thought and their partner sort of dismisses them, or one person talks about, “Oh, my plant is dying, what should I do?” And the roommate’s like, “Just buy another one.” The third person, their partner’s dressed up in cosplay and the other is just like, “Oh, cute role play,” or very dismissive in some ways. And then it ends with them going onto the subreddit and being like, “Oh, my people get me.”

07:04

 

And it was just a great example of how Reddit’s become sort of also, in addition to TikTok, it’s also become this relatability platform where you can find community in the most niche interests that you have. And that’s how relatability intersects with weirdness because sometimes the weirdest things, again, are the most relatable. And I’m sure we’ve all gone down the rabbit hole of subreddits that lead us to all kinds of places.

07:28

 

Jasmine:
I see a whole spectrum, going back to weirdness. There’s weirdness on one end that is very cringey. It’s weirdness for the sake of being weird. And then you go onto the other end where, again, things are super weird, but it’s also very coded. There’s a secret language here that either you get or you don’t get expressed through whatever the weird gesture or idea or concept is. And that’s more for insiders to understand that.

07:51

 

I see a lot of brands on the cringey, weirdness for weirdness sake, almost like it releases a tension in the room. It gets you to a point of tension and releases it. The coded stuff is a little different, but there’s a whole spectrum. How do you see this spectrum playing out in the market when it comes to brands?

08:08

Rebecca:
There are two different kinds of weird. First one, again, like you mentioned, is sort of just for weirdness sake. So these are things that are just… The whole point is to turn heads and just sort of create a lot of attention. Think of 2016 Super Bowl, Mountain Dew’s Puppy Monkey Baby.

08:23

Audio Clip:
Puppy Monkey Baby. Puppy Monkey Baby. Puppy Monkey Baby. Puppy Monkey Baby.

08:30

Rebecca:
It doesn’t really do anything else except say that word throughout the entire commercial. Super strange, but again, it’s very memorable and really hard to forget. And another example of that too is Christmas mascot, like Spongmonkeys from the early days of the internet.

08:43

Audio Clip:
They are tasty. They are crunchy. They are warm because they toast them. The Quiznos subs.

08:50

Rebecca:
What was born of a meme eventually became this $25 million pitch from the Martin Agency to Quiznos in which nothing was changed. They won the account and nothing was changed except for obviously the lyrics. It’s very strange, but it’s funny.

09:04

Some other more recent examples. Liquid Death created these enema kits with Travis Barker and the whole idea of being like, “Oh, our water’s so good, you can use it for an enema.” Or KFC created a gaming console but also can heat up your fried chicken as you’re playing.

09:19

Some of these things, they’re funny and they’re kitschy and they’re memorable. They don’t necessarily have anything deeper than that, but that’s the whole point. So that’s the first kind of weird.

09:28

And the other kind of weird that I refer to more in my work and in my research is much more deep and more meaningful. So these are usually the outliers that kind of find their ways into our mainstream and providing opportunities for brands and companies to better leverage and better connect with their audiences. For example, AI partners and relationships. There’s so much right now in regards to how AI is going to impact our interpersonal relationships with each other or just with other AI chatbots, et cetera.

09:56

So for example, Replika is a company where you can create a customized version of an avatar of your liking and you can converse with it and it can talk how you want it to talk to you, give you advice in the way that you want it to give you advice. And what’s happened is that people have started to form really deep and intimate relationships with these AI, romantic relationships, and to the point where Replika had to update their software due to some of the more sexually explicit content that was going on, I guess, through a lot of this Replika conversation.

10:28

But what ended up happening was people were left completely heartbroken because these AI chatbots weren’t who they were anymore. It’s like if someone just ghosted you or broke up with you and just left, just completely broken, heartbroken. And it feels strange to think about that even happening, but even today we have some level of understanding of why this could be the case in terms of the rates of depression, anxiety are much higher and we’re much more lonelier than we used to be. So it makes sense that Replika fills this gap of companionship where we’re not getting it in our regular environment.

11:00

But I also remember back in 2018 before, obviously, ChatGPT became the technology of the century, it was this Japanese man named Akihiko Kondo who married his holographic girlfriend, Hatsune Miku. She’s an anime digital songstress, very popular in Japan. Because obviously this went viral, it also elicited a lot of mean comments and a lot of death threats too. Just huge rejection from the public essentially.

11:26

And in an interview he said that she had come into his life at a point where he really needed it the most and that he was really deeply in love with her. But then obviously when I heard this for the first time, I was also taken aback because it’s like how can you fall in love with someone who’s not made of flesh and bone? But even companies like Replika are challenging our idea of what it means to form intimacy and have relationships. And it might really seem weird, but potentially might change a lot of people’s lives or for people who are feeling really lonely and depressed. So that’s super, super interesting to think about.

12:01

A smaller example is the Pet Rock. So this advertising executive named Gary Dahl created it in the 70s, and it was sort of this humorous critique on sort of the perils of pet ownership. So he would sell these rocks and put them in these cardboard vented boxes with their own little manuals of how to take care of your pet rock or how to teach it tricks, which obviously it can’t do any of that. That fad eventually sort of died down in that same decade, but we still see remnants of it through things like Tamagotchi Pets or Neopets or Furbies or other digital pets that we’ve had. So that’s a very interesting way to think about how weird continues to find itself in our culture even if it looks different on the surface and that it’s still very much relevant to our lives and the new innovations that we create.

12:50

Jasmine:
That’s interesting. I did not connect the Pet Rock to Neopets and Furbies and Tamagotchis and all of that other stuff, but you’re right, it’s the same thing.

13:01

So I’m thinking of this CMO who’s listening to this and all of this sounds interesting, but it also obviously sounds very risky because the spectrum of weird is so wide, it would be hard to make sure you’re landing in the right place and hitting the right resonance for your audience. If you’re even just a step before that trying to make sense of weird or even relatability in the landscape, how do you know which signals are real and worth acting on versus the ones that maybe aren’t deeper and they’re not worth actually doing something with?

13:35

Rebecca:
I’m in the camp of believing that you should always just be playing and experimenting rather than waiting for the right signal because truthfully, I don’t know if anyone can truly tell anyone which exact ones are irrelevant and which ones to follow. That’s where creativity comes in. Weird signals are leaning into the weird really forces you to actually think differently and to sort of look at things in a different perspective. If you even just do that, you will find something new and interesting.

14:01

And we do a lot of this even in our work at CB where we’re thinking about the future. We’re always playing out a lot of what-ifs or playing out scenarios based on the outliers that we’re seeing. And some experiments will work and some won’t, but that’s sort of part of the process and it’s trusting that continuous experimentation will ultimately lead to something valuable.

14:18

But as a CMO, I can understand why that might feel risky, and you have to find the ones that matter to your brand and your industry. It requires active listening and having an open mind to deeply understand your audience. So that actually requires leaving a lot of your own biases at the door potentially so that you can really listen. And then it’s also just spending a lot of time in the spaces your audience is part of. LANEIGE recently did a lot of work within spending a lot of time in the Reddit subreddits for skincare, and that actually helped them increase a lot of brand awareness.

14:48

And it’s not just about learning things on the surface level, but what you’re doing by going into, for example, Reddit subreddits, is that you’re trying to really unearth something that you don’t typically see on the surface. And when you do spend more time, you will learn things about your audience that you might not have expected before.

15:04

I don’t know if you heard about Tube Girl, her name is Sabrina Bahsoon, but she’s become this sort of viral sensation. And when you think about trying to consider dancing in public by yourself on the subway, pretending you’re the main character of a music video and recording yourself at the same time, it’s interesting in our culture and time today, we still perceive people who film themselves in public as strange and weird, even though we love that kind of content.

15:30

For Sabrina, what is perceived as initially weird is now turned into confidence. She’s filming herself in the tubes of London and she’s at the front of the cart and there’s people behind her and she looks like she’s pretending like she’s the only person in the room and she exudes sort of this super confidence that maybe most people would shy away from or have a difficult time doing. And MAC Cosmetics saw this and they picked her up really quick. They filmed a whole photo shoot with her. They did sponsored videos with her. They even put her on the runway for London Fashion Week.

16:03

And I don’t know MAC’s strategy that well, but seeing that the speed at which they brought her in tells me, first of all, that they’re paying attention and that they’re aware of the people that they were trying to reach. And I think fundamentally what makes her videos so interesting is they’re not even about makeup, they’re just about confidence and how you feel. And MAC obviously understands this and that beauty isn’t necessarily about how people look, but more so how people feel. And so MAC leveraged this as a way to better connect with a younger audience, a younger generation, and next to brands like Rare Beauty or Tower 28 that take up a lot of mind share in youth. And Sabrina is now the face of new confidence now, but MAC is now tied to that.

16:42

Jasmine:
I think for some context, people need to know that the Tube in London is very different than the New York subway. It’s silent, it’s really taboo. I mean, when I used to ride it, it was taboo if you talked, it’s like there’s a very strict code of normalcy. She was really breaking a lot of social norms, but she was doing it without a care in the world. And I think just to give people context about what it took for her to do that on that rail system specifically.

17:13

So what’s the line between being weird or relatable and alienating your customer as a brand? Can you go too far? I’m assuming the answer is yes, but I also think with any brand that engages with weird, there’s different levels and the deeper you go, the more you will speak to the people who get it, while the number of people who don’t get it will increase. So where’s the balance between those two?

17:40

Rebecca:
Yeah, not every kind of weird makes sense, and that goes for relatability as well. But in general with brands, where can be actually a really powerful way to showcase who your brand is for and who it’s not and ultimately create a lot of strategic differentiation, especially in credit categories. So for example, Half Magic Beauty is a beauty brand that was started by the makeup artist who worked on Euphoria. She was the lead makeup artist. And Half Magic Beauty, when you look at a lot of their photos and a lot of their content, the beauty looks aren’t your typical beauty looks. They’re not like Makeup by Mario or Patrick Ta, or Charlotte Tilbury, where the looks are flawless, they’re beautiful, they’re perfected. Half Magic Beauty is definitely not like that. You see gemstones, eyeliner in places that you probably wouldn’t typically see eyeliner, or colors and shimmers and all these different ways of playing with makeup.

18:31

And that’s essentially what Half Magic Beauty is saying, for them beauty is imagination, creativity, and play. It’s not just about creating the most perfected look, but more so about creative self-expression. And on their About Us page, they explicitly call out that Half Magic Beauty is for those who believe that normal means nothing. And so they’ve used that as a way to really, again, create a lot of differentiation in a crowded market.

18:58

The second example that I have is for a brand called Fude Experience. And I recently came across it in this LA Times article about the person who went to this dining experience in which you connect with people in the nude. So you’re eating food and you’re just hanging out with people, but nobody’s wearing clothes, everybody’s naked. And it’s sort of weird because it’s also just really vulnerable to put yourself in a room full of strangers completely just naked. But that’s sort of their whole ethos.

19:25

For them, nudity is about celebrating your most purest self, your most authentic self, and the way to connect more deeply and authentically with other people is through this act of nudity and sharing food and ritual and things like that. And so was nudity necessarily necessary? I mean, I don’t necessarily think so. There’s tons of different communities, community brands in which they facilitate deeper connection with each other, but Fude Experience is using nudity, for example, as a way to really differentiate themselves against all these other brands that offer very, very similar things. Dinner with Friends is an example. Or there’s this other one where it’s a collective where people get, strangers eat and dine together. So yeah, compared to that, Fude Experience obviously stands out.

20:07

Another thing that I was thinking of as I was going through your work and preparing for this episode was I do feel like in some ways you can say that we’ve reached peak relatability, there’s so much exposure, so much vulnerability and messiness and authenticity and however else you want to call it online. I think I’ve seen journalists writing about enough is enough. There’s maybe a little bit of a backlash, but I also don’t see relatability going away. So how do you see the idea of relatability continuing to play out from here?

20:37

Rebecca:
Even as time goes on, relatability, like you said, will always show up as sort of an important meter of trust because it changes how we communicate and connect with our audiences on the much deeper level. The core of it will stay the same, even if maybe the approach might look different.

20:50

And I see this also playing out in a couple of different ways. I think that relatability is really, if it’s at its peak right now, it is reorganizing our culture. And one of those ways is that I see it potentially forcing us to only connect with the people that we want to connect with, the people who are most like us, which results potentially in these echo chambers, which would potentially make it hard for brands to maybe cross certain categories, because it’ll ultimately feel like you’re portraying one for the other.

21:16

The other outcome is that I think if you find the right relatability points, you could actually bring in audiences who didn’t feel at first reachable. So another example of this person who I saw on TikTok, her name is Kelsey, and she got The New York Times subscription, printed subscription for her birthday. And she started posting videos of her just literally sitting in front of her phone and just reading The New York Times to her, what she calls her media illiterate audience.

21:42

And we know that traditional news has been waning and journalism has been struggling a bit. And more and more people are getting their news from social media platforms like TikTok. And when she reads The New York Times, she doesn’t read it verbatim. She speaks it in a way that younger generations can understand, so by using their language, by using their gestures and lingo while still staying true to the original piece. And it was super effective. She was invited to New York Times to tour. She’s done multiple sponsored posts with them as well as with The Washington Post who also worked with her.

22:13

And we know that traditional news has been waning and journalism has been struggling a bit. And more and more people are getting their news from social media platforms like TikTok. And when she reads The New York Times, she doesn’t read it verbatim. She speaks it in a way that younger generations can understand, so by using their language, by using their gestures and lingo while still staying true to the original piece. And it was super effective. She was invited to New York Times to tour. She’s done multiple sponsored posts with them as well as with The Washington Post who also worked with her.

22:31

And so relatability is really effective and it works. And in the right spaces, it has the potential to perhaps save journalism or save entire categories. And that’s really interesting and exciting. And all to say what ultimately relatability offers is beyond consumers just buying your products. It’s about a deep connection. And when you create this relatable connection, you ultimately become a part of your audience’s identity. And so they see themselves in your brand, which creates a much more deeper sense of loyalty.

22:59

And so people who relate to your brand are more likely to forgive smaller mistakes, they’re more likely to be receptive to change or even the new things that maybe your brand is trying to explore and experiment with. And good brands are capable of having one foot in their identity and one foot in the lives of their audience. So this means obviously staying true to the soul of your brand, not compromising the integrity of your brand, but also understanding that your core audience has the capacity to grow and change.

23:27

So we say this a lot and internally too, is when you respect your audience and continue to listen to them, you will ultimately find the things that are relatable. That, in essence, creates depth in your own brand while you’re able to grow at the same time. And some of those things might be weird and some of them might not be, but the ones that last, the brands that last know how to balance both.

23:48

Jasmine:
What about on the weird side? There’s backlash there too. People are over all the weirdness stuff, like the Duolingo Instagram and all that stuff. What about weird? I don’t see as clear of a path forward for weird. How do you see weird playing out?

24:02

Rebecca:
There are always weird things whether we say we’re over them or not, and maybe it’s not flashing in our faces, but I believe what’s weird is ultimately what shapes our future. It surfaces the innovations that matter and it really ultimately will shape our culture moving forward and push it into more meaningful places.

24:21

I think generally though, the aversion to weird comes from really a place of fear and not knowing and not understanding where it’s coming from because I think when we lean more into weird, we learn more about people. And this is crucial when we think about creating something meaningful for people and creating brands that mean something to people or coming up with technological innovations that can potentially change people’s lives.

24:42

Personally, I see more weird coming our way, and that’s super exciting to think about because it’s really the only way newness happens. Otherwise, we’re just recycling old things all the time. Our current culture is craving for something new. And weirdness can be a way to really push us out of that.

24:59

And obviously, there are always negative effects, but I’m personally also working to remain optimistic about the future and about how we can really make a positive effect on us in the future, which reminds me of this interview actually with Kevin Kelly who’s a futurist and so-called prophet of the tech world. And he said, “When evaluating new technologies, you always have to ask as compared to what?” So for example, the examples he used was mercury-based dental fillings may cause some harm, but compared to what? Compared to cavities, obviously they’re a miracle. And he also was saying that we tend to scrutinize new technologies over existing ones. For example, with social media, we talk about how all this misinformation spread through social media and things like that. And he was like, “Well, as compared to what?” Even social media’s influence on elections, for example, was far less than the existing media outlets and traditional talk radio, which were false information was just very, very rampant itself.

25:53

So all this to say that it’s easy to dismiss weirdness as something that might be unproductive, as zoning out or a pet rock or whatever, but when we shift our perspective, it has the potential to really tell us something important about our future. And it’s an opportunity for brands to play and experiment and innovate. And when you lean into weirdness, you can have the potential to discover something very profound about your audience or your industry, which can in turn help you grow your brand, create more brand loyalty and strategic differentiation.

26:27

Jasmine:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you’re new here and like what you’re listening to, do us a favor and leave a review. Those reviews mean a lot and they help our audience grow. And don’t forget, you can always get more of our brand strategy and culture articles, our videos, our podcasts, all at conceptbureau.com. And while you’re there, you can also sign up for our awesome newsletter that will deliver valuable thinking to your inbox a few times a month. I promise you will love it more than your other newsletters. It’s a bold claim, but I stand by it. We put a lot of heart and work into that newsletter and I really want you to get it. Anyways, thanks for listening. We’ll catch you next time.


Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

24: How to Unlock Your Strategic Mind

What does it mean to be good at thinking? Or more importantly, thinking strategically?

Most people answer this question by saying that in order to be good at thinking, you have to be knowledgeable. And while knowledge is certainly a critical input for good thinking, it’s just an input. It’s not the actual practice of being able to think well. 

Good strategic thinking is the culmination of mental processes that enable us to analyze, reason, solve problems, make decisions, and generate creative ideas in an efficient manner.

In other words, it’s a skill. But we don’t treat it as one. 

It’s something we can get better at and refine, a muscle that we can strengthen, and yet outside of our daily work, we do very little to develop that muscle. And it’s a special muscle, because thinking strategically demands that we employ all kinds of cognitive abilities at once. 

In this house episode of Unseen Unknown, Jasmine and Jean-Louis break down his steps for how to think strategically, and to keep getting better and better at it. 

Don’t take your ability to think strategically for granted. Many of us only do a fraction of what is possible with our minds, but there is a lot more power available to us when we start to cultivate our thinking skills.


Podcast Transcript

OCTOBER 9, 2023

41 min read

HOW TO UNLOCK YOUR STRATEGIC MIND

00:12

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. I have a question for you. What does it mean to be good at thinking? If you’re in a thinking industry, meaning you get paid for your ideas or you get paid to think about stuff and come up with elegant solutions, how do you make sure you’re actually good at the act of thinking? Most people answer this question by saying that in order to be good at thinking, you have to be knowledgeable or smart, and while knowledge is certainly a critical input for good thinking, it’s just an input. It’s not the actual practice of being able to think, well, all of us thinkers here right now, whether you’re a strategist, a founder, a CEO, CMO, investor and so on, know that the quality of our outcomes depends on our ability to think critically and strategically. It’s the culmination of mental processes that enable us to analyze, reasons, solve problems, to make decisions, and generate creative ideas in a skillful and efficient manner.

01:19

In other words, it is a skill, but we don’t treat it as one. It’s something that we can get better at and refine, a muscle that we can strengthen, and yet outside of our daily work, we do very little to develop that muscle and it is a special muscle by the way, because thinking strategically demands that we employ all kinds of cognitive abilities at once. In today’s house, episode of Unseen Unknown, Jean-Louis, chief strategy officer and my partner at Concept Bureau breaks down his steps for how to think strategically and to keep getting better and better at it. Don’t take your ability to think or more specifically to think strategically for granted. Many of us only do a fraction of what is possible with our minds, but there is a lot more power available to us when we start to cultivate our thinking skills.

02:14

Jean-Louis:
When we think about thinking as an activity, as something that we do, we often have a mental model that it’s a correlation with intelligence, that our ability to think is contingent on how intelligent we are, how smart we are, which is really a falsehood. Thinking is very, very much a skill and it absolutely can be trained and there are many components of that and as soon as you switch that mental model, it starts to unlock a whole world. What’s really interesting is that this is a huge discipline. When you think about the power of thinking, the power of strategy, how businesses are able to get ahead, it’s all contingent on the skill of thought, but we never really see that as a variable. We never look to how do you determine that? How do we measure that? We measure rote knowledge, but we don’t measure our aptitude and flexibility.

03:05

We just look at IQ and think, oh, that’s it. I think it’s a very, very interesting and incredibly essential ingredient of any successful business. The way I see it, there are really three key components. They’re fairly obvious, but actually there’s a lot of nuance in them. The first one is context. Are you thinking about the right problem in the right way? There are so many times where people put so much effort in solving the wrong problem. I mean the opportunity cost of solving the wrong problem can often cause a business to go under, especially as the market turns, you really find out who’s been solving the right problem and the wrong problem there. So context is a essential requirement of you putting fuel in the right engine even. Next thing is obviously you have the problem, presumably you have the right context. Are you actually solving it in the right way and you coming to the right kind of solution? And then separate from that I think is the expression of the solution.

03:58

Often we rope those together, but I think they’re very independent from one another of what is the solution and then how do you communicate that effectively. Those are two separate skills and within that there are different things that you can do to maximize. So it’s a framework for thinking about it. We’re thinking about thinking, which is really meta to start with, but context, solution, expression are the broad buckets of skills required here.

04:21

Jasmine:
So let’s start with context, which I think is the one that probably most people want to skip over. You feel like you generally have a good idea of what the problem is. You don’t want to waste time really thinking like, am I answering the right question? Testing your own biases, whatever. Walk us through context setting. How do you make sure that you are defining the right problem so that you don’t regret where you end up down the line?

04:45

Jean-Louis:
Well, there’s two examples that I absolutely love that set such a great frame for what context means. So there was an airport in Texas, it might’ve been Dallas Airport, and there was a lot of complaints around baggage claim times. It just took a long time to pick up the bags. A lot of people were unhappy about it. How do you go about solving that problem? Most people, when they think about the context of the problem, well this is an efficiency problem. We need to get people to the aircraft. We need to unload the bags faster. The problem itself is a system that you need to solve and that’s the efficiency of baggage claim. What they ended up doing, which is really smart because it really worked when you looked at passenger satisfaction, it went way up, was that the solution they ended up with. They moved baggage claim from being very close to where you leave the aircraft to being pretty far away.

05:36

Jasmine:
So it’s a five, 10 minute walk. Most people are used to that. The point is, is that by the end of that five, 10 minute walk, your bags have arrived so you seamlessly, the bags are already here. Wow, that’s incredible. They’re so fast because it’s actually the context is it’s an experience problem that you need to solve, not a systems problem. And so that simple switch of solving the right problem in this case, understanding that you have to solve the experience, not the system efficiency really worked. There’s another example that I think speaks to this really well as well, the bullet train in Japan, passengers have to wait for the train to be cleaned. You have a cleaning crew, they come through, they clean, and the cleaning crew takes a little while. There’s a bit of frustration. Obviously Japan is world renowned for being incredibly fast and efficient.

06:23

So this, I think it was a seven minute wait, whatever it was, for a crew to go through the entire train and clean it, caused a lot of friction. How do you solve this problem? So they hired a famous designer. He instituted such an elegant solution to this that again really frames what problem you need to solve here. So the approach had historically been to make the cleaning crew invisible. They would go through, their uniforms would match the train, so everyone would be waiting and the train would just be sitting there. What they did, instead of making the team more efficient, instead of building new things, they gave them highly visible uniforms. That’s it. That’s all they did. But what happened is as a passenger waiting to get on this train that sat in front of me being frustrated, why aren’t the doors open yet?

07:10

Suddenly I can see, I can see in the train there’s a group of people they’re going through, they’re cleaning the train. So now I understand that there’s a purpose to me waiting here, but what’s really interesting is so you improved overall satisfaction because now they’re not frustrated because the doors aren’t opening, but the trains ended up cleaner because they understood why they were waiting and then they felt more responsible. And so you improve satisfaction and you make the system more efficient and you didn’t change how the crew cleaned the train, you changed the experience of it. So again, it’s so effective here that you are solving the right problem.

07:44

Jasmine:
For both of these examples, it sounds to me like if you are just doing what people said they wanted, you would be solving wrong problems. So it’s really speaking to the fact that maybe you should always question what people say they want. When you think of the examples of when you’ve done context setting for our work or when you see it out in the branding world, does it usually start there by asking yourself if people even really know what they want?

08:12

Jean-Louis:
100%. That’s always the approach we have with our clients is we gather as much information as possible, but we always start with zero. We make no assumptions early. At the very least, we label these assumptions and say, those are assumptions that need to be validated. Really what we’re describing here is first principles thinking, which is a whole methodology of start with zero. Can you describe the problem from the ground up with no external inputs? Can you create a model for how things should behave? A really simple example here, if you look at SpaceX, they have this mantra: the best part is no part. If you’re an engineer, I studied aerospace engineering and in my degree you’re constantly… You have a problem to solve. There is an engine, this is how it needs to be designed, and you are optimizing, optimizing, optimizing. You spend years and years and years optimizing at no point are you ever taught, does this part need to exist?

09:06

Your whole mental model, the frame is you’re kind of not first principle is you’re thinking, how do I make this part from being decent efficiency to maximum efficiency given the constraints, instead of am I actually solving the problem that needs to be done? So that the best part is no part, I think explains why as businesses get bigger, they become far less efficient. Everyone’s optimizing systems that probably a lot of them don’t need to exist. They’re not approaching what is the outcome and what is the first principles model of that. And so really to summarize what first principles is, is again, you’re just breaking things down to the most constituent components.

09:40

 

Am I describing this? Am I creating a model of how this works without any assumptions so that I’m actually accurately looking at this? Again, coming back to the bullet train or the airport example. When you look at it and when you start to understand the problem, again, a lot of options to solve it, but you realize the issue is a human experience issue and therefore you need a human experience solution presumably. And so that’s really the methodology required here.

10:05

 

Jasmine:
First principles thinking can feel unnatural at first. Do you feel like this gets easier the more you do it?

10:12

 

Jean-Louis:
You start to get an intuition for where to look for these things. An interesting example, we a while ago worked with a pretty large two-sided marketplace. So you’ve got vendors and you’ve got people buying services and you might assume they both think that they’re selling and buying the same thing. Essentially what that outcome is. But when we did the research, the people that were selling the services and the people buying the services we’re assuming they were getting two different things, or at least they were optimizing for two different outcomes. So there was a mismatch there and I think the more you do this, you start to have an intuition of where these misalignments might be. You kind of look at something and think, I wonder if that’s really not what we think it is or I wonder if there’s a mismatch here. So I do think it gets easier, but I think it gets easier with experience and you need the hard experience of just doing that and then proving it out.

11:07

 

Jasmine:
Something else that I noticed about your examples, the first two, the airport one and the bullet train one was that so often we do feel, and I think this is such a ingrained way of thinking in startup land, that if there’s friction, it has to be removed, the friction is the problem, but those examples show us that the friction is actually the solution. Leaning into the friction was the best way to actually solve the problem or recontextualizing what that friction actually meant for people.

11:38

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, there’s that analogy of friction and fuel and definitely it’s so much easier to add things to the solution again, to add more, add more systems, add more people, add more, but in the long run, that’s really not… Maybe it’s a solution, but it’s certainly not a strategic one and there’s certainly better options when you look at things more holistically, 100% and that’s really the essence of first principle thinking really.

12:01

Jasmine:
So first principle is a great starting point for defining the problem, building context, what’s the next layer of this?

12:08

Jean-Louis:
There’s one other really, really important part of setting the right context and that’s building intuition. I kind of mentioned intuition already in terms of how things get easier, but it really can’t be understated how important having intuition for these things is. What kind of strikes me as interesting, there was a fantastic podcast with Diana Chapman on The Knowledge Project a while ago, all about intuition, especially within business leadership. It’s kind of interesting. You have people who have been very successful in their career, they’ve been working for 20 years solving the same kind of problems, dealing with the same people, ostensibly they have a fantastic intuition of the kinds of solutions, the kinds of people that need to be dealt with, but in businesses, we don’t give that intuition room to breathe. Somebody has to prove out their decisions with data or it’s an IQ thing, it’s an intelligence thing.

13:01

We don’t give the space for, hey, I’ve been doing this for a long time and I really don’t feel like this is the right solution and here’s my experience of why. It’s hard, we don’t have systems that really recognize that and honor the value of intuition. I think when you are building solutions, especially dealing with complex ones and more than that, dealing with human problems, which are the real problems that typically need to be solved, you don’t understand the solution until you understand the people. You need to understand the world that they live in. You need to have an intuitive model. A good example of this that I think really brings it home is I remember listening to a therapist a long time ago giving a talk and they were saying sometimes around the holidays, get a hotel room, don’t stay with your family. One of the frictions that people have when they’re with their family is that their family sees them as the person they were and they’ve changed.

13:48

And so when you go home to your family, there’s this tension of like, hey, I’m not quite the person you thought I was. I used to be like that, but I’m not anymore. What’s happening is that they haven’t updated their worldview, they haven’t updated their model of who you are, and so there’s this friction between the reality and the model that they have of who you are, and I think that’s exactly the same in business. We often have a model of our customers, our clients, our audience that isn’t really up to date with who they really are, and until that intuitive model is built, it’s very hard to have high conviction in a solution. You can think the data says something, but do you really have a high conviction and does the business because of the leadership have a strong conviction that this is in fact the problem that needs to be solved?

14:29

That’s one of the reasons why a lot of the times businesses, they solve a problem, but then they’ll go back and they’ll change the solution and then they’ll change the direction again and then they’ll have a different approach. And by not having conviction, because you don’t have a strong intuition with your leadership, you’re missing a key piece of foundation in any strategic solution.

14:46

Jasmine:
I’m going to admit, this all feels very Rory Sutherland to me. It really rings of his book Alchemy and all of this stuff that he does. I think his program is MAD//Masters and he’s been on this podcast before too, this idea of just questioning what we know and then in some ways trusting what we think we don’t know, stuff that might sound like intuition, but really it’s the culmination of so much experience and having a sixth sense for what you need to look at.

15:14

Jean-Louis:
Well, we’re not defined by the quality of our answers really. We’re defined by the quality of our questions, and I think that’s what a lot of people just like Rory Sutherland speak to is that often it’s not the answers that’s the solution, it’s the problems.

15:27

Jasmine:
Now intuition, let’s dig into that a little bit more. What can you tell me about intuition? It feels like such a abstract thing and I think most of us think it’s just something that kind of emerges from experience, but what is the nature of intuition, especially the kind of intuition that you should follow?

15:45

Jean-Louis:
Intuition is such a powerful thing here in terms of setting the right context. I don’t think you can really have a particularly high conviction on the solution for something until you have kind of a worldview that you’ve built within yourself and you’ve built some intuition from real experience. There’s a fantastic podcast with Diana Chapman on The Knowledge Project where she talks about IQ, EQ, BQ, this model of, of course we know IQ, intellect, EQ, this emotional intelligence, but BQ, which she sort of calls like the body quotient or just this, again, she’s really referring to the gut feeling here. And when you think about businesses, you hire senior executives, you hire people with 20 years of experience solving these particular kinds of problems. They’ve had so much experience that they intuitively know what the right answers are, but businesses often don’t create the forum to listen to that intuition.

16:35

It’s not a vocabulary that a lot of businesses are willing to speak in of how does this feel? Does this feel like the right solution? I think that’s the mark of someone who’s done the job of world building here. Obviously a long tenure does that, but also just talking to people really does that. There’s this great framework of the four unknowns, the known knowns, the unknown knowns, the things that we don’t know that we actually know. A lot of things that when you present it to people, it’s like, oh yeah, of course I see that, I recognize that. I see it that way. The known unknowns, the things that we know we need to figure out. That’s often where you want to start looking for these intuitive truths, but the real quadrant is the unknown unknowns. What are the things that we didn’t even know that we didn’t know?

17:16

And that’s the challenge when you are doing the job of world building, it just requires a deep sense of curiosity to get to the unknown unknowns, to be able to tease into people’s emotional experiences, and that’s what you’re doing here is understanding the emotional reality that people are going through. Again, when you go back to the airport or the bullet train example, it’s not the fact that they were waiting for seven minutes, it’s the fact that they didn’t know why. It’s the perception, it’s the frustration. It’s actually really the emotions. And so how can you solve the problem when you don’t know the emotions that you’re really addressing and so you just have to talk to people, you have to build that empathy. But more than that, you have to build a system where all of your leadership are exposed to people who are listening to people actively and are asking the right questions over time, that you’re building a deeper base of knowledge that’s really important.

18:02

And so when you’ve done that job, when you’ve set the right context, when you’ve asked the right questions, uncovered those unknown unknowns and understood the emotional reality, not just the behaviors but the perceptions that they have, and you are able to make a prediction of how they feel, that’s what allows you to create high conviction and that’s what allows you to create a critical mass of effort and resources behind a problem that needs to be solved. And I’ll give you a great example of this. We worked with an AI learning product, and this was before ChatGPT, and one of the reasons why teachers were hesitant to use this tool is because it was perceived as cheating, and that was a huge barrier for them to overcome to get the support of a key audience for this product.

18:42

When you talk to people and start to do the job of world building and building an intuitive truth here, what you find is that cheating is not about the level of support that you get. It’s not even about presenting the answer. It’s about how much effort did the learner put in. That’s actually the question. The problem of cheating is a question of effort, and when you understand that you understand how to speak to teachers, how to present the product and the product experience in a way that is understood that this actually adds value and here’s why and here’s how we can measure it and prove it to you.

19:13

Jasmine:
So what you’re saying is that cheating wasn’t a matter of getting the right answer, it was a matter of it being too easy to get the right answer. Is that right?

19:22

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, that’s exactly it. It was just not enough effort. So that’s really it. Understanding first principles, setting the context, and then being able to build a prediction of how you should behave. There’s a great analogy for this that I think really summarizes what we’re talking about. I heard a talk from a therapist a while ago and they were talking about how when you go home for the holidays sometimes get a hotel room, don’t stay with your family because there can be a lot of friction because you might’ve changed, but sometimes your family members don’t see that. What’s happening is that their worldview, their world building doesn’t recognize how you’ve changed and that creates a lot of tension and it’s exactly the same in business. If your worldview of who your customers are isn’t up to date with who they really are, there’s going to be a lot of tension there. That’s exactly what you need to remove in the system here of just keeping an up-to-date model of your audience.

20:10

Jasmine:
So we have the context now. It’s a lot of work just to make sure that you are thinking about the right questions and not falling on some models that actually might lead you astray from what the solution is. So that’s a whole bunch of work before you even start the work. But let’s talk about getting to the core of it, which is where most people start in finding the solution. So how are we doing this wrong? What’s the right way to find a solution?

20:36

Jean-Louis:
So assuming you’ve done all that foundational research, and again, don’t forget that most people have a mental model that the solution is just a matter of intelligence. So they’re not even thinking about am I asking the right question? And it’s worth remembering that mental model is really such an issue here. A big challenge is with that much information, with that much intuitive knowledge, with that much of a database of you’ve built of really trying to frame and understand the issue, you have to organize the information. You’re going to have a lot of information. What often happens is you get all this information and you take the most surprising thing or you take one of the loudest variables or the loudest data points, and that becomes the underpinning of the strategy. What you’re not doing is accommodating all of the information, and that’s such a critical issue that again, a lot of problems our businesses have.

21:20

This is one of the issues where you have a big company, they have a really good research division. They do tons and tons of research, but the leadership just sees the Cliff Notes. They just see the couple big picture stats of like, oh, that’s great. Oh, that’s really concerning. They don’t organize all of that information into themes, into mental models, into a structure to really understand it. The way I like to approach this is a little mathematical is to look at what are the variables and what are the dynamics and how are they changing? So what I mean by that is we’ve talked a lot in our team and even on this podcast about relatability for example. When you try and predict that future, if you were to go back in time, what are the signals that would’ve helped you predict that and build a mental model of that if relatability is where trust is going, then that creates a framework for what a solution might look like let’s say.

22:08

In this case, you have to look at how is the information flow changing? That’s a variable, and the dynamic is it’s moving from institutions to people. We’ve known this for a long time, but if you could go back in time and start to pick out the signals of when Facebook started coming around and when the first influencers, you started to see, okay, we’re really moving in that continuum, and with that, you look at another variable of trust. How has trust changed? Well, as social media’s evolved, the visibility of people’s lifestyles increased, and so that became a proxy for trust. So super high visibility was trust, but then you had inauthentic lifestyles, and so the authenticity became the bottleneck and therefore we moved to higher commitments, which is around the topic of conspicuous commitment that we’ve talked about. My point here is that by isolating some of the variables and understanding what are the dynamics and how are they changed, you’re starting to organize a lot of information into simple systems and for example, just the flow of information from institutions to people.

23:03

It’s such a simple thing. We kind of know that, but when you build that mental model and you say, okay, if this continues happening, what does that mean? You start to be able to build a predictive device by understanding the variable and the dynamic. So that’s always how we try and organize the information with so many different signals because again, the market’s changing, the flow of capital is changing, the advertising platforms and incentives are changing, the audience is changing, culture is changing. Our cultural languages are changing so many variables, and you do need to understand these depending on the scale of the problem you need to solve. Again, it’s such a critical thing to just… Do you have a model and so simple things of like what are the incentives in a system? What is the friction, the inertia to these systems? Do you have a model for that?

23:46

What’s the curve? There are different curves that you can look at the J curve, for example, where things get more effortful or they get worse before they get better. An S curve where there’s a slow up ramp and then things start to jump and then they slow down at the top. So there’s this kind of middle curve, a bell curve, these simple things of just is this moving linearly exponentially or incrementally? Understanding these behaviors, again, it helps you predict what the future looks like and often to have a solution, you need to have a sense of not where we are today, but where are we headed? That’s the kind of challenge that you need to solve.

24:20

Jasmine:
What I’m hearing is that the solution isn’t in the data as it’s presented because that is reflective of today and it’s a snapshot, but rather if you zoom out, it’s in the patterns that a bunch of different inputs create that gives you a direction that then gives you a projection of the future. It’s data, but in movement and in aggregate, that’s where the solutions lie is at this higher level.

24:48

Jean-Louis:
I think the key word to describe that is when you zoom out, you start to see where the leverage in the system is. As you get these variables, you realize that a lot of variables are connected to something. There’s a root cause underlying a lot of these things, and what you are looking for in any solution that you’re trying to find when you organize the information this way is where’s the leverage? What are the independent variables that separate from everything else are driving the bulk of the change? In a lot of markets right now because of AI, we are moving from a supply constrained or a demand constrained model to a supply constrained model or vice versa. So for example, in digital artwork or in the art industry in general, for the longest time it’s been supply constrained. There’s only so much art, but there’s so much demand for it.

25:30

And now if you look at, obviously we’re well past NFTs, but if you just look at generative AI, all of a sudden we now have infinite supply of art essentially, or at least we’re starting to be there, and so now demand is the constraint. And so obviously as that model changes, the behaviors of those marketplaces need to respond to that. Again, it’s a really simple thing, but supply and demand, the dynamic has changed. And so when you understand the dynamic and realize that’s where there’s a lot of leverage in the system, that unlocks where you need to focus the solution on. And so again, it’s just so critical of like have you organized the information? Okay, you’ve collected it, can you present it back? Can you find the 80/20, the 20% of inputs that create 80% of the outputs?

26:09

That’s what’s required here and finding that tipping point, that’s why it’s the research, but then the understanding of the research and when that’s separate, again, one of the challenges here is that you can have a really good insights team, but if they’re not involved in the solution, then you don’t have the full picture in a larger company, especially the flow of information and the ownership of that and the real do you feel it? Have you spent time with this? That’s such a critical question to do you have what it takes or do you have what you need to solve the problem?

26:39

Jasmine:
When I think about this second step of solutions, I think of mental models that comes up a lot in our work at this stage, we go about it a certain way. Can you talk to that a little bit? How do mental models come into play when it comes to the solution stage?

26:55

Jean-Louis:
So absolutely, I think mental models is such a critical part of how you solve this. So let’s say you’ve done all the work as you’ve done the foundational thinking, the first principles, you’ve built an intuition for what the solution is. You’ve organized that information, so now you can find the point of leverage, the key variable that you need to understand to unlock the behavior that you want to create or the solution, the perception that you want to create. Then you have to present it as a mental model. And really when you think about a mental model, I kind of think about it as like a zip file.

27:23

You take all of this data and you compress it down to a really simple idea. A perfect example of this is clean products. When someone sees a clean product or they go to a clean product website, the word clean captures so many layers of value. There’s a cultural narrative that the FDA has failed us and that Europe has better standards. And so a lot of clean products talk about using European standards. There’s a moral question of what the right kind of product is. Often it’s correlated with being eco-friendly and those kind of narratives. And so when you see the word clean, it’s a mental model that encompasses so much information.

27:59

Jasmine:
I think what’s important to remember about that mental model and why it’s strong is that it also provides a model for its opposite. So if you’re not eating clean, you’re eating dirty and clean and dirty, it’s a very instinctive concept to us. It’s very biblical. The idea of what you put into your body, either your body being like a temple, you can go on and on unpacking what clean food is or clean beauty, clean whatever, just from that one word.

28:32

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I mean what we’re talking about when we’re talking about mental models is really the act of framing, creating that simulation of do I now have a conception of the solution? And as you say, in opposition of the problem, do I understand the rules of engagement like a sport? Do I know the rules? Can we present an idea? And that’s such a challenge to do that because it needs to be highly specific. If it’s not specific, then it’s probably not defensible by you or anyone else, and you are probably not creating all that much value because if it’s such a general truth, then you’re not really shifting perspectives as much as you could. And so great solutions, it’s understanding the leverage and compressing all that information to one idea that I can just grasp and keep hold of. We obviously know that people’s attention spans are shrinking, and so these mental models are so critical to get right.

29:21

So I can give an example that maybe bring this down to earth a little bit. So we worked with a financial services company that really helped customers, or at least the perception was that they helped customers who were… This was a last resort who really needed help, who felt helpless, who felt in trouble basically, and this was a really strong negative emotional truth for their audience. And there’s this whole adjacent category of people who could be just as supported, just as benefited by this product, but didn’t respond to the narrative of needing help, that wasn’t an idea that was relevant to them. And as we talked to these customers, what we found, and this was so fascinating, is that the financial benefit of the product was actually less than the emotional benefit of the product. Again, this is a financial services offering, but the outcome emotionally was so deep and it hit so many of their relationships and how they saw themselves in the world.

30:18

That hit their mythology of who I am, that it became clear that we can at least present the act of using this service as an act of taking care of yourself, which is a very different thing than an act of desperation, an act of lost resort. And so when you start to present it that way, you get this whole contingent of people who would never relate with the idea of needing help, but they do relate to the idea of taking care of themselves. And so that simple mental model of what am I doing here? What is this act? It opened up a new mental model of behavior and a new way of relating to this, and that company has gone on to market that narrative to huge success in terms of the outcomes and the reach that they’ve had of reaching that new audience because they’ve reframed the proposition of what they’re doing and what they’re speaking to. So again, it’s a very simple thing, but that perceptive value that you’re creating changes when you give it a new mental model.

31:13

Jasmine:
So you say that the solution is only step two, there is a step three, which is the expression of the solution or the refining of the idea. So just like if you had a lot of heavy pre-work with context setting, you have a lot of post-work with expression refining. Let’s talk about this a little bit. You have a good idea. You have the concept or the mental model in our business and brand strategy you obviously then need to refine it because it needs to be translated and expressed in different channels, in different ways, different touchpoints. Branding’s not just a visual or website layer. It’s everything down through the products, through the company culture, all that. Let’s talk about this a little bit. Where do you begin to refine when it comes to the expression of the idea?

32:03

Jean-Louis:
I think the first thing is we talked about first order thinking, there’s second order thinking, which is and then what? And then what? And then what? Ask that a number of times, ask that five times, see what happens, what happens if an audience hears this message? Can we run the simulation of what happens if the market hears this message? How will they behave? Just really understanding the world in which this is in just, again, you’re really just running a simulation, even if it’s just a thought experiment of what that looks like. The key tool that I think is really helpful here is separating sentiment and semantics. So often I’m sure if you’ve worked in a large team or a large company and you need to come to a big decision, the expression a horse designed by a committee is a camel. The idea that with many people in the room, a lot of people add value by taking away or by criticizing and saying, “Oh, I don’t like that.”

32:52

It’s more rare and it’s often a really good green flag of a great leader who is adding value or questioning in a way that is additive instead of subtractive. And so when you separate the sentiment, what do you mean, but from the semantics of how do you express that meaning, then it kind of makes it much easier to be more precise. Because again, what happens is people say, “Oh, I don’t like that word.” And then over time, over the iterations, the meaning changes and so you’re not actually solving, you might not end up with a meaning that is relevant to the leverage that you found when you were organizing the information. And so that’s such a critical thing of separating that and first of all, figuring out what is the sentiment, and that’s why you need to get really precise. What exactly do you mean? What expectation are you creating?

33:36

What feeling is this relating to? What kind of connotations does this have or associations, that is figuring out exactly what that sentiment is. You should have very high conviction that that sentiment is what needs to be communicated. Making that a separate thing. We agreed that this is the meaning we want to convey, and getting buy-in there first is such a good insurance policy against that drift in meaning. Once you’ve agreed on that meaning, then you’ve got a much more narrow problem. We just need to express this in the right way. The word I often use there is poetry. Poetry has many meanings. It kind of has many connotations. Often when you have a mental model, it needs to be true for multiple audiences, it needs to have a truth for your internal team. If you’ve got a two-sided marketplace, for example, it needs to be true of both sides.

34:21

It needs to be a shared thing with some nuances in its interpretation. And so that’s where exploring semantics and getting that nuance is a different exercise. I often use this phrase with our team when we’re brainstorming of hitting the end of the dictionary, it is very frustrating because you have this great meaning, but there are only so many words in the English language. And so there is definitely a struggle there in terms of conveying things with the level of depth that you’re looking for. But there are some tools, there’s fantastic thesaurus tools. I think actually of all places in this thinking process, this is one of my favorites, to use ChatGPT to explore language, to explore words, to explore phrases and metaphors and things like that. It can be a very creative tool of going wide and then kind of going in. I think often the creative process here is very much you diverge and converge, you come up with many, many options and you whittle it down. Many, many options and you whittle it down.

35:13

You need to do that cycle multiple times to come to the right output, the right phrasing. But again, that just separation of sentiment. What do you mean to semantics of how do you express that if you lock the first one in of, what do you mean it makes it so much easier to get the second one right. And that is honestly the biggest issue I see often with thinking is that you may have the right solution, but you don’t have the systems in place to leave the room with the right solution in hand. So that’s one of the challenges here in carrying that through.

35:43

Jasmine:
I think another important thing that we have to cover here is how do you actually stress test all of this stuff? A lot of times there’s a fair argument that if you’re creating something new in the world, you can’t ask people if they want it. You can’t do focus groups and tests because people will not know what they don’t know. But there are other ways to stress test your ideas, especially if they’re big breakthrough new ideas. Let’s talk about that a little bit. What are some things that you think are a good starting point?

36:13

Jean-Louis:
I think the first thing is just recognizing that often with strategies and strategic thinking, you can be stuck in a local maxima, meaning that if you deviate from your strategy a little bit, your results might get worse, but if you deviate a lot in the right direction, they could get a lot better. And it’s that trap of thinking that incremental change… Sometimes you cannot increment your way to a new strategy. You need to fundamentally start from a different spot. And that fundamental shift is a risk. It’s absolutely a risk, and that’s why you need such strong conviction on these things. But the first thing is to recognize that in making sure and fine-tuning the outcome of that strategic decision, there may be some inefficiencies. You may see some dips in numbers, but the commitment to that solution done right can lead to great results.

36:55

And so I think that’s the first thing of even your mental model of what the solution can look like. But you’re absolutely right in that you have to stress test these ideas. The first thing is just to ask yourself what if we’re wrong? And just running that scenario through, often what we talk about with our clients is a pre-mortem and just playing out the idea of, okay, let’s imagine that this strategy failed. It’s two years from now, we’ve spent $10 million on marketing budget and we just haven’t quite seen the results, or we haven’t quite built the perception that we wanted to get. Why did it go wrong? And then to run that simulation now of asking was it an organizational thing? Was it a systems thing? What are all the reasons we could have gone wrong? What are their likelihoods and what is the likely impact of those things?

37:38

And just stack rank them and say, okay, these are the top five reasons why even with the right idea, even if everything is right, we still might fail. And here’s why. Are we onboarding the team? Are we educating our team to use this right, are we actually committing the resources? We might change our message, but are we changing our product to meet that so that there’s a consistency there? All of these small things that pre-mortem exercise is so important just to play out because often we don’t, we’re afraid to explore those things of, hey, why might this fail? And I think that’s the most important thing. It’s kind of like blacksmithing. You put it on the table and you smash it with a hammer, and if you could really break it, then maybe there was something wrong to begin with. And actually that’s kind of a perfect analogy.

38:18

Many, many years ago, earlier in my career, I helped run a Google startup accelerator in London for early stage startups. So it was like a week long intensive program where startups would come through and every day we’d address a different part of the business. And over doing that a few different reps, what we found is the best way to help startups was to basically try and break them. So over the course of the day, we’d see, can we find a critical flaw in the product? Can we find a critical flaw in how they understand their market or their audience? Can we find a critical flaw in their marketing approach or whatever it was. And just by trying to destroy them, if you could find something by applying that pressure and that intensity, often it left companies being far more resilient or walking away and going, “Okay, we need to do something else.”

38:59

I always remember there was this company, they’d spent two years working on a connected dog collar, and they found that people really care, they’re very concerned about their dogs when they’re at work. They wanted to feel connected to them. So we just said, “Have you talked to people? Go on the street, talk to people.” And what they found is that yes, people really are concerned. No, this product does absolutely not alleviate these concerns. And at this point, they’d spent a lot of time, a lot of R&D on the market, but they didn’t find the success that they were looking for. And this kind of spoke to that, and it was just a very, very simple exercise. But again, just have you really stressed tested it. It’s such a simple thing. A lot of these things, we’re talking about thinking it’s incredibly simple, but it’s so critical that you do that hard work of not just coming up with that idea, not being precious with it, but really putting it on the anvil.

39:43

Jasmine:
People wanted to be connected to their dogs, but they didn’t like the idea of a connected dog collar, why?

39:49

Jean-Louis:
They were anxious about how their dog felt while they’re at work, but they felt that the connected dog collar didn’t alleviate their anxieties because while they could see how their dog was doing, they couldn’t connect with the dog. And often when the dog wore it, the dog was confused if they tried to speak to the dog, because they were like, “Okay, where are they?” And so there was kind this challenge of they were addressing a real anxiety, but the product wasn’t providing the emotional security or the emotional comfort that it was intended to. Put another way, all the extra insights and information of all this data that you were getting from your dog made you more anxious, not less

40:25

Jasmine:
Classic example of people not really actually getting into the minds and bodies of their users to see what the real need was, which was not data, but rather some sort of emotional easing or respite.

40:40

Jean-Louis:
I think there’s a trap in all of this. There’s something called the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is really helpful to keep in mind, which is that often the less you know about something, the more you think you know. A lot of people use the word quantum for a lot of stuff. I’d hazard to guess that most of them don’t really know the intricacies of quantum physics. And so there’s this kind of U shape in terms of the vertical axes being the perceived knowledge that you have, and then the horizontal axis being how much knowledge you actually have. And so people who either are incredible experts, who spend their entire careers in quantum physics and people who have read a handful of articles often present with the same… They perceive themselves at the same level of expertise when in fact there’s this huge gap.

41:26

The main point here is that the more you know typically, the less you realize you know, and that’s part of it in terms of having that humility and just keeping an eye out for that of like, am I on this curve? Do I know just enough to be dangerous? Do I know just enough to think I know more than I really do? And so again, it is kind of dealing with your own sort of confirmation bias and your own perceptions. And that’s all part of stress testing of not just stress testing the idea, but stress testing yourself too. Am I seeing this correctly?

41:53

Jasmine:
I don’t want anyone to feel overwhelmed by the sheer fire hose of information that we just went over. These were things that took us many years to kind of develop as part of our process. And some of it’s formal, some of it’s informal, and it’s taken time to get to where we are, build our own intuition. I think it would be good to end with this. If somebody who’s listening to this, who’s trying to uplevel how they think and really develop that muscle, that skill, what’s the big takeaway that they should walk away from this conversation with?

42:25

Jean-Louis:
First thing, thinking is the skill, and there are many constituent components, and it’s not even just a skill, it’s a whole class of skills. And so if you think about it thinking as a category, and now you can have all these different skills within thinking of just again, expressing that idea of stress testing, of organizing information, there are many constituent components. So first thing is realizing that all of those are variables and you can train on all of them and you should be, that immediately helps build fidelity there. The second thing is often, I think often people are fairly good at coming to solutions. I think it’s the first and the last point here. We forget how important it’s to set the right context and make sure that while we may be good at solving problems, are we solving the right problems and then stress testing them and really doing our due diligence in making sure they’re the right solutions. I think those are the two main things to take away from this.

42:25

Jasmine:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you’re new here and like what you’re listening to, do us a favor and leave a review. Those reviews mean a lot and they help our audience grow. And don’t forget, you can always get more of our brand strategy and culture articles, videos, podcasts, whole bunch of great content at Conceptbureau.com. And while you’re there, you can also sign up for our awesome newsletter that will deliver valuable thinking to you twice a month, and I promise it’ll be the best thing you get in your inbox. Thanks for listening. We’ll catch you next time.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

23: Pain, Sacrifice, and Our New Status Symbols

Brands get lucky once, maybe twice every generation, when the rules of status change and social equity is suddenly up for grabs. Our Concept Bureau Senior Strategist Zach Lamb believes we are in the midst of one of those rare shifts right now, where we are moving from the self-indulgence of conspicuous consumption to the self-denial of what he calls “conspicuous commitment”.

Public figures are devoting themselves to difficult new modalities, diets, spiritual quests, life practices and ideologies. Your friends are going on arduous, painful, yet revelatory, psychedelic retreats. All around us, wellness brands, food brands, medical brands, lifestyle brands tell us that self-denial is the new flex.

No longer are we obsessed with flaunting material possessions and extravagant experiences; instead, we’re witnessing the rise of people showcasing their unwavering dedication to self-work, vulnerability and personal growth.

In a time when nihilism is literally everywhere, when pessimism gets clicks on headlines, when post-capitalist hopelessness is a trending aesthetic on TikTok and every meme deals in absurdity, conspicuous commitment stands out.

In this episode, we also speak with W. David Marx, author of “Status and Culture: How Our Desire for Social Rank Creates Taste, Identity, Art, Fashion, and Constant Change” who has an alternative view of how status is tied to money more than ever, and what that means for an increasingly flattening culture.

If you deal in any premium or luxury category, this is a must-listen. The ways we seek to distinguish ourselves have dramatically evolved as we prioritize discipline and personal growth over material success.

That means everyone has to play by new rules.

Podcast Transcript

AUGUST 28, 2023

31 min read

PAIN, SACRIFICE, AND OUR NEW STATUS SYMBOLS

00:12

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m your host, Jasmine Bina, and right now we are standing in my kitchen. 

00:19

It’s late at night and next to me is Jean-Louis, my partner at Concept Bureau and all things in life, and we’re looking at his supplement shelf, which he installed over our coffee machine a while back. There’s all kinds of stuff on here. You’ll see brands like Athletic Greens, Organifi, Vital Proteins, Thorne Research, Pure Encapsulations, and Four Sigmatic, to name a few. And I’ll admit, I have my own lightweight stack of supplements mixed in with the other containers on this shelf. It’s a lot, and everything here has a specific purpose. Okay, so what is all of this stuff?

00:55

Jean-Louis:
This is my personal supplement stack.

00:58

Jasmine:
Okay. I’m looking at many jars, a tincture, something in a little, it looks like a tobacco box. What is this one?

01:08

Jean-Louis:
So, this is Shilajit. It’s kind of interesting one, it’s like a tar that you need to kind of melt in hot water. It’s got a lot of good minerals and things. It’s great for your hormone, balance and energy.

01:18

Jasmine:
What’s this one?

01:20

Jean-Louis:
This is a functional mushroom blend. So it has a whole bunch of stuff, turkey tail, lion’s mane, chaga, good all-rounder for a lot of immune stuff, but also for brain health, especially. The lion’s mane is the big one in that one.

01:32

Jasmine:
I see there’s creatine here and a bunch of other stuff. First, how do you take all of this? How do you ingest? Okay, I’m going to count this. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 substances here. How do you take all of these every day?

01:51

Jean-Louis:
So mostly I cram a whole bunch into a couple of drinks. So I have my Athletic Greens with my creatine polyphenols, my D3 and K2 and some fiber. So I’ll have that usually first thing in the morning, and then I’ll have some omega-3 as well. For a lot of the other ones, I cram them into a hot drink. So I’ll mix collagen with my mushroom powder with the Sheila G, and I’ll put some cinnamon in with that and some honey to kind of round out the flavor. It can be quite intense. Then I’ll take some protein as well, and then sometimes I’ll mix some inulin as well in my breakfast.

02:28

Jasmine:
How much time do you think you spent figuring out this stack and tinkering with it and getting it right? Just ballpark?

02:36

Jean-Louis:
Over a dozen hours.

02:37

Jasmine:
And why? The big question. Why are you doing all this?

02:40

Jean-Louis:
I’d like to live to 150 years old. I think if I can be super healthy, I think there’s a very reasonable chance of living to 100, and I think at least by the time I’m 100, the medical advances will at the very least take me the rest of the way there. I feel like that’s a pretty solid bet I’m willing to make. At the very least, I’ll live long, but I’ll be healthy and happy in the meantime. I think that what’s interesting is that right now I’m more focused on how do I feel the most energy, and so it’s kind of been interesting . The problem is that I’m messing with almost too many things at the same time, so it’s hard to tell what’s doing what, but I feel great. I mean, I exercise, all of those other things too. But yeah.

03:21

 

Jasmine:
Living to 150 years old is ambitious, but it’s also optimistic. Jean-Louis is part of a massive community of people who are committed to this goal, “committed” being the operative word. Zach Lamb, who is our senior strategist at Concept Bureau, recently wrote an article about how conspicuous commitment is the next era of status, and that’s what today’s episode is about. In a time when nihilism is literally everywhere, when pessimism gets clicks on headlines, when post capitalist hopelessness is a trending aesthetic on TikTok and every meme deals in absurdity, committing to something optimistic stands out. Think about it. We have public figures devoting themselves to difficult new modalities, diets, spiritual quests, life practices and ideologies. Your friends are going on arduous, painful, yet revelatory, psychedelic retreats. All around us, wellness brands, food brands, medical brands, lifestyle brands tell us that self-denial is the new flex. No longer are we just obsessed with flaunting material, possessions and extravagant experiences.

04:30

 

Instead, we’re witnessing the rise of people showcasing their unwavering dedication to self-work. Status is moving from the indulgence of conspicuous consumption to the self-denial of conspicuous commitment. Zach argues that the more you commit to the difficult and the fearsome and the hard one, the more you signal this new form of prestige. That’s a huge deal for brands. The meaning of status hasn’t changed for generations, but now that it is, everyone has to play by new rules. But before we get to Zach’s prediction on where status is headed, let’s consider an alternative point of view, more grounded in where it is today. I spoke with W. David Marx, the author of Status and Culture: How our Desire for Social Rank Creates Taste, Identity, Art, Fashion, and Constant Change. David sees a social hierarchy that has become increasingly global, increasingly based on wealth, and increasingly flattening the texture of society.

05:30

 

W. David:
It is a position in a hierarchy, and it could be a local group, it could be all of society, but as you move up in this hierarchy, you receive better social benefits. So people treat you better and you get more esteem. And esteem is kind of the anchor for that hierarchy. So I think we all know that this is a nice thing to have esteem, but psychologists have found recently in a lot of work and research that it’s a fundamental human desire. So more or less, every human being desires some level of status. So then when you ask about the history, what you’re really asking about is, over time, how has it changed that these hierarchies are created and what is the criteria in which they’re based? And you could probably go back to some sort of tribal society 10,000 years ago where you have a very small tribe and there may be a bloodline in which the leader is the leader.

06:26

 

And then you move to the Middle Ages and aristocracy and so you have a society in which the church and the king and very formal, rigid feudal systems have made it where the hierarchy is completely and utterly rigid so that you cannot really move up and down. I think the big change came probably dated to the French Revolution, but more or less with the rise of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, suddenly everybody can make their own destiny and having more and more money moves you up. And so we now live more or less in a world in which that social hierarchy is created by money. But the other interesting thing is we live in a very plural society, which you can have subcultures. And the way I talk about subcultures and countercultures in the book are these are status groups and status hierarchies based on different criteria than money. The kind of historical stage that we’ve been in, especially the 20th century, is yes, we’ve moved away from these categories where it’s, you’re kind of born into status and you always have it, you have to make it for yourself, and money really really helps there.

07:31

At the same time, there’s all these kind of offshoots and subcultures that are growing in stature. So suddenly you’re not just an outcast for being in a subculture, but you could actually be cooler than people in the so-called mainstream by being in these groups. And now in the 21st century, I’ve been thinking a lot about what is happening and subcultures have weakened. They’ve grown in strength in the sense that more people are into subcultural type things, but being in a subculture itself provides less value. And it seems like this massive social hierarchy, which is more globalized and more expansive than ever, is really focused more on money than ever before. And there is a status taboo. We don’t talk about it. It’s not supposed to exist in an egalitarian, democratic society. We’re not supposed to have these hierarchies. We see status much more as caste systems and feudal systems and things that we all got rid of.

08:24

And good, great, now we live in a place where everybody makes their own status. And of course there are things like sexism and racism, which are old hierarchies that have still been imposed on this society where we’re supposed to be able to make our own way, and we can’t. And money, as much as we don’t want it to be the thing that determines the hierarchy, it just does. I mean, we live in a capitalist society. My book is just trying to more or less say, culture seems mysterious when you force yourself not to look at the main thing that is driving it. So if you say, “Okay, we’re going to write about culture and why it changes, but we can’t look at status, because that would be rude,” then everything’s just total nonsense. And fashion makes no sense. And the ways we contort ourselves to tell stories about fashion trends is just ridiculous because the explanations for fashion when you take away status makes zero sense.

09:16

It’s just chaotic and things just become big randomly. It’s like that’s not how it works at all. And this idea of virality is completely ridiculous. And so the book is just saying, look, status exists. We don’t want it to exist, but here are the rules of how it works. And if you just line these things up and extrapolate from why a human being wants status, which is a very logical thing to want because it makes your life better, and the way people behave in pursuit of it in different ways, because not everybody’s saying, I want status, therefore I’m going to buy a Lamborghini. There’s many ways to do it and people in many groups, but if you just look at this, you’ll pretty much understand the origin of most of the cultural practices in society. And I just find that really helpful because ultimately, I’m interested in what is culture, where does it come from? Where’s it going, what is it doing? And unless you understand this status component of it, it’s just nonsense.

10:08

Jasmine:
When I read this in the book, I was asking myself as well, why is there such a taboo around status? Why does it feel like such a risk to actually talk about this thing? Which according to you, is kind of like the driving force behind culture.

10:22

W. David:
I think it’s changing a little bit. I watch a lot of TikTok videos, and maybe it’s because they’re like 16 year old kids, but there’s all these kids who’ve made money in dubious ways who have sitting on the hoods of all the Mercedes-Benz as they bought their parents or whatever, and they’re just like, “Yeah, if you’re 17 and you don’t own four luxury cars, you’re a failure.” So there’s this change where this principled detachment, I think, is getting much weaker. This kind of gentleman’s agreement not to talk about status has been lost on this new generation coming up that doesn’t have much connection to the old culture and is finding ways through the internet to make money on their own. So that may get weaker over time and people may hide it a little bit less, but I think they’re also very unlikely to talk about status too, because if you have status, it’s a very uncool thing to talk about status. So then it means the people who we hear from most and have most influence are never talking about it.

11:17

Jasmine:
Okay, but aren’t people just finding, let’s say, the TikTok generation, aren’t they just finding new ways of asserting status, just new codes, new languages, new images and symbols where for them it’s maybe not so much about the money, but about being part of a special class that knows the rules?

11:38

W. David:
Yes. I mean, that’s always been true. And the thing I noticed is simply how fast the information that is privileged information that gives you status as a teenager is devalued. If you’re on TikTok, the way that trends move is so fast that you know how to use this audio to make a video, and then you get a bunch of likes for it. And then within a week or so, everyone’s done it and it’s passe. And so the degree to which, let’s just call this a whole thing memes, but do you get a status for being a master meme maker and knowing what’s the right meme to make a joke about? Probably. But the question I have is, is that status you’re getting from meme manipulation very valuable? And also doesn’t it require just constant refresh? So you’re right that there is this group, but I don’t know how valuable that is on a global level.

12:34

And again, these are really important concepts for understanding status, but in your local group, you have a local status. So just think about if you’re at a rural high school and you are the captain of the basketball team, maybe you are a local star, but on a global stage, nobody knows who you’re and nobody cares. And so global status is how people perceive your position on a larger scale. And what is interesting to me is TikTok and YouTube in particular are massively popular platforms that everybody knows have replaced television and other forms of media, and yet they have all these stars that are very big locally within those worlds. But I keep thinking about have those stars crossed over to mainstream society? And if you look at ads for Louis Vuitton, they’re still using models and movie stars. No one watches movies, cinema’s in crisis, and yet Brad Pitt is this spokesperson for these brands, and not TikTok stars.

13:31

W. David:
So there is status being generated locally, probably not yet globally. I know that will change, and I’m kind of waiting for that moment. It’ll be very interesting. But I’m passionate about there are people who understand these things and there are people who don’t, and the people who understand them are much more successful in life, and this information is hidden to people and it is hidden from people. And the more that these ideas become common knowledge, the more the system changes and the more we can take control of it. And so I am passionate about, this knowledge is not equally distributed, and it should be. Every high school should have a class that teaches people about the sociology of status because they’re living it. I mean, high school kids live it more than anyone else, and they just think it’s like, this is the nature of the world, and if I’m uncool, then it’s something wrong with me.

14:20

And it’s like, you’ve got to understand how this works. And so I deeply believe that we should move towards an egalitarian society, and you can’t do that unless you see where the stratification exists. Unless you perfectly understand the stratification, you can’t get rid of it. The second is, and I do write this in the book because the whole book, I’m like, “I have no opinions about this. This is just the way it works.” But at the end it’s like, fine, I’ll have two opinions, which is if we could have lots of hierarchy or little, I think a little is much better, and we should move towards that and understand the ways that personally we replicate and we reproduce the status structures in our own behaviors. So that’s number one. Number two is, culture should be more exploratory, experimental, interesting, more complex. And complexity is good for the ecosystem in general because it trickles down and it makes even simple things more interesting.

15:17

Jasmine:
So all of this leads us to where we are today, a world in need of transparency and perhaps even more importantly, exploration and complexity, a world with more dimension where status is not solely derived from money, but from creation, experimentation and ingenuity. This is where Zach’s idea of conspicuous commitment comes in. What Zach sees is a new social code around status that affords us this kind of dimension that untethers us a little bit from wealth and moves us toward creation of the self where it’s not about what you have, but what you are committing yourself to. And it rings surprisingly optimistic.

16:01

Zach:
With conspicuous commitment, the flex that I’m pointing at in the article is the hard work that you’re doing on yourself mentally and physically. That’s what we’re really trying to show off now. It’s not like, “Look at all these possessions that I have. Look at all these things,” or, “Look at all these experiences that I’m going out and collecting and then sharing on Instagram or TikTok.” And it’s not your virtue signaling, like I’m this kind of person with these kinds of values and beliefs. No, it’s what am I doing to train my mind and my body that makes me into a certain kind of person and shapes me in a way that’s self-directed, that I’m choosing. And I found a meme on Twitter the other day that really encapsulates what I’m talking about. It says, “Become a ghost for six months. Find the beast within you. Throw yourself into pain. Cut out all the excuses. Go all in on yourself, train like a warrior, work like a robot, eat like a king, reject vices, transform, upgrade, create, thrive, win.”

16:57

Right? It’s super serious. From the outside, it’s easy for us to laugh at this, but if somebody’s on the inside, they’re deeply committed to this project of self-transformation and self-betterment, and it feels like that. So 50 years ago, you’d see somebody jogging through your neighborhood and you’d be like, “What is going on? This is really, really weird. What are you running from?” That’s the joke. But we’re so far from that now. This is such deep whole being training, being, mind and body. That’s what I’m really trying to capture with this new evolution in status, showing that off, that change in that training that you’re doing for yourself.

17:33

Jasmine:
I feel like I’ve definitely heard conspicuous commitment on social a lot, but what are some of the hallmarks of conspicuous commitment that make it what it is?

17:42

Zach:
There’s four main hallmarks. The first one is isolation. Make no mistake, this is all about me. It’s very me focused. I’m not trying to change the world. I don’t have a socially altruistic angle here. I’m merely trying to better myself. At the end of the day, this is all about me, individual, isolated. And the second one is challenge. You’re setting up challenges. You’re putting obstacles in your way so that you can overcome them and transcend them on this path that you’re on. Society isn’t giving you these obstacles. They’re not part of the normative development of how we grow and move through life. No, you’re putting these obstacles deliberately in your way so you can experience what it feels like to overcome this challenge. The third one, I kind of alluded to already, earnestness. We can laugh at this stuff, but it’s no joke. It’s very serious.

18:29

It’s almost anti-nihilistic. This is a deep meaning system that this person on this commitment path really believes in. And the last hallmark is devotion. I think this is the one that’s most interesting to me because it’s so religious. It feels, this stuff, when you engage with it, it feels like there’s zealotry. There’s a religiosity and a religiousness to this. The word I used in the article a lot is asceticism to describe this. I just love that word because it’s beautiful and it’s got all these religious connotations about self-sacrifice for a higher purpose. That’s what it feels like if somebody’s on this path of commitment.

19:06

Jasmine:
To me, this feels like a big deal because I don’t know the last time that we ever discussed as a culture when the meaning of status was up for grabs, when we were going through a shift in what it actually means to have and attain status. I mean, is this really a fundamental shift? Am I over emphasizing here, or is it really this big?

19:27

Zach:
No, it’s really this big. And I think to understand why and to feel why it’s this big, just briefly how we got here. The last 10 years, we all know it’s been crazy. We had a big breakdown in shared visions, shared norms, even shared realities in a lot of cases. Reality tunnels is the phrase I like to use to describe just how different worlds that we’re living in. Status doesn’t work in that context, right? Status is predicated on shared belief, shared buy-in. We all have to want the same thing. We have to be moving through life in the same way. So all that went out the window and we don’t have anything to anchor on anymore because we’ve also lost faith in all of our progress narratives. That explains a lot of the nihilism that you see in culture. People just don’t believe generally that a rising tide is going to lift all boats.

20:16

They look at things like inequality, racism, sexism, all these things. And there’s so many reasons to turn away from society and say, “That’s not working. This isn’t going to make me better. I can’t have faith and buy into the system. I’ve got to figure it out for myself.” So there’s just this sense of tragic optimism where my life prospects are just not going to be as great as they once were, so what am I going to do about it? And so in that context, believing in a positive future for yourself, committing to something, really stands out, right? Because nobody’s doing it. Culture at large is sort of mired in these negative things. But if somebody really commits and stands out positively, well, that’s going to confer status. That’s kind of how we got here.

20:58

So it is a pretty big shift. We’re really reckoning with the social changes and cultural changes of the last decade or so. And commitment really provides the order that we’re craving. Now, if you are somebody that commits to a project of self-improvement in the ways that we’ve been talking about, it really tidies the house. It shores up your meaning systems. It gives you order over chaos. It gives you direction and guidance. I started this research thinking I was going to write about brands offering personhood in a box, like, “Here’s a way to be a person in this crazy world.” But then I realized I was actually touching on something much, much bigger, which was this fundamental status shift.

21:37

Jasmine:
So you’re saying because optimism is such a limited good, that really is the new luxury, is to be able to have something to be optimistic about. And conspicuous commitment is a way of committing to or displaying that sense of optimism that you have in your life, right?

21:57

Zach:
100%. Because if the rest of us are kind of mired in nihilism or trolling or laughing at structures and institutions, but not building anything constructively, people that are doing something optimistically that say, “I think things can get better and I’m going to make them better for myself,” that is a big shift. Not everybody sounds like that. It’s kind of rare, sadly.

22:16

Jasmine:
Yeah. Where are you seeing conspicuous commitments show up most in the market, in the real world? What brands are really tapping into this? I feel like I can kind of see it in wellness from the examples you’ve given, but where is it showing up the most right now?

22:30

Zach:
There’s three main areas. There’s biohacking wellness, alt wellness. That’s a big one. Really exciting new one is longevity and even immortality, as the AI has kind of entered the chat. Like, how are we going to maybe live forever through the use of AI? That’s another. And then lastly, of course, new buzzy therapies, particularly psychedelics. But there’s a lot of new kinds of group therapies. Those are really ripe for going inward. And of course to myself, you can’t go more inward than a trip. So all of these areas, I think my favorite brand in this space, Heroic. I would encourage everybody to check it out. They call themselves a self-mastery platform that combines ancient wisdom and modern science to equal your best self. And, “We train heroes,” is what they say. And forging anti-fragile confidence, master yourself, as I was checking them out, literally step one of their processes is called Commit.

23:23

And they say you’re on a path of Heroic commitment and they’re going to guide you through every step of the way. And what’s really ripe about them and interesting is they’re not shy about saying this is individual change first, for social change. So they reference social change, but they say social change is only going to come from a bunch of heroes out there, a bunch of people controlling their own, mastering themselves. So then when you’re doing that you can show up better in all the ways that if you’re in therapy, the therapist will tell you, “Put your own oxygen mask on first.” Heroic is really embracing that, and the world needs you to be your most heroic. For every company I will mention, there’s like 1,000 influencers or podcasters that are touching this space as well. So you can find your flavor of any one of these companies no matter where you are.

24:11

Another one is Wim Hof, or “breathology”, self-transcendence via breathing. I just love, it’s a gym membership, mindfulness coach and health insurance all rolled into one, through cold plunging and breath. But it’s a system. It’s like why it works is it’s a totalizing system for controlling the world, controlling the chaos, being a person and being a thing. Another one is HigherDOSE. I really think that they’re interesting. They’re a biohacker, collective biohackers, emphasis on the “her”s. Why they’re really innovative in the market is because biohacking has traditionally been such a masculine space and there hasn’t been a female presence in biohacking. And they’re really leading that. And there’s nothing too esoteric for them. They’re doing it all. And what’s really cool about their brand is they’re producing so much content of them experiencing all these things. Like I said, there’s nothing too weird. Ecstatic dance, Kambo frog venom poisoning, sound vibration, biofeedback psychedelics, sweat lodges, cold immersion.

25:06

They’re doing it all, but with the emphasis on the female body. And that’s a really refreshing intervention in the biohacking space. And so they’re really popular for that, just highlighting the role that women are playing and they’re playing a big thought leadership role in this space.

25:20

Jasmine:
HigherDOSE though, they’re the sauna blankets, right?

25:24

Zach:
Yeah.

25:25

Jasmine:
Okay. That’s their main product, but they have all this really high level conspicuous commitment content that just transcends that product, right?

25:32

Zach:
Well, yes, 100%. And I’m glad you kept me honest and pointed that out, because I got enamored with the content, but at the end of the day, they’re selling infrared light therapies and these blankets. Yes, exactly.

25:42

Jasmine:
Yes, yeah. Okay, cool.

25:44

Zach:
And I would be remiss not to mention Blueprint, which is Bryan Johnson’s project to live forever. A lot of people mock Bryan Johnson, but it is the quintessential example of conspicuous commitment. He’s saying, “I’m making a big bet. Criticize me if you want. This is what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to reverse-age myself so I can be the same biological age as my son.” I have some of his language here just because it’s fantastic. And again, it’s the language of commitment. “The enemy is entropy. The path is goal alignment via building your autonomous self.” Again, the emphasis on the self. “Enabling compounded rates of progress to bravely explore the zero-width principle future, and play Infinity Games.” He’s very serious about… But I don’t even know what Infinity Games are, but I’d love to play them.

26:34

Jasmine:
I’m not laughing at Bryan Johnson. I actually really admire what he’s doing. But the language, you’re right, it makes your head spin a little bit. Okay.

26:41

Zach:
Yep, yep. But what’s cool is that it is just commitment to extreme progress into the deep future. And again, it’s offering a new narrative. It’s a hopeful narrative, really. If you are buying into it, it’s giving you optimism, it’s giving you hope, it’s giving you something to work towards. And I think that’s a really refreshing space. And then just lastly, I’d touch on the status therapies. Like I already mentioned, psychedelics are the perfect tool for going inward, not outward. I think we all thought at one point in culture, we were telling all these stories of galactic expansion. That’s how we were going to learn. That’s how everything was going to be different. We were going to be a species in like space colonization. That’s still in the thread of culture, but with conspicuous commitment and all these other cultural changes, we’re really turning the microscope back in.

27:29

And there’s a hierarchy in psychedelics as well. Did you take mushrooms with your buddies or did you do a hero’s dose with a blindfold at a field trip location in a major city? Or did you take ayahuasca in Peru? There’s these stages. There’s a cool ladder of psychedelics, but we’re all doing the work, right? And if not psychedelics, it’s some buzzy new therapies. Like Every Man For Men, I know you’ve written about Every Man in the past as this great company that’s spotlighting men’s mental health through the loneliness epidemic. Peoplehood is another one. We’re all lonely. We need a new way of being and relating in the world. And another favorite of mine, Chill Pill for Generation Z. I can’t get on the app. I tried. They said, “You’re too old. You can only get on this app if you are a certified member of Gen Z.” So if you’re not doing the work, if you’re not in therapy, increasingly daters say they don’t want to date you. That’s just how entrenched this doing the work notion of commitment is showing up.

28:31

Jasmine:
But I’m going to be honest, these sound like the easy ones. Of course it’s going to be in wellness, of course, it’s going to be in self-help. Of course it’s going to be in psychedelics. How do you see it getting outside of the confines of wellness? Can conspicuous commitment show up in other ways, in other places?

28:48

Zach:
Totally. Commitment is really suitable for finance, wellness, food, athletics, any sort of hobby pursuit where there’s an element of mastery. Think about it. If your category is such that somebody can get better at something, then why can’t commitment enter into the picture? And I think it looks like for those kinds of companies that it’s like brand activations and brand experiences that give people rituals, help them feel that they’re going from point A to point B, that things are changing in their life. You’re offering them a journey. You’re framing your experience and your product as a journey of transformation is one way to make it feel like you’re committing to something. And another, you can give people opportunities to experience new kinds of discipline. Every brand out there and generally in culture for the last 20 years, easy, easy, easy. We want to make things as easy as possible and eliminate as much friction as possible.

29:39

But conspicuous commitment says friction is good. I want to overcome the friction. So if you’re a brand that says, “We’re not easy, we’re difficult, but worth it,” that helps you stand out and it gives people something to believe in and buy into. That feels like commitment. And if you give them tools of introspection, everybody loves that. Well, that’s all ripe too. But I think generally commitment gives you a playbook of mastery. That’s what you’re trying to do. Just help people master themselves through the domain of the thing that you’re doing to commit to it and to improve.

30:10

Jasmine:
Okay. So I’m going to ask you what probably most people listening to this are thinking in their heads, which is, is this not just the pastime of people who have tragically too much money and too much time on their hands?

30:25

Zach:
Yes and no. I mean, status has to work like that. We have to aspire to it. It has to come from somewhere. But this is really trickled down. You will see this on your Instagram feed, your TikTok feed. You’ll see many versions of this. If you’re looking for it, you’ll start to go like, “I’m shocked after writing the article. Oh, yep, that’s commitment. That’s commitment.” It pops up everywhere, and there’s a flavor of commitment for everybody. Maybe you’re not able to do the full Blueprint method, but you listen to Andrew Huberman and you’re taking lots of supplements and really buying into a dopamine hacking lifestyle. So it’s like there’s a scale and a degree that is there for everybody, but there are elites that are leading this for sure.

31:04

Jasmine:
So how do you see this continuing to evolve? What are the variables that will determine the course that conspicuous commitment takes over the next few years?

31:15

Zach:
I just love John Vervaeke’s work on the meaning crisis, and a lot of cultural commentators are talking about it. We’re all looking for meaning, all the old sense-making ways that we used to make sense of the world have broken down. So what are we going to do about it? So conspicuous commitment is that response. It’s like, I’m going to impose my own kind of meaning. So it’ll be interesting to see how the meaning crisis continues to play out. Is society going to get more equal with AI? Is it going to get more unequal? We don’t know. I think that’s a variable here too. Most people agree that universal basic income is coming, it’s just a matter of when. And I think that conspicuous commitment is really interesting in that context because theoretically, as more of us get universal basic income, the playing field levels a little bit, I think then commitment gets really, really important.

32:02

It’s like, it’s not what are you buying with your money. It’s like, what are you doing with yourself, with your time? How are you making yourself a better person with the time that you have that you didn’t have before? Because we didn’t have UBI. So I think we’re going to spotlight commitment as UBI comes onto the scene. I think that that’s likely for sure. Another way to project this into the future, I think that’s with interesting context is we’re in the area of dupes now. We don’t really care to have the original. Increasingly, it doesn’t matter. I’ve called it product flows, right? Yeah. If you’re not buying the original luxury item, there’s 18 different versions along the spectrum that look just like it increasingly that are undistinguishable, and I can just buy a piece of that at whatever price range I’m at.

32:46

So consumption is increasingly going to lose its ability to sort of set us apart and confer status when we can all kind of have the same thing. If I don’t have the original Yeezy sneaker, I’ve got the $20 Temu version that you can’t tell the difference. I also saw something recently, I think it was Jennifer Aniston spends $200,000 a year on her body. These are things you can’t fake. The body, the mind can’t be faked, can’t be duped. So they’re going to stand out even more.

33:13

And I’m left wondering, where do you engage in conspicuous consumption in your own life? I don’t think you’re above it. I don’t think any of us are above it, right? We’re all status seeking. Where does it show up for you?

33:27

Zach:
Yeah, I dabble. I’m less conspicuous and less committed than I would like to be. I’m waiting to get my foot on the ladder. I dabble in all the little wellness practices I mentioned. I have done Kambo, the psychedelic frog poisoning. That was fun. But I consume more than I commit. That’s the thing. Commitment is anti-consumption, really. It’s like you’re saying, I’m going to do this thing. I’m going to produce, I’m going to act, I’m going to create something or shape myself to be something, not consume passively. And I know personally, I just love sitting down and reading. I guess if I could commit to anything, it’s that. And even as technology evolves, we’re leaving the era of the rectangle and entering the era of wearable tech. Think about how much more seductive every mode of consumption is about to become. It’s going to get so much harder to commit to something because it’s going to be so much easier to just numb out and consume.

34:23

And that’s what I’m guilty of for sure. And I know I’m not alone. So many of us are like that. So I think as we end, that’s another future way to take this too. As we leave rectangles, go to wearable tech, it’s just going to be harder to commit and a commitment is going to stand out even more. So summing it up, UBI equals more commitment. Dupes can equal more commitment. We’re really at the beginning of this era of commitment. It’ll be fascinating to see how brands respond and provide them the meaning systems that they’ve been seeking.

34:57

Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you’re new here and like what you’re listening to, do us a favor and subscribe and leave a review. Those reviews mean a lot and help our audience grow. And don’t forget, you can always get more of our brand strategy and culture, articles, videos, podcasts, all of it at conceptbureau.com. And while you’re there, you can also sign up for our awesome newsletter that will deliver valuable thinking to your inbox twice a month. My team is publishing some pretty amazing stuff based on the work that we’re doing with our amazing clients, including the article that this podcast episode was based on, which by the way, is linked in the show notes. And I promise it will be the best strategy newsletter you ever get. Thanks for listening. We’ll catch you next time.

 

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

22: Strong Ties vs. Weak Ties in the Next Era of Brand Innovation

What happens when the world suddenly reconfigures itself around a very different kind of relationship? The last 20 years of social innovation has leaned into weak ties: distant social relationships that allowed us to trust and extract value on platforms like Yelp, LinkedIn and Facebook. But the next 20 years are already shaping up to look very different. Strong social ties, our close-knit relationships with frequent interactions, are starting to emerge as the dominant threads of the social fabric. In this new era of increased intimacy with our immediate network, what we value and what we create move in a markedly new direction. We co-buy homes with friends, form politically aligned living communities, go deep into conversational chambers and band together in vision-led DAOs. The way we relate to one another is more profound, but also more narrow. What we demand of our network communities, and the brand landscape in general, becomes more high stakes. In this house episode, we’re talking to Concept Bureau’s Chief Strategist Jean-Louis Rawlence, about the huge implications for tech innovation, community building and business. When strong ties become the future of community, community becomes the new brand.

Podcast Transcript

MAY 24, 2022

23 min read

STRONG TIES VS. WEAK TIES IN THE NEXT ERA OF BRAND INNOVATION

00:12

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina.

00:18

Jasmine:
The town of Grafton, New Hampshire, has a problem with bears.

00:22

Audio Clip:
Well, despite the snow today, spring is here, and the black bears are beginning to wake up.

00:27

Jasmine:
Grafton has been overrun by bears not once, but twice in the past 10 years, and bear invasions continue to be a major issue to this day.

00:35

Audio Clip:
Melissa Champney’s husband woke her up in the middle of the night over the weekend. An unwanted guest had made his way into their mud room and was unable to get out. He kept saying, “There’s a giant bear. Do not let that bear in the house.”

00:50

Jasmine:
The people that live in this small town have dealt with more than just destroyed property. They’ve lost pets. They’ve suffered actual bear attacks and have somehow fostered a population of bears that is incredibly bold, often hanging out on porches in broad daylight.

01:03

Audio Clip:
He tore off all of the sheetrock, all of the insulation. He tore down screens. He did a lot of damage.

01:15

Jasmine:
From the outside, Grafton looks like a sleepy town with some curious wildlife; but not long ago, this sleepy town was the promise of paradise for over 20,000 Americans who pledged to move there and create a utopia of sorts for people that share the same political, social and moral values, and somehow that paradise has turned into black bear hell.

01:36

Jasmine:
The chain of events that brought this particular bear crashing into this couple’s mudroom, however, is a signal of something much bigger that’s been looming on our cultural horizon, weak social ties being replaced with strong social ties and the technologies that are fueling the next wave of innovation.

01:52

Jasmine:
In this house episode of Unseen Unknown, I’m talking again to Jean-Louis Rawlence, my co-founder at Concept Bureau, about the decline of weak ties and the ascent of strong ties, how strong ties are the future of community and how community is the new brand. I promise we’ll get back to the bears in a second, but let’s start our conversation with something equally curious. What are strong ties, and why after a decade of exploiting weak ties are we moving in this new direction?

02:21

Jean-Louis:
In order to understand the era of strong ties, we first have to understand the era of weak ties, which is really the last 20 years of innovation. If you look at who are the winners in the last 20 years, it was the networks. We had so many platforms that captured value from weak-tie networks, so some examples of this.

02:40

Before the era of Yelp and before the era of online reviews, you would need to find an expert. You need to find a travel expert or a blogger, someone you could trust who would tell you how to navigate a city, for example. When these platforms came about, what happened is, for the first time really ever, we trusted strangers en masse. We trusted weak ties we had very loose connections with to tell us this is the best place to go for breakfast. On LinkedIn, these weak-tie connections, connections that we don’t really have any mutual connections with, people with hundreds of connections, they were able to leverage that value when they needed to get a new job and actually capture and extract a ton of value from a weak-tie network.

03:20

We see this with Facebook Marketplace, with all just so many different social networks. We see us extracting value in new ways even in dating sites, these loose connections, things that tie you together very loosely. Really the last 20 years, we extracted value from weak ties. I think, to borrow the analogy here, this term, strong tie and weak tie, actually came out of a linguistic study. It was a really interesting story, actually. They did a study about how language changes. What are the causes of language?

03:50

 

I think it was that the Milroy and Milroy study in Belfast, and what they found was that weak ties bring more change. They bring more information almost inherently. You have many, many weak ties. You have a lot more information in the system, and so things can change faster, but what they found is that it was the deep ties that cemented that change and made it really stick, and so, in a network that had many deep ties, you introduced a lot of new terminology. The network would adopt one of these new terms as a new piece of language. What’s interesting in this study is, if you have a mix of strong ties and weak ties socially, what happens is you end up with one dominant term, but then that changes, and you end up with a new dominant term, and so, over time, there’s a bit of an evolution as there’s a mix of information coming in and change that’s happening.

04:40

 

The last 20 years really was just us codifying and extracting value out of our weak ties, and I think especially anyone, everyone going through the pandemic, we realized that weak ties leave a lot to be desired, and really it was our strong ties that would keep us company through that experience. That created a lot of value for us, and so my hypothesis here as we move into the era of strong ties is we’re about to see a lot of new innovation happen with our closer connections with our family, with our close friends in smaller communities, and this is really where the next generation, the next 10, 20 years of innovation of capital creation, capital and value capture is really going to take place, and so a very, very different dynamic that is going to unfold here because, in a weak-tie network, what did you have? You had information. You had speed. You had change that was very, very fast and rapid, but in a strong tie era, you’ve got a depth of change.

05:38

 

I think that’s what’s really interesting. We’ve seen so much rapid change, and so I really think that where we’re moving to is a fascinating place where we’re just going to see a lot of much deeper social change and innovation and cultural change on the back of new technologies.

05:54

Jasmine:
I think we understand what a weak tie is, but, a strong tie, it’s got to be more than just people you know, better. It can’t just be like your family and friends. What is the nature of a strong tie?

06:04

Jean-Louis:
It’s really someone who’s just embedded in your network. There is an influence factor when you have a friend or a family member that is part of your social circle that you connect with frequently and you have a lot of mutual connections. They’re really part of that much tighter sphere of influence. You might be exposed to a new language through someone that you don’t know who’s shared something viral on social media, but it’s really the people that you know that you codify that new language where that’s when you start using that new language and embedding that in your identity, and so I think that it’s that distinction between information coming in and change happening within.

06:40

Jasmine:
You’re not just talking about language here. You’re talking about overall behaviors. Is that right?

06:45

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. I think the implications of innovation that’s going to get much more intimate in a lot of ways are going to be pretty profound. When you think about change, yeah, language is the most tangible, but I think we’re going to see a lot of social and cultural change especially.

07:00

Jasmine:
Let’s get into it then. What are some examples of places where we’re seeing innovation in strong ties versus weak ties?

07:06

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. I think the implications of innovation that’s going to get much more intimate in a lot of ways are One of the most obvious stories here is the story of crypto. If you look at DAOs, decentralized autonomous organizations, really what you have here, the fundamental technology, is essentially almost like a community management infrastructure with a lot of trust baked in. You can trust that you can have multiple people co-invested in the same cause, the same project.

07:29

In a much more tight-knit, intimate community, you can affect change, so a really interesting example of this. There was a comic book project someone made based on one of these crypto punks. They made a comic book, and this is a piece of cultural collateral that is owned by a community, and so it’s not of a stretch of the imagination to imagine a world we’re headed to where, Marvel, you can actually have a stake. In Thor, for example, you can have a part ownership in those characters, and you now have a tight-knit community of fans that are financially invested in this, that have a unique language, that have a unique culture and community, but they have aligned incentives. They care about this character and they want to see it leveraged in pop culture, in movies and TV.

08:12

That’s just one really interesting example, but I think there are some ones that are much closer to home. If you look at the creator economy and the passion economy, what does that look like? We’re moving to a membership model. There’s an interesting analogy, as I was thinking about this thesis here, is that, for a long time, we’ve been told find your passion, and the economic model has been you find your passion, you sell that story on social media, whether it’s YouTube or Instagram, wherever, and you get followers, you amass cultural capital through that, and you hope to turn that often through advertising into revenue, but, now, you’re finding a much smaller group of fans, and you’re building communities around these passions, and so really maybe the adage of the era of strong ties, instead of find your passion, we’re moving to an era where it’s find your people.

08:58

Jasmine:
Yeah, so this makes me think of platforms like Patreon, places like that. Is this what you’re talking about?

09:04

Jean-Louis:
Exactly. They’re really becoming community management platforms. There’s a new kind of relationship that’s starting to emerge. Sure, they’re centered around one individual, but really these are people who all enjoy whatever kind of niche or vertical that is. They’re there for the love of that thing, and so I think this is really the beginning of a strong-tie infrastructure, these micro communities which are deeply interwoven. There’s this unique language that emerges out of these much tighter networks of people. Again, the point here and the value isn’t to have large networks, almost the value comes out of having small, much more intimate networks.

09:41

Jasmine:
It makes me think of Li Jin’s whole thesis around the creator economy where you used to need a thousand people who’d be paying $10 for your service or entertainment or a content or whatever it is. Now, it’s a matter of getting a hundred people that would pay a thousand dollars each. I think that that maybe shows the contrast between the first model is more of like a weak-tie model and the second model is more of a strong-tie model. It’s interesting because the business model here implicates the social model as well.

10:15

Jean-Louis:
Absolutely. The era of weak ties was an attention model. It was built around advertising, and it looks like where we’re going is the era of strong ties as a membership model. It’s very much about having that community. When you change the economic incentives, I think you’d change all of the dynamics.

10:31

Jasmine:
Right. Those are obvious examples. Where else do you see strong ties cementing in our culture?

10:39

Jean-Louis:
I think there’s one area which is fascinating. Not many people think about this, but a shareholder should have the ability to vote on what the company does, but I think something like 30% of the S&P is owned by either ETFs or index mutual funds, and so the point is that you’ve got a ton of capital with no means to actually influence these companies, but that’s starting to change. There’s a really fascinating company, Engine No. 1, and what they’re trying to do is get their shareholders to vote on what the company should do. A lot of this seems to focus on environmental action, and actually, Engine No. 1, this fund, managed to get a few dissident board members who are going to push much more environmental action into the board of ExxonMobil. They’re actually affecting this change, and they’re starting a new precedent.

11:27

Actually, the SEC has the proposal out right now where they’re going to standardize the voting required for the companies. We’re into the proxy season now, which is when you have a lot of these shareholder voting events that happen and these talks of what the company should vote on. Again, this is something that retail investors have been far removed from, but we’re going to start to see infrastructure here, and so shareholders and activist shareholders that we’re starting to hear more and more stories around hedge funds that are really pushing specific agendas in their investments, I think we’re going to see a lot of infrastructure in capital as well in terms of acting more and more like communities.

12:04

I mean, could you imagine an investment horizon where your shareholders act like a community? I think it’s a very different proposition. You may invest in a company you don’t like because you want to change its course. It’s not necessarily a financial thing, but it’s a social obligation there. I think the impact of strong-tie infrastructure, we don’t know just like we really didn’t know what was happening at the beginning of social media the scale of change. Again, I think we’re on a whole different territory now.

12:29

Jasmine:
You bring up an interesting point, too, because that highlights the fact that strong ties aren’t just going to be showing up in new spaces in net new innovations, but places where you currently see weak ties maybe transitioning into strong tie frameworks instead. What are some of the signals that you’re seeing? Yes, there are examples of deep-tie networks and infrastructures forming, but what are some of the whole canary-in-the-coal-mine signals that might tell us that this is bigger than just some isolated incidences?

13:02

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I think there’s so many signals, and that’s what’s interesting here is it really does feel like everything is telling us this is where we’re headed. If you look at gaming, gaming has always been on the leading edge of cultural change. You see so many behaviors that played out in gaming, and then they played out in social media later on. You can really look at that as an early indicator industry. That’s a huge industry, too.

13:24

I remember, I think it was early 2000s. World of Warcraft came out, and I was part of a guild, and it felt really cool to be part of the small community that would do raids and hang out together. I had my character’s name on their website, and it felt really cool. I really think this is the kind of world that we’re headed to where we’re part of a lot of small, tight-knit branded communities.

13:45

One interesting thing here that’s connected to this is that you’ve got a lot of top talent from large companies leaving some of the best-paid jobs out there. The CFO of Lyft, some VPs from Google leave these companies to join crypto companies, to join DAOs, and that’s why I think what’s a really interesting benchmark here is that you’ve got top talent leaving to join essentially what look and feel like communities, but the difference is here is that these are communities where, yes, there’s an element of profit sharing, but there’s also an element of control. These are people who can control the destiny of these companies not just because they’re in senior positions, but because they actually have ownership stakes. Again, the DAO is providing a new infrastructure for them actually being able to vote on how this new kind of organization arranges itself and moves forward.

14:35

A lot of these big tech companies are really starting to sweat here because these communities are becoming a really powerful draw for top talent. If that’s the case now, fast forwarding 10, 20 years, that might be the new benchmark of the kind of companies people want to belong to, companies where they have a great sense of ownership and control of where the company goes and a larger percentage of the remuneration of the company. Now, that creates tension against the old guard, traditional companies with the traditional compensation models, and the new guards of crypto companies doing a lot of these things, so I don’t think we can underestimate how strong of effect this driver of being part of a community being part of a strong time network is.

15:18

Another area that we’re seeing is in, it’s an interesting signal, but I would not underestimate it, is co-buying, which is when two people or two or more people, a group of friends, let’s say, buy a house together, whether that’s two single parents helping co-parent each other’s kids or a group of friends just getting into the property ladder and, essentially, the roommates, but they own the home.

15:40

In the era of strong ties, one of the things that you have in a small community is far more trust and, with a lot of trust, you can start to do different kinds of innovation. Just like the era of weak ties had a lot of information innovation, I think what we might see in the era of strong ties is more financial innovation. The 30-year mortgage really became popularized in the early 1950s, and it came to define the American city as we know it today. The American suburb, just life as we know it, the freeways, all of that infrastructure was built around the single family home which was really a product of the 30-year mortgage of people being able to afford and buy and incentivized in the construction of single family homes.

16:20

In this new era, it was fascinating if we saw that much disruption with the 30-year mortgage. What does the new mortgage instrument look like for housing in the era of strong ties? I think it’s quite possible we’ll get something and, potentially, fast forwarding many, many years from now, we may see a similar order of magnitude impact based on this new infrastructure. I really don’t think you can underestimate how significant the long tail impacts of these financial instruments could be.

16:50

Jasmine:
I think these are all amazing examples that lead to something much bigger, and it’s something that we talk about at our agency when we’re doing futurism sessions or trying to do brand strategy. You bring up this phrase to the team all the time. Community is the new brand. What do you really mean by that, because community has always been a big part of brand, but when you say community is the new brand, what’s the step change that’s happening here?

17:16

Jean-Louis:
I think we’re setting a new benchmark on how people navigate the world and navigate brands. We’ve been in a predominantly advertising model for brand for a long time, which is really an awareness issue, but now I think awareness is becoming maybe more commoditized and what we need instead is engagement. We need connection. There’s too much information to filter, and so communities are the benchmark of whether we can trust something.

17:42

I think there’s so many things that are going on. There’s a lot of precedent right now of brands creating and leveraging communities and creating tremendous value in doing so. Airbnb’s host community is a perfect case study of how they’ve created a community that has developed so much retention, so much evangelism and really, in effect, massively increased the lifetime value of the hosts on their platform.

18:09

We’re going to start to see that communities are really how you generate and solidify value. The challenge there is that the rules of building a community are very, very different from the rules of building an audience base or a customer base, and so there’s really new almost supply chains that companies need to build inside of themselves, new skills that we don’t have an awful lot of maturity for.

18:31

Again, with crypto companies, what’s really interesting is that it’s almost a community first proposition, value prop second in terms of actually how they capture value, and so these are companies, these are organizations that are generating a lot of expertise and really building the playbook on how to build effective communities. I think, as a lot of legacy companies like to call it, they’re going to have to start following those playbooks to build that because that’s really how you generate value out of your audience. It’s no longer attracting people in. It’s building lifetime value, building retention, engagement, loyalty, advocacy, and I think that’s where it gets really interesting.

19:06

Jasmine:
Before we get into the rules of building this new kind of community, because I think that’s the most important part, I just want to highlight again for all the brand new listeners listening, your community is your new trust signal. What you’re saying here is it’s not enough to have a Facebook group. It’s not enough to have a place where people can chat or a board where people can gather. It’s the depths and strength of the ties in that community and the culture of the community that you’ve created that tell people whether they can trust your brand or not. That’s a wildly different signal than the signals we’ve seen in the past.

19:44

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. A lot of this comes down to exactly what you’re saying. It’s trust and authenticity. Your brand tells people this is the world that we’re building. Well, now you need a community to prove that that’s actually what you are doing, because it’s so easy to manufacture the message and tell people that this is what we’re doing without actually doing that. Customers are getting far more sensitive, and how do you filter the noise? Again, it comes down to community.

20:07

Jasmine:
Having a platform with a lot of people on it is not a community. LinkedIn is not a community.

20:13

Jean-Louis:
Absolutely.

20:14

Jasmine:
What are some of the rules now for creating what this new kind of community looks like?

20:20

Jean-Louis:
I think part of it is you need to platform a conversation, and platform is an important thing. To platform a conversation means you are posing the question, but you are letting your community have the dialogue. In effect, what you have to do is give up a bit of ownership. Instead of telling, you have to listen and you have to answer the questions that your community has. Part of that is almost an act of co-creation. If you really zoom out, that’s what this looks like.

20:45

Jasmine:
What you mean is like raising the voices of others.

20:49

Jean-Louis:
It’s not about you anymore. It’s about the value that you generate, and a lot of that comes from the world that you’re building. You want people to authentically be aligned with that value, and that’s really where they start to drive identity from. Again, coming back to that notion of find your people, not your passion, a lot of that is how do you find your identity? In the find-your-passion world, your performing identity. Now, it’s the proof of that identity is in the people that you spend time with, and so you need to have that authentic passion and that value generation that really creates a sense of identity for a specific community.

21:25

Jasmine:
Doesn’t this mean though that you have to be willing to let conversations get pretty deep or to have more of a dialogue with your audience, really be able to listen and just commit so many more resources to what community building is? It just feels risky. What would you say to people who feel that when you describe this?

21:46

Jean-Louis:
Sure. So, the dawn of cultish new religions in the US, which is around the 70’s, really corresponds to tWell, I mean another word for that is vulnerability, and I think that’s really what it is. There’s an intimacy that people are asking of brands and of the communities and the people in those brands and the faces of those communities, and so I think that, yeah, companies have to be more vulnerable, but that’s the point is people are looking for that, and that’s the differentiating signal.

22:04

The companies that are not willing to be vulnerable cannot be authentic, and I think that’s where in a deluge where there’s too much information you look for those authentic signals, and that’s the whole point. It’s a new muscle, and I’m sure it’s making a lot of people very uncomfortable, but I really feel that this is the new benchmark for how brands are going to have to operate. This is the new driver of value in brand. It’s the community.

22:29

Jasmine:
By definition, does this have to be kind of flat or decentralized? Is that also a factor here?

22:37

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. I mean, I think there’s an element of flattening, but that’s not to say you kind of thought leaders that are adding value. I mean, you can have some sense of hierarchy. It’s really just a feeling of control and a feeling of community ownership. That’s a big part of it. It’s feeling my presence here as a consumer, as an advocate of this brand and as part of an invested community. It is valued and meaningful. I think that’s really the most important benchmark. I think, within that, you can have structures. Obviously, a lot of communities, take the creator economy, they’re built around individuals so that there is a sense of hierarchy there which I think a lot of times people are happy with. It’s really that they want to have a conversation rather than be told what’s happening, and that’s the key difference. It’s a different kind of experience.

23:21

Jasmine:
Yeah, and as you’re talking, I’m realizing, too, that mission-driven brands will probably not be as competitive here in this future that you’re describing as vision-driven brands. What do you think of that?

23:35

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. I think that we identify a version of the world that a company is creating is really what’s compelling and really what’s driving identity. It feels really good to have a positive impact in people’s lives, but a specific version of the future that you’re building, that’s what I think creates a much stronger community because there’s more of an identity and a set of values there, and so I’d say that the vision is really where you can create a lot of specificity, and strong communities have a lot of specificity.

24:06

Jasmine:
If you had to project forward what the signals today are going to mean in five to 10 years or maybe, let’s say, even 20, what’s some of the stuff that you are envisioning on the horizon?

24:17

Jean-Louis:
Just like social media and the era of weak ties created Coachella, it’s like a perfect output. Someone described it as a content festival that has music in the background. Really, that’s what people are doing. That is a perfect embodiment of what happens in the era of weak ties.

24:32

I think what we’re going to see is that these communities are going to start having physical manifestations. We’re going to see communities, like physical communities built up, and so there’s some really interesting examples of this. El Salvador has the proposed Bitcoin city, and they’re going to build an entire city built around bitcoin infrastructure as payments and for all sorts of different systems in the city and you’re not really, really leaning into decentralization. There’s actually a lot of movements, many of which have not been too successful, but a lot of movements in and around the crypto space embody it in physical places.

25:07

There are some communities I think in Honduras. Prospera is one, and really the whole point of this is to build a physical utopia is how they sell it. They’re creating special economic zones where they can operate a little bit outside of the rule sets so they don’t have a police force. They have a private security force. They don’t have a court system. They have an arbitration building, and they don’t have citizenship, but you have a membership and a social agreement that you have to sign. There’s going to be a lot of experimentation until we figure out how to do this right, but I think it’s going to be very, very interesting.

25:43

There’s a brilliant article in The Atlantic recently, Why the Last 10 years of the US Have Been Uniquely Stupid and, in that, Jonathan Haidt talks about how social media has diminished trust in a lot of institutions. You’re no longer allowed to speak out in dissent of something because your own side may come after you, and so I think what’s interesting here is that the offshoot of that is you’ve got lots of disenfranchised groups, these niche communities, and more and more we’re seeing that with social media with the algorithm funneling people to smaller and smaller communities where they all believe in a certain version of the truth and it’s different from another community over there.

26:21

These communities are buying up land, oftentimes, in Latin America and trying to build these communities. They’re trying to codify these digital communities as physical communities, and I think really we’re going to see a lot of that to come. Nomadland is a great example of how people are starting to think differently about how they live. I really think that the convergence of community, communal living and crypto infrastructure, there’s just a lot of values that overlap and a lot of opportunity there. I think we’re going to see a lot of disruption.

26:50

Jasmine:
What’s Nomadland?

26:51

Jean-Louis:
The movie telling the story of a lot of people who can’t afford to retire in homes.

26:56

Jasmine:
Oh, right, yes.

26:57

Jean-Louis:
They live in, essentially, communities in camper vans, but the point here is that the traditional model of retiring in your home that you’ve paid off I think is going to wane, and we’re going to start to see something very new and very different emerge out of that.

27:12

Jasmine:
Yeah. That’s another point there. We need innovations in the strong-tie arena to emerge because there are parts of our everyday lives like retirement that are literally failing. So, of course, there’d be a need for innovation there. Tell me more about these communities and community living.

27:31

Jean-Louis:
Yeah. There’s a really funny story that I think serves as a good reminder. In any new area of innovation, it takes a while to figure out how to do things well. There’s a great story of a free town in New Hampshire. A whole bunch of libertarians got together and moved into a town, and they were going to make it a libertarian utopia. It shortly got overrun by bears because everyone wanted to and do their own things. Some people would feed the bears. There was no kind of unified system of bear-proof trash storage. They didn’t build the infrastructure, and so it did not end well. Actually, it ended pretty horrifically. The bears would eat pets and attack people. Anyway, that’s a story of how not to do that, but I think that the principle remains that there are a lot of people out there who want to form these niche communities.

28:20

We’re seeing a massive rise in homeschooling. When you homeschool, you start to, it’s as a really good example of how you remove the ability to get out of your own echo chamber, and I think, especially in the metaverse, it’s going to get very poignant here of you can spend your entire week without ever meeting someone who thinks something different than you. You have the ability to do that. Now, you can order groceries. Before, you’d bump into someone the very least in these public spaces you would meet someone who might expose you to a different way of thinking, but more and more, we’re removing the need to ever bump into someone who doesn’t agree with you.

28:55

With that fractured reality, I think we’re just going to codify that in physical and digital spaces. I do think the metaverse is going to be a major force here of creating spaces that people hang out that really are built essentially around echo chambers. I mean, I think it’s going to be a really interesting question to see. Do we have a force that acts against echo chambers in the metaverse because, in our research with kids at least, the amount of time they spend gaming is really quite incredible, and so I think that the time spent around games and the social dynamics around that are really going to shape the next generation in a very meaningful way.

29:32

Jasmine:
This is the dark side of strong ties. It seems like the brighter side of strong ties is the fact that you can actually form deeper connections and more meaningful communities. The dark side of that is those communities then can become more insulated from the rest of the world. I mean, generally, it sounds like it just could possibly breed intolerance or disconnection from other groups, I guess you could say. This is an example of the divergent systems we talked about on this podcast many times before where the incentives of a system don’t necessarily match up with the goals of a system. If you had to say, between the light side and the dark side of things, how do you think this stuff will all net out?

30:10

Jean-Louis:
Well, I think there is an important biological precedent here. Dunbar’s number, from studies, it seems that when we would hunt gatherers is we would gather in tribes of about a hundred to 150, and that’s the natural limit of how many social connections we can really maintain at any one time, and so it feels like it stands to reason that maybe we are moving towards a more tribal-like society, and that’s what our natural proclivity is is we want to be in these larger tribes.

30:38

A lot of friction comes from trying to get everyone into one large tribe. Maybe that’s just not the natural disposition of being a human and so, for better or for worse, we may see that of a lot more fractured realities just because of almost a return towards our natural instincts. I think, technology has brought us away from our natural instincts and maybe, with more technology where the pendulum swings back and we return to that.

31:03

Jasmine:
For the record, that’s not everybody’s point of view. It’s the agency, but, Jean-Louis, that’s his point of view. Okay.

31:10

Jean-Louis:
Well, I think it’s an important force. At the very least, it’s really important to understand that this is a possible future. What I think is just as important here is that we’re seeing the story of communities and the story of strong ties play out in just so many disparate areas, from gaming to investing to living arrangements to entertainment to education with cohort-based learning. We didn’t quite talk about that, but that’s another huge force. Learning is really thriving around the model of cohort based learning. There’s a lot of questions about long-term retention and things like that, but it does seem that there’s a tremendous amount of value captured in creating more cohort-based learning.

31:50

Jasmine:
Isn’t all education like that right now? Don’t you graduate with your cohort?

31:54

Jean-Louis:
Well, this is in response to a lot of MOOCs and asynchronous online learning. We’re finding that just the completion rates are very, very different, and so, as far as efficacy goes, it does appear that communal-based learning is a better model. Again, we’re seeing it in so many different layers. To me, this feels like a strong signal. Obviously, when you start to project 20, 50 years out, it gets very, very fuzzy, but the general trend is there.

32:22

Jasmine:
When does it make sense to be a community brand that is focused on creating strong ties, and when does it not make sense?

32:33

Jean-Louis:
Yeah, I think that’s a really important question. With all this stuff happening, when do you make the leap? I think part of that comes down to if you want to play in culture or not, if you want to become a culturally relevant brand. For a lot of brands, it’s not worth it. Honestly, the ROI, the investment is pretty high. If you are in a maybe not as commodified space where there is just a simple value proposition with not a ton of competition, then maybe you don’t need to.

33:00

You can capture a lot of the value in the traditional models of advertising, but where we’re seeing the most competitive brand landscapes, where there’s a lot of innovation happening, where there’s a lot of change happening and, importantly, a lot of investment, investment always turns into add dollars, and so where you’re seeing floods of capital enter, you may have to play in culture in order to stay relevant and stay ahead of the curve.

33:23

I think what’s interesting here is that if we’re moving to a post-advertising economy or a model here over a very long time span, community is maybe the only thing that you have that’s truly defensible. Otherwise, you’re just buying attention, and the minute you stop paying for attention, you stop getting attention. Whereas community does have a flywheel effect. It’s a great way of generating organic engagement. It’s a great way of leveraging influence. There’s a long ROI, so when your space is getting very competitive and when it’s hard to stand out and hard to be defensible, this may be a frontier that you want to enter.

33:56

Jasmine:
I get the sense, that good or bad, something about all this change really excites you. What’s the one thing that really gets you revved up about these signals?

34:05

Jean-Louis:
Well, I mean, I think that it’s so easy to look back and not realize just how much changed and just how quickly it changed. I mean, 20 years ago, it was a wildly different experience of being a human. You could argue that technology today is an extension of being a human. I think that, if this is right, if the era of weak ties was the speed of change and the speed of information accelerated, and now in the era of strong ties, it’s the depth of change that’s going to happen. I don’t think we can underestimate just how much change is coming. I think that, as someone who enjoys the future, I find that tremendously exciting one way or another.

34:45

Jasmine:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you’re new here and like what you’re listening to, leave us a review. You can always get more of our brand strategy and culture articles, videos and podcasts at our agency website, conceptbureau.com. While you’re there, you can also sign up for our awesome newsletter. I promise it will be one of your favorite emails to receive. Thanks for really listening and we’ll catch you next time.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

21: The Secret Language of Cult Brands

Cults make effective brands, and today, they’re all around us. We engage with them on some level every day, and cult experiences have come to define so much of who we are as a society that you have to ask, how did we get here? Perhaps the most insidious way cults have influenced the world around us is in everyday language that’s meant to control behaviors and change perspectives. It’s language we use with friends and colleagues, language in our media and content, and language we hear coming from today’s most powerful CEOs, on branded websites and in keynote addresses. In this episode we’re talking with Amanda Montell, a language scholar and author of the critically acclaimed book, ‘Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism’ to understand why cults have had a resurgence in branding and in real life. You’d be surprised to know that some of the successful brands of our time were either founded by, owned by, or closely tied to cults. There’s a very good chance that some influencer you’re following has at least borrowed from cult culture or knowingly created a radicalized cult around themselves. There are the cults we joke about like SoulCycle or Supreme, but they use the same dynamics and tools as the cults we like to gasp at in documentaries. Cults and businesses have always been intertwined, and understanding how they use the power of language to move people is the first step to decoding how they work.

Podcast Transcript

NOVEMBER 8, 2021

87 min read

THE SECRET LANGUAGE OF CULT BRANDS

00:11

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown, I’m Jasmine Bina. Let’s start this episode by listening to an audio clip. You’re going to hear a woman talking about leaving a group. And I want you to see if you can tell just by listening to the way she describes her experience, what kind of a group she’s left.  

00:29

Audio Clip:
Immediately within 15 minutes, I got a text message from my sponsor, “How dare you do this to me? How dare you leave without telling me,” I said, “Oh, I didn’t know this was about you. All right. Cool.” So, that friendship is gone, ruined it’s heartbreaking. And then it happened with another person, someone that I thought actually cared about me. The more I spoke out, the more I shared my story, the more friends unfriended me. It’s just, it’s mind games. It’s cult mind games.

01:11

Jasmine:
This clip comes from a 2019 Vice documentary called Why Women Are Quitting Their Side Hustle: Leaving LuLaRoe. The woman in this clip isn’t talking about leaving a cult, she’s talking about leaving a business. LuLaRoe is a multi-level marketing company, MLM for short, that puts women in pyramid schemes to sell leggings and clothes and recruit other sellers beneath them much like Amway or Avon. And she’s a great reminder that cults and businesses have always been intertwined. Yogi Tea, The Washington Times, Newsweek, Celestial Seasonings, even Hobby Lobby are all successful brands that were either founded by, owned by or closely tied to cults. There’s a very good chance that some influencer you’re following right now has at least borrowed from cult culture or knowingly created a radical ice cult around themselves. There are the cults we like to joke about like Soul Cycle or Supreme, but they use the same dynamics and tools as the cults we like to gasp at in documentaries. 

02:13

 Perhaps the most insidious way cults have influenced the world around us is in everyday language that’s meant to control behaviors and change perspectives. Language we use with friends and colleagues, language in our media and our content and language we hear coming from today’s most powerful CEOs on branded websites and in keynote addresses. On some level every day, we engage with the cults around us, or at least do something cultish, because Cults make really a effective brands. In this episode, we’re talking with Amanda Montell, a language scholar and author of the critically acclaimed book Cultish: The Language Of Fanaticism. Cultish language has come to define so much of who we are and where we are as a society that you have to ask, how did we get here? But I started my conversation with Amanda in a very different place with the simple question in this day and age, why won’t cults just die?

03:17

Amanda:
This is a trickier question that it might sound, because it depends on your definition of the word cult, which is incredibly subjective and sensational and loaded with judgments. In fact, it’s a word that many of the scholars who study new religions that I spoke to for the book don’t even use because it’s so unspecific, it’s not enough to determine the particular dangers that are on the table with any given group. There are lists of criteria that various folks have come up with, that might define a cult, us versus them mentality, ends justify the means philosophy, supernatural beliefs, charismatic leaders, et cetera. But there are plenty of fringy groups that have been or could be called cults that don’t check off all of those boxes. And yet there are lots and lots of mainstream groups that do. The word cult itself is very fraught.

04:11

It can be used to refer to anything from a really dangerous destructive fringe religion to a makeup brand. And this wide spectrum of meanings really says something about our culture’s extremely precarious relationship to community and identity and meaning. So, why cults still exist? I mean, in a way, cults are fundamental to human nature and human civilization, we crave connection. We crave finding a purpose, trying to figure out what our existence is for. We crave participating in rituals with other people doing the same, even early humans would engage in group dance and song when there was really no survival reason to do so, it just felt good. Obviously there are societal factors that cause a spike in cultish activity during times of societal crisis, like right now with the pandemic and so much political turbulence. This is when people tend to turn to alternative groups to fill certain voids. We saw something similar in the late sixties, early seventies, but cults continue to crop up, especially in the United States, which is a place of not only religious freedom, but a lot of disparity and ideological conflict.

05:37

Jasmine:
You know, you mentioned the us versus them mentality, a sense of meaning in community. These are all things that you could say of brands as well. I think that’s what really struck me about the book is that cults are just really, really successful brands in some ways.

05:51

Amanda:
I totally agree. What is marketing language? It’s there to manipulate you. And of course, cultish groups, really destructive ones, even the People’s Temple, AKA Jonestown, are expert rebranders and always come up with clever opportunistic ways to pitch what might be even non-existent ideology to followers, to inspire them, et cetera. But yes, if you go Google how to create a cult following, or you know how to create a loyal customer base, you will find dozens and dozens of articles on the internet instructing you how to structure your business like a cult. So fuck yeah, that again speaks to the flexibility of this word, but yeah, no, you can, I, you can. And I completely do make the argument that even if certain brands aren’t full blown cults, they’re at the very least cultish.

06:45

Jasmine:
Yeah. So, let’s talk about Jim Jones and Jonestown a little bit. You mentioned that he was an expert rebrander, how did he do that?

06:54

Amanda:
You know, we have this idea that cult leaders are these evil geniuses with grand master plans from the start, but no cult leader I’ve come across, knew where they were going to end up, knew how far their power was going to go. So, Jim Jones’ original intentions were actually quite positive. He started out as an integrationist pastor. that was in Indiana. And then it evolved as he gained more followers, as his power hunger increased. It went from this church movement to more of a sociopolitical movement that was progressive and combined Christian ideology because he was trying appeal to a lot of black folks in San Francisco who were active in the church scene, but felt left out of the civil rights movement. He was also trying to appeal to young white liberals who were just out of college and were interested in communal living.

07:55

 

And in order to appeal to all of these different groups, the branding, the language had to be really wiggly, if you will. And he had to code switch depending on who he was talking to. He wasn’t code switching in the sort of natural, organic way that we tend to hear about code switching, he was doing it in a very strategic and diabolical way. So, say, there’s a source in the book named Laura Johnston Kohl, who was really interested in anti-racism. She was a young, white, 23 year old activist who had a lot of idealism for the future of the United States. When he would talk to her, he would quote, MEChA and impress her with his philosophical texts. And then, with other folks, he would speak the familiar lilt of a Baptist preacher. And he would do those things intentionally in order to appeal to whatever audience he wanted to follow him.

08:53

Jasmine:
So, he was basically tailoring his message for the different sub audiences that he had.

08:57

Amanda:
Exactly. Without necessarily knowing what his end game was. Because we’re all familiar with Jonestown, this jungle commune where these mind controlled minions lined up and drank the Kool-Aid. But what most folks don’t realize is that that was never the intention and most folks did not die there voluntarily. In fact, you could argue that no one died there voluntarily, and it certainly didn’t start out as a suicide cult. Otherwise, no one would join. It started out as this movement that offered solutions to the world’s most urgent problems in a time of existential turbulence in the United States, not unlike now.

09:39

Jasmine:
And your source that you talk about, she’s a perfect example of something that I thought was so interesting while I was reading the book, I think a lot of us think that people that join cults, first of all, we think it could never happen to us, but we’re going to talk later about how all of us are probably in some sort of cult without realizing it. But people think those that join cults are broken people, they’ve had trauma in their lives. They’re missing something, they’re weak, or they’ve been quote unquote brainwashed, but that’s not the case, is it?

10:09

Amanda:
No, it’s really not. We have this mythology that the people who wind up in cults are desperate, disturbed, intellectually deficient. But what I found, talking to dozens and dozens of sources is that they were incredibly bright, service-minded. Why would a cult want anything less? They want winners. They want folks who are well connected in their communities, who can help recruit more people. They want folks with enough privilege that when they aren’t making money right away, like they were maybe promised, or things are starting to turn sour, that they’ll have the energy and time and money to burn. And what I found was that the ultimate fatal flaw across all of these cult followers from folks who joined the Heaven’s Gate, the nineties suicide cult, to folks who strike up with multi-level marketing cults, in scare quotes, was yeah, not desperation, but optimism.

11:07

This overabundance of idealism, that the solutions to their problems, whether that was racism or classism or for financial insecurity, could be found and if that they affiliated with this group, with this leader, they could be a part of that change. It takes someone really optimistic to sign up for a belief like that. If you’re a cynic, you’re probably protected from joining a group, like The People’s Temple or Heaven’s Gate or an MLM, you might die alone. But yeah, it was really optimism that was their Achilles heel more than any of the qualities that the cult documentaries you might watch would lead you to believe.

 

11:52

Jasmine:
I think any business person listening to what you just said right now would hear a lot of your language and realize that’s very similar to what businesses and brands look for as well in the audiences that they try to capture, the sense of optimism, eventually having time and money and resources to burn on these causes. I kept thinking of the parallels as I was reading the book and the real big parallel, which is the crux of your research is, that when it comes to branding cults or businesses or anything, the strongest tool that they have is almost always the language they use and the stories that they tell. So, let’s just stick with cults. How do they use language to actually change people’s behavior and stories as well?

12:32

Amanda:
Well, first of all, without language, there can be no shared beliefs, no community, no cults. We take language for granted because it’s invisible and seemingly commitment free, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will never hurt you, that sort of thing. But language has this real material power to coerce and condition, a power that we often overlook. Now, when we think of why people wind up in cults, there tends to be one pretty flimsy explanation, which is they were brainwashed, they were mind controlled. But I’m not the first person to point out that brainwashing is nothing but a metaphor. It’s not a real or testable scientific phenomenon. You can’t prove that brainwashing doesn’t exist, it also completely discounts people’s ability to think for themselves. You can’t just open someone’s brain and scrub it clean and cause them to do things that they absolutely on no level want to do.

14:37

It makes us feel elite. It makes us feel intellectually and morally superior, who didn’t like learning pig Latin on the playground and feeling excited that you knew the secret language that nobody else did. It’s like putting on a snazzy new uniform. It makes you feel like you’re doing something right in life that you know how to speak this special language, and in terms of business, I myself have worked in cultish corporate environments where BS corporate vernacular was used, not to make communication more specific or clearer, but to establish hierarchies, encourage conformity, to squash independent thinking and questioning. And this is ultimately what cultish language does.

15:25

Jasmine:
And let’s talk about some of that language, it’d be great to hear some examples, especially ones that are maybe more in the mainstream or in pop culture or quasi cult leaders that might be on our Instagram feeds. What are some of the phrases that we might be familiar with that you can unpack for us?

15:41

Amanda:
Sure. Well, the first one that comes to mind is a phrase that would fall under the category of thought terminating cliche. Once you understand what it is, you won’t be able to unhear it in your daily life, but it’s a stock expression that’s easily memorized, easily repeated and aimed at shutting down independent thinking or questioning. So, questioning is the enemy to any cult leader. And whenever anyone who’s following them wants to express dissent or a wrinkle in their procedures, they’re going to need a repertoire of these thought terminating cliches to silence that person, to assuage their cognitive dissonance and make them fall in line. So, a thought terminating cliche that we hear a lot on the internet these days, or that I come across a lot is the phrase, do your research. So, there’s a lot of conflict in terms of vaccinations and trusting science.

16:38

And a lot of the times you’ll find people who don’t trust the mainstream healthcare industry, and some of that is for a very valid reason, but who’ve struck up with an online cultish group of sorts who believes that doctors are brainwashed and COVID was a conspiracy, et cetera. They don’t believe in peer reviewed studies, they don’t trust the scientists behind those studies. So, research to them means something completely different. It could mean something different from person to person, but when they get into a online argument with someone about science and the person is presenting research that conflicts with what they’ve been led to believe, they’ll say, well, I did my research, do your research, and then you can talk to me.

17:21

And this is this buzz phrase that you’ll hear repeated, and it really prevents the conversation from moving forward. It really shuts them down. But other forms of new age thought terminating cliches that you’ll often are in really destructive cultish groups like NXIVM, but also in mainstream woo woo circles, or at least not super fringe woo, woo circles. You’ll hear valid concerns being dismissed as limiting beliefs rather.

17:49

Jasmine:
Yes, very familiar.

17:51

Amanda:
Yes. That’s a limiting belief. And that can cause you to mistrust your own very valid experiences and feelings. This language can work as a form of gas lighting. Another example of a thought turning cliche you might hear in certain spaces is telling people, don’t let yourself be ruled by fear, where that fear might be completely legitimate and is there for a reason. So, these are just a few examples and every cult has their own roster of thought terminating cliches that they need in order to cause people to conform and not to think independently.

18:26

Jasmine:
So, how does this kind of language go from being inside the confines of a cult and then crossing over into pop culture and then showing up on my social media feeds,

18:36

Amanda:
Right. Well, in the good old days of cults, in the sixties and seventies, you needed to be able to command a group of people in person and sort of fringe, new religious movements, sociopolitical movements, they had to gather in the real world. And that takes a certain amount of production skills, management skills in person oratory charisma to coordinate. But now with the internet, multiple social media platforms, you don’t need the charisma to manipulate a group of people, you just need the charisma to manipulate an algorithm, and that’s a whole lot easier to do. So, for better and for worse, social media has caused there to be a cult for everyone. I mean, I joke, but I also mean it sincerely that the algorithm is the ultimate cult later, because it just sends you down rabbit holes, encouraging you to believe more and more extreme versions of what you already do to find yourself in these really insular online circles.

19:40

You may never meet the influencers, the cultish gurus on social media that you follow in real life, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a material impact on the way that you think, formulate your ideas, vote, buy things, gather in person. Parasocial relationships can be just as cultish as relationships in real life. And of course also, years and years ago, there was a clearer separation between business leader, celebrity, spiritual leader. There wasn’t such a thing as an influencer decades ago, but now those lines are really, really blurry. Take someone like Elon Musk, that guy is a business leader. A few decades ago, the average American wouldn’t even know that guy’s name, we wouldn’t be able to name see CEOs in that position, but he’s become not just a business leader meets celebrity meets influencer, some people really do worship him almost as a new religious guru.

20:45

They think he’s such a super genius that he’s operating on another more awakened, enlightened plane. He’s literally trying to transport people to outer space, which has these millenarian UFO cult vibes. So, yeah, the boundaries blurring guru self-help star workout instructor, celebrity, they’re, they’re causing our culture to become increasingly cultish, I think.

21:13

Jasmine:
You know what’s so funny? We’ve seen in our own research that more and more boards are looking to place CEOs that I think the terminology is blue whales, CEOs that already have huge followings on social, that can command an audience that have compelling public personas. That’s really seen as a value add for placing CEOs in public companies, where before it was really about growth, right?

21:41

Amanda:
Right.

21:42

Jasmine:
It’s completely infiltrated the business world. So, like you’ve pointed out, brands have borrowed a lot of clear devices from Colts. You mentioned creating rituals … I think you mentioned creating rituals, is that and health brands, tech brands, the in group, out group dynamic, I think a lot of brands create language around that kind of feeling or concept, but what are some less obvious mechanics that brands have borrowed from cults in their everyday marketing that we might know not see, but they’re there?

22:11

Amanda:
Well, honestly I think that the language is the most subtle thing because you pick it up so organically and so invisibly. I remember when … obviously, I’m extremely tuned into language just because of, I was even very tuned into language as a little kid. It’s just the lens through which I see, or I guess hear the world. But I remember I used to work at a digital media company that owned a fashion magazine, a beauty magazine, very cliquey, a little bit cultish. And I remember arriving at my first day and thinking it rather odd that absolutely everything was abbreviated or acronymed in the company, even if it took longer to say the abbreviation or acronym than it did just to say the regular word. And I think it created this culture of elitism and coolness, like you know what this acronym means or you don’t, and once you do know it, you better use it or you’ll be clocked as a rebel, an iconoclast, a troublemaker.

23:16

I remember there was so much corporate vernacular that was used that made me cringe to, oh gosh, the worst one to me was the noun sunset was used as a transitive verb to mean when some sort of project or initiative was not working out, you would sunset it. You would kill it in a way. But it was this creepy euphemism that I just couldn’t understand. Like, I didn’t know why we had to use language in this way. But it became clear that it really was just to identify who was a team player, who would really participate in that echo chamber and reflect the higher up’s madness back at them. And those people would be chosen for opportunities, promotions, et cetera. And those who didn’t use that language in that particular way would be in a very subtle manner penalized for it. And I don’t think anyone else noticed this, these dynamics in the company but me, and it’s really because language, it’s so subtle and it’s so natural to us that we don’t really pay attention to it.

24:25

Jasmine:
So, can language change the way someone sees the world? Can it actually change someone’s identity?

24:31

Amanda:
No, no. There’s this theory in linguistics called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which talks about the relationship between language and thought. And most linguists tend to agree that language cannot determine thought. You’re still able to things for which there is no language, language does influence thought, but it doesn’t determine it. Even if you are deep into religious cults or a corporate cults, and you’re using their vernacular from sun up to sun down, if you start to feel as though there’s something amiss or this isn’t right for you anymore, you may not have the language to push back, that cultish vernacular might be really, really embedded in you, but you’ll still be able to have those inklings, those emotions. And ultimately, if you don’t want to believe in a certain idea anymore, no amount of language could force you to, this isn’t 1984.

25:38

And some people do think, Jim Jones certainly tried to quote unquote, brainwash his followers with language. He would instate this silent rule where whenever he was speaking over the loud speaker in Jonestown, no one was allowed to talk. He would force all of his followers to express daily thanks toward him, even when they were starving and the labor was backbreaking and there was really nothing to be thankful for. This is also something that’s that was done in the LuLaRoe documentary that I just watched, if anyone has watched LulaRich on Amazon Prime, all of those followers were supposed to express daily thanks to the MLM higher ups.

26:17

Jasmine:
Really? Wow.

26:18

Amanda:
Oh yeah. Well, every time anything positive happened in their lives and they posted it on social media, they were supposed to include the hashtag because of LulaRoe as if everything good in their lives were a product of their affiliation with LuLaRoe.

26:34

So, a very similar idea there. And yet, even if you’re hashtagging because of LuLaRoe or thanking Jim Jones all day long, if you know in your bones that your life sucks and that there’s something really wrong here, that language isn’t going to do much. So, it’s validating and simultaneously unsettling to know that people who wind up really, really deep in destructive cults are in large part there because they want to be, there’s a lot of psychological manipulation going on, obviously, and the more destructive a cult is, the harder it is to get out. And in certain circumstances, your life is threatened if you attempt to defect, the stakes can be incredibly high, but if someone really, really wants to push back, even if they can’t leave physically, mentally, they still can.

27:29

Jasmine:
So, let’s talk about LuLaRoe for a second and all these MLMs, just the ones we’re familiar with Mary Kay, Avon, Arbonne, but most of these, this really heady mix of cults, MLMs and female empowerment. A lot of brands sit in this trifecta, including LuLaRoe, what is happening here and why is this such a powerful combination?

27:54

Amanda:
Sure. Well, the direct selling industry is almost like the American dream on steroids. Like this spoofed version of values that we are all taught to have as Americans, individualism, progress, ambition, and most of all meritocracy, the idea that those who succeed really deserve their success and those who don’t succeed simply didn’t work hard enough. The MLM industry takes these values to an extreme. So, the MLM industry has simultaneously always targeted people locked out of the dignified labor market. So, since the Dawn of the MLM industry, the primary target has always been non-working wives and mothers. And that’s because in the 1940s, which is really the start of the modern direct selling industry, a lot of women who had worked, who had been gainfully employed in World War II were sent back into the home, pushed out to the suburbs after their husbands or their partners returned home from war.

28:52

And they started families, and now after these women had left the workplace, they were lacking that empowerment, that sense of individualism and certainly the cash that they had been making before. And so, the direct selling industry found an opportunity there. And so, while in the 1940’s and 50’s, Tupperware was promised to be the best thing that happened to women since they got the vote, which was the sort of trendy, pseudo feminist message at that time. Now the direct selling industry, here’s your expert rebranding uses this sort of Pinterest commodified feminist message about boss babes and She EOs and mompreneurs, start your own business, become part of the movement without ever having to leave your kids. So, yeah, the MLM industry has always co-opted whatever trendy, quasi feminist vernacular was resonating at the time.

29:53

And now, not only do you hear words like girl boss, et cetera, but you get the MLM industry praying on certain millennial women’s interest in natural, organic, holistic skincare, not to mention in and outside of the MLM industry, millennials and just consumers today want their products and their workplace not only to sell things and provide them with an income, but they want to be part of something bigger. They want, what’s called an organizational ideology, which I’m sure many listeners are familiar with, which is the idea that this is not just a product or service, but this is an identity. There are identity benefits here, by you buying this beach towel made out of recycled fishing net, you’re not only, you know, coming into a towel, but you’re coming into an identity as someone who’s eco-conscious and beachy and sexy, someone who’s hip and in the know.

30:55

These things are important to a lot of us these days, especially as we increasingly mistrust and move away from traditional religion and these other sites of community support. Now we’re looking a lot of the times to companies, brands to fill those voids, to provide those role models. And that can sometimes be okay, but there’s a lot of room for exploitation and predator as well.

31:23

Jasmine:
Yeah. I want to talk about another group that’s tangential to this, which is also female focused, which is the fitness industry. You talked about that a lot about in your book. That’s also a place where you see a lot of crossover between cultureness and pop culture. But what was fascinating to me was the origins of the modern fitness industry and its cultish influences. Can you give us the background on how those two became intertwined?

31:50

Amanda:
Sure. So, the dawn of cultish new religions in the US, which is around the 70’s, really corresponds to the dawn of women exercising in general. So, for a very long time, women were not encouraged to exercise in the United States. In fact, doctors recommended that they didn’t. But in the 1970s and then the 1980s with the women’s liberation movement well underway and the classes of Title IX and the invention of the sports bra, actually, women figured out that it was actually fun to exercise, and it was even more fun to exercise together in groups. So, that’s when you saw the dawn of Jazzercise, which took off in the mid 80’s and you saw the Dawn of Big Box Gyms and celebrity influencers like Jane Fonda and Raquel Welch, who were the first fitness influencers, if you will. And then shortly after that in the 80’s and 90’s, that’s when and yoga really started to enter the Western mainstream.

33:03

And so, concepts from yoga, which had existed for thousands and thousands of years in the east and for a few decades in America’s fringes, these yoga concepts combined with images from body building that came from Europe and it produced this Americanized, westernized version of yoga, which was very acrobatic. And yoga studios were the first places where the idea that your spiritual fitness and your physical fitness were connected. So, these studios were not just a place to change your body, they were a place to change your mind. And by the 21st century, all kinds of what are known as cult fitness studios took that concept and really ran with it. So, now we have dozens of fitness studios that put their own spin on the idea that this fitness place is not only a place to get flat abs and a tight booty, but it’s where you’re going to meet your best friends, become enlightened, find the inner strength to divorce your abusive spouse, overcome cancer.

34:16

I mean, the promises made in these studios are really enormous. And I think that is actually the most cultish thing about them is these enormously lofty promises, which are made by these cult followed instructors who are trained to build their own mini cult following. And of course you can’t actually cure your cancer by going to SoulCycle five times a week, but the sense of transcendence in those studios is so gargantuan that not every follower, but some of them will come to develop this really spiritual dependence on these places.

34:56

Jasmine:
You mentioned that cults seem to crop up more when there’s moments of social unrest or insecurity like in the 70’s and now, but have calls changed much? Because it seems to me like a lot of the modern day cults you’re talking about, or let’s say cultish brands you’re talking about, borrow from tried and true methods that have been around for a while. Is there any innovation, let’s say, happening in the cult space?

35:24

Amanda:
Cults really just prey on whatever imagery, ideology is resonating at that time and just clothing trends, they go through cycles. So, the new age is really, really popular right now. The new age was also really popular in the 60’s and 70’s. New age, meaning a lot of mystical ideas that incorporate co-opted appropriated concepts from Eastern and indigenous religions and given a sort of Western boho twist, I suppose you could say. But yeah, I mean, like doomsday ideas, ideas of paradigm shifts and reckonings, these are all the same. And in fact, new age ideas also really pull a lot of ideas from Christianity, evangelicalism. The idea of a great awakening or a paradigm shift is not different from the idea of a rapture. The idea of being born in trauma is not that different from being born in sin. There are a lot of good evil binaries in the new age space in the same way that there are good evil binaries in evangelical Christianity. So, yeah, it’s a lot of recycled ideas totally not unlike other sorts of trends.

36:37

Jasmine:
Right. Now, you say that on some level, probably all of us are in some sort of cult. I know as I was reading the book and as I started to think of language devices and in, out groups thought terminating cliches, all his stuff, I started to see it everywhere in my life. And I know the cultish groups that I subscribe to. People hearing this, SoulCycle, Supreme, MLMs, yoga studios, they’re on the same spectrum, albeit maybe wildly apart, but still on the same spectrum as the cults that we actually, think of as quote, unquote, scary cults. When does something cultish become a cult? When do groups of people or businesses, because most cults are businesses too, when do they actually cross the line?

37:23

Amanda:
Yeah. Well, every cult scholar you talk to is probably going to give you a slightly different answer because there is no hard and fast definitive algorithm that can determine whether or not this is definitively a cult. Again, because what is the difference between cult, religion, another kind of sociopolitical group? The word itself does not provide enough information, as I mentioned, but yeah, you can really go down that list of criteria for yourself, which again, even the criteria will differ from one person to another and every cult scholar has their own school of thought. There’s Steven Hassan, who is a cult expert who does a lot of press and has written a few books. And he has something called the bite method, which has its own criteria and boxes to check off.

38:11

For me, I tend to think of that list I mentioned before, are there gray exit costs? Are there, those ends justify the means philosophies going on? Is it very difficult to express dissent? Anything legitimate will stand up to scrutiny. So, if you’re not able to express scrutiny, that’s a major red flag. Are there extremely lofty promises being made? And then sort of bait and switches coming after, these are all red flags, but none of the red flags will tell you yes, for sure, this is a cult. You have to determine that for yourself.

38:50

Jasmine:
Yeah. And all of this brings us to the really big point I think of the book, and I think it was really summarized perfectly by this Harvard religion scholar that you interviewed. And he said something so interesting. He said, “Meaning making is a growth industry.” Can you unpack that for us a little bit?

39:10

Amanda:
Sure. Well, as I was mentioning before, we as human beings, crave meaning purpose, ritual, connection. These are profoundly human drives that have always existed since the dawn of human civilization. Life is confounding, there are so many questions that we have yet to answer. Life is extremely overwhelming. And there are lots of different groups that attempt to provide those much desired answers. Now, tens of thousands of years ago, those answers were provided in the forms of stories that were passed down generation to generation, but we’re in late capitalism, baby. So, something can be monetized, it will. And that’s the reason why so many corporations are serving this pseudo religious role in our lives because they’re not just providing you with products and services, they are providing you with that almost liturgical experience, that sacred space where you can go into a soul cycle studio, or you can identify as a Glossier girl or you can strike up with any other brand and get that feeling of, okay, I feel comforted, I feel like I have answers, I feel like I know who I am.

40:33

Because especially in the 21st century, there are countless directions that a person’s life could go in, compared to 50 or more years ago. What should my hair color be? What should my job be? What kind of music should I like? Where should I live? That chooser’s paradox is really overwhelming. And if a brand can provide a identity template, this is what your life means, this is who you are. That can be incredibly comforting, and if that will help a brand succeed, they’re certainly going to do everything they can to provide that template.

41:12

Jasmine:
So, if somebody goes through the experience that you’ve gone through, which is this very eyeopening clarifying realization of how language works in our world, how the spectrum from cultish to cult exists all around us, how we’re immersed in it, what is the good of all of this? What is the other side to this story?

41:34

Amanda:
Yeah. Well, I was concerned writing this book that it would turn me into this cynical misanthrope, but in fact, the opposite happened. And I have this newfound appreciation for how fundamentally communal and dreamy human beings really are. And I by no means think that people should be paranoid or hyper weary of the cultishness that imbues our everyday lives. I don’t think we should disaffiliate from every cultish group or brand that we participate in or patronize. I think it’s simply about being aware of these cultish techniques, that all kinds of groups from religious ones to secular ones are using. And instead of maybe wholly submitting yourself to one group, to one guru, to use a finance analogy, diversify your social and spiritual portfolio, to be a member of multiple cultish groups that Jonestown source I mentioned earlier, Laura Johnston Kohl, who was a member of not one but two infamous cults Jonestown and Synanon, look that up later, my dad spent his teenage years in that cult, which is another story, she finally determined after joining these two communes.

42:55

She was like, “Nope, I’m, I’m giving up this single compound solution.” And then she decided she was going to become a Quaker and an immigrant’s rights activist and hang out with her Synanon buddies from time to time and meditate with a different group. But it was important at the end of each of those experiences, to tap out and to return to her independent life and identity, which was more complex than any one given group or guru. So, it’s fun and it’s meaningful and it can be healing to participate in a cultish group, whether it’s SoulCycle or some divine goddess moon circle, or whatever it is, listen to your Joe Rogan podcast, I don’t know. But you can’t wholly, 100%, put your identity and your worth and your beliefs in that figure, because that’s when you start to lose yourself to a more destructive form of cultish influence.

43:58

Jasmine:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you like it, subscribe, leave a rating, better yet, leave a review. We appreciate all of your support and are very grateful to have such an amazing community of other intellectually curious people out in the world. We’ll see you again next time.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

20: Ownership Anxiety, Brand Storytelling, and the Human Condition

Have you ever stopped to think about what ownership means to us as a culture? Many of us see it as an artifact of the legal system or something that’s decided in courts. We believe it is a self-evident concept that lives outside of us and isn’t really part of who we are, but rather a set of rules that affects our mortgages and our car payments.

But ownership is in fact very much a part of what makes us human.

Today and throughout history, a mere six competing stories of ownership have dictated how everything in the world is distributed. As resources have become scarcer, everyone from American homesteaders and ranchers, to tech leaders and consumer brands, have created ways to impose their own preferred ownership story in a world where what it means to “own” something is constantly evolving.

We speak with Michael Heller and James Salzman, two of the world’s leading scholars and authorities on ownership, and co-authors of the book Mine!: How The Hidden Rules of Ownership Control Our Lives to understand how the concept of ownership has been upending the brand landscape.

They explain to us how the rules of ownership change in every generation, and how those changes reveal the true brand frontier, the role of business, and most importantly, a society’s shifting values.

Podcast Transcript

JUNE 15, 2021

66 min read

OWNERSHIP ANXIETY, BRAND STORYTELLING, AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

00:11

Jasmine:
Welcome to Unseen Unknown. I’m Jasmine Bina. Have you ever stopped to think about what ownership means to us as a culture? Many of us see it as an artifact of the law, something that’s decided in courts, a self-evident concept that lives outside of us and isn’t really a part of who we are, but rather a set of rules that affects our mortgages and our car payments. But let’s take a moment to consider this through the lens of a familiar story in the Bible.  

00:37

…. the fourth river is Euphrates, and the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man saying, “Of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”  

01:03

Jasmine:
We all know what happens next. Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and they’re kicked out of the garden of Eden. But what’s interesting is that if you listen closely, there is an ownership story at the heart of this passage. God says, “That fruit is mine and mine alone. You can’t have it. And if you take it, there will be consequences.” That ownership story is how humanity begins. 

01:29

Ownership is in fact very much a part of what makes us human. It is not a system relegated to the law. As resources have become scarcer, everyone from early American homesteaders and ranchers, to today’s tech leaders and consumer brands, have created ways to impose their own preferred ownership stories. In this week’s episode of Unseen Unknown, we’re speaking to Michael Heller and James Salzman, two of the world’s leading scholars and authorities on ownership, and coauthors of the book, Mine! How the Hidden Rules of Ownership Control our Lives. 

02:01

They reveal to us how the rules of ownership change in every generation and how those changes reveal the true brand landscape, the role of business, and most importantly, the society’s shifting values.

02:16

Michael:
Think when was the last time you were in an airplane. For me, it was a while ago. When you lean back and the person behind you says, “Hey, you’re in my lap.” What’s going on there? You’re both claiming that wedge of space behind the airline seat. When you’re each saying, “That space is mine,” what each of you are doing, the person in front leaning back and the person behind you who is squished, you’re each relying on, it turns out, one of six simple stories that everyone uses to claim everything in the world. 

02:44

When I lean back, when I press that button, I’m using the attachment story. It’s mine because it’s attached to something mine, the back of that seat’s attached to my seat and that space is mine. The person behind is saying, “Hold on a second. I had the space first.” First in time. That’s the second primitive powerful story. The person behind is also saying, “I possess that space. That’s where my laptop is. That’s where my knees go.” Possession is nine-tenths of the law is a third of those six simple stories.

03:14

So right there, when you lean back on an airplane, that’s already three of the six simple stories that everyone uses, attachment, first, and possession. The fourth story is labor. It’s mine. Why? Because I worked for it. You reap what you sow. Fifth story, it’s mine because it comes from my body, our bodies ourselves. The sixth and final story, it’s mine because I’m in the family, birth and death, marriage and divorce. That’s when big amounts of property really move.

03:46

That’s it. The three simple stories when you lean back, labor, our bodies, and our families. And that’s it, all ownership conflicts. Everyone fighting over everything is a fight among those six simple stories.

04:00

Jasmine:
What’s interesting is that you call them stories. There doesn’t seem to be any innate, fundamental truth behind ownership. These are all competing stories, the way you describe it.

04:10

 

Michael:
Ownership is really a storytelling battle. One of the real message, one of the real points for us to write in this book is to have people realize that ownership and who gets what, basically, who gets what in the world isn’t something for lawyers. 99.99% ownership disputes, who gets what and why, happen outside of the law. What’s going on there is I’m telling a story for why it should be mine, and you are saying another story for why it should be yours. 

04:36

Our kids are saying stories in the playground. “The shovel is mine because I had at first.” “No, I’m holding onto it.” And that’s always what’s going on with every battle, not just in the playground, but also for climate change and who owns wealth in America. It’s the same simple stories. They really are that, just attempts to be persuasive over who gets what and why. 

04:57

James:
The other thing to realize is that this goes way back. Really what we’re talking about is who gets access to scarce resources. It’s not just humans. I mean, birds. When you go out and you hear the wonderful birds chirping, they’re not saying, “Oh, wonderful. So happy to see you, Jasmine.” It’s not like a Disney film. What they’re actually saying is, “Back off, buddy. This territory is mine.” And it has to be that way. 

05:20

Jasmine:
Yeah. It’s interesting when you bring up the airline story because, as you guys have described in the book, the airline is really selling that space twice. And they could easily just make a rule, like who does that space belong to? But they choose not to do that. What are some ways that brands play with ownership stories, or manipulate ownership stories, or maybe don’t even tell ownership stories in order to create the behaviors that they want among their consumers?

05:47

James:
Let’s take another airplane story, and that’s Southwest. Southwest has open seating. Basically, it’s first come, first serve. Depending on when you sign up, 24 hours, you’re either group A, B or C, or you can just pay a little money and be in the early bird. There’s this huge debate that’s arisen, really conflict that’s arisen over what happens when someone in group A goes in and then saves a seat for riff-raff in group C. Fights break out over this. They’re actually on the bulletin board for Southwest. There are these raging back and forth. USA Today has written about this.

06:23

Southwest knows this is happening. They tell the attendants, “Don’t get involved.” They could clearly solve this. They could have a rule that says, “No saving seats.” They could rule, “You can save seats. No saving seats in exit rows.” They could do any of this. They don’t. Why don’t they? They don’t because they expect that us, the passengers, are going to work it out amongst ourselves. We’re going to rely on politeness, and customs, and good manners, and such, except when we don’t.

 

6:50

But thing that’s fascinating, and it’s true both for Southwest and for that example we started with, with the reclining airline seat, the one actor you don’t blame is the airline, when in fact they’re the ones who are creating this problem in the first place. It’s even worse, to go back to the original reclining seat, because the airlines have reduced what’s called pitch. That’s the distance between the seats. One inch of saved space is equivalent to adding an entire row the airline. It’s real money that’s involved.

07:19

We didn’t use to have fights of whether you can recline your airline seat, in part because the seats weren’t so close together, and in part because the space itself wasn’t so valuable. Now it is. We use the space differently. Laptops are now our entertainment centers, our workspaces. And so, the space is more valuable, it’s tighter. But we blame each other. We don’t blame the airline.

07:39

Michael:
From the ownership perspective, what’s going on here is that airlines are using one of the most advanced tools of ownership design that we reveal. This particular tool is called strategic ambiguity. Ownership is ambiguous a lot more often than people realize because there are these competing stories. People don’t realize ownership is up for grabs. And the airlines know this. They take advantage of our innate feeling that we want to just work things out. We don’t want to be the bad guy.

08:05

So it’s that wanting to work things out that lets them sell that space, sell that wedge of space twice at every seat on every flight. Strategic ambiguity is just one of the really important tools that we’ve identified that leading edge brands use to profit from what we call ownership engineering.

08:24

Jasmine:
That’s so fascinating. We’re all competing over scarce resources, but I think people like me feel like, “Well, we’re living in modern times. Resources aren’t scarce like they used to be.”

 

08:34

Michael:
Well, if you think back to the origins of America, the discovery by Europeans of the continent, and then the conquest of the people that were already living here, all ownership in America, every single piece of land, the place that you’re standing right now, place that you live, every plot of land in America traces back to a seller who sold it to you, who bought it from someone else who sold it to them, and then traces back ultimately to conquest.

09:00

So what you see in America, and what you see actually for every piece of land everywhere in the world is the playing out of these ownership stories, “It’s ours. Country is ours. The land is ours,” versus, “Land is ours because we labored in a particular way to make it ours. We labored to cut down trees, to clear the fields, to plant in rows, to basically make new England look like old England.” So the origin of ownership in America, the origin of ownership in the world always traces back to these same few simple stories.

09:32

As land, or airplane seat space, or your online clickstream, the record of your likes and looks online, whenever any resource becomes scarcer, anything, and that is everything, people fight over it. 

09:46

James:
One of the other aspects of this that I think is fascinating is how technology changes this. Think back to the Westerns we all love to watch the limitless vista of cattle, with the cowboys and the doggies and stuff, that only existed for a few decades in America. Actually, those cattle drives were over private land, going from the ranches to the railway stations. They could basically ship them off Chicago and such.

10:10

Why was it over private land? Well, because there was no way for the private land owners to keep the cattle out. Cattle don’t care. Cowboys probably couldn’t read, or if they could read, they’re not going to care anyway. What changes all that? Very simple invention, barbed wire. Joseph Glidden invents this. All of a sudden, you have a way to inexpensively enforce your property rights. 

10:31

Barbed wire really is the fundamental reason that we see so much agriculture in places that used to be pure ranching. They’re the range wars that they talk about. These were very real and dangerous fights, and technology, ownership technology was at the heart of it.

10:49

Jasmine:
What is the equivalent of barbed wire for our age today? Have we seen something as impactful as that?  

10:56

Michael:
Yes, very much so. I think of our cell phones as being the barbed wire of our day. Barbed wire is what created the “No Trespassing” version of ownership in America, the version that said, “The attachment story wins over the possession story of the ranchers.” Your cell phone is the technology today that lets you buy a stream of services. You press the button and a car comes, or you press a button and you get an apartment. So that shift to the micro payments, to being able to track things, that whole ability to organize our lives around a new technology of ownership. 

11:33

The cell phones are important in the sense that they’re quite a lot of actual technology in there. But what’s under-appreciated is the transformative effect they have in the kinds of ways that we can fight over and divide scarce resources. We can divide them up in ways that we never could have done even a few years ago.

11:50

Jasmine:
It’s so interesting to see over and over again that it’s the same laws, no matter how much the world changes, that we always go back to, to figure out how we’re going to deal with this brave new world. I know that you guys talk about how a lot of our ideas around ownership are changing. They’re under attack. Culturally, why, as a group, are we starting to renegotiate these six laws?

12:16

Michael:
They’re all in flux, and they always have been, all the way back to the Bible and they are still today. But one of the thing that’s most visible right now is the change in possession. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. We’re wired to have a very actual physical, tangible reaction in our brains when we hold on to something tangible and physical. You hold a mug, it becomes worth more to you than that same mug was worth just a moment before. 

12:43

That’s why the Apple stores are these open scenes of tests. They want you touching this stuff because you’re actually willing to pay more once you touch it. It’s why car dealerships have test drives. They want you to be physically connected with the stuff. So retailers already know the importance of physical connection. What’s changing most rapidly of the six stories today is the move to an online world where retailers want to evoke that primitive feeling of connection. 

13:12

But it’s very hard to do in the online world. So that’s why, for example, Amazon has that little shopping cart and why they have this “Buy Now” button that’s highlighted. What they’re trying to do is to basically have you have that feeling of when you actually buy a book and bring it home. They’re saying downloading a book is the same. You can buy it now. The reality is that your online life isn’t what you actually think it is. The “Buy Now” button doesn’t mean what you think the “Buy Now” button means.

13:43

When you click that to download a book, Amazon can, and indeed has, deleted books right off of people’s Kindles, just like Apple has deleted movies right off people’s devices. Online you actually own more like one-tenth. Possession is not nine-tenths anymore. That gap between nine-tenths of the law, that feeling that we have, and the reality of what you actually have, it’s one of the biggest shifts that people don’t realize about what it means to move to an online world.

14:10

About 90% of people believe that buying something online is the same as buying the physical version of it, and that’s not true. Because of that gap, Amazon and Apple, they each earn an unearned, an extra premium and extra profit on every single download because we think we own more than we actually do in the online world.

14:34

James:
Take one example. If you hold up your iPhone, I mean, this is pretty amazing. What you actually own, you actually own a plastic brick. But what makes the iPhone valuable is the operating system. You don’t own that. It’s the data on your phone. You don’t own that either. It’s stored for you. As Michael said, we’re not wired to think in terms of ones and zeros, so these intangible forms of ownership. We’re used to thinking about horses, and horse shoes, and the clods of earth they run on.

15:06

And so, there’s this real shift that’s taking place, and folks don’t get it, in the sense that we’re just not wired to think that way, and retailers obviously realize that and try to make the online experience, as Michael said, as similar as possible in the setup to actually just being in a store.

15:24

Jasmine:
Yeah. Also in the book, you guys roll the dice forward and you say, “I mean, what happens in a world where we don’t own anything?” And if you think about it, so many of our communities historically have been focused around shared ownership of something, I own a home, you own a home. We’re in the same neighborhood. There’s a camaraderie there. What’s your take on where this is all going in terms of the culture around community and how we gather?

15:50

Michael:
I was in a Airbnb two summers ago in Barcelona, downtown Barcelona. It was wonderful. I loved… So a wonderful city. But what I realized, on the streets, was that nobody spoke Spanish, or Catalan, which is actually the language in Barcelona. But what they were all speaking was German, and French, and English. Basically, downtown Barcelona has been taken over by Airbnb so that the ability to have a neighbor who is going to help you out when you’re sick or someone whose door you can knock on and borrow a cup of sugar, intact communities, is disappearing, that we’re moving to a new kind of living together world where the strength of ties that underlies…

16:35

The little league team, or the Cub Scouts, or the Brownies, the sense that we’re more than just ourselves, that we’re part of a community is starting to fray, not because of big partisan politics, but because of the hypermobility that comes from living in a streaming world, a world where you stream residences rather than in a stock world, the world where you own and stay put for some longer period of time.

17:02

There’s an optimistic and a dystopic version of where we’re going with the move to an online ownership. The six simple stories don’t change, but the technology does change and the culture changes with it.

17:16

Jasmine:
Do you think people realize that we’re actively making this trade-off every time we buy into these shifting notions of ownership, or not quite?

17:23

Michael:
No one realizes this. So much about ownership is that it’s a language that we speak. It’s a language that we’re socialized into as small children, and we don’t even realize. We are like fish swimming in the ocean and we don’t realize that we’re actually in water. The water are these rules, these stories, these practices about who gets what and why, the way we defer to each other, all of that shapes every minute of our lives.

17:49

It’s how you stand in the line to get a cup of coffee. It’s how you line up to get gas for your car. It’s where you live. It’s what you drink. It’s the medications you take. Everything always, all around you, is being shaped actively by people who know how to use these simple stories to get what they want. It may or may not be what you want.

18:10

Jasmine:
Let’s talk about ownership of communities in the digital sphere. A lot of interesting things have happened recently. The New York Times abandoned their Facebook cooking group because the culture got so toxic, they decided to just throw their hands up and walk away from it. You have apps like Telegram famously picked off the app store and then sued for not kicking them off the app store sooner.

18:31

New apps like Clubhouse, where there’s been a lot of chatter about ethically and morally, what does a platform or a brand like that owe to the safety of its users? A lot of this is signaling, how much does the brand really own when it comes to community? What’s your thought on that? Where is this going?

18:50

Michael:
The baseline here is that the app or the service that’s selling you that service owns the content on it. So it’s not a first amendment issue. It’s not a free speech issue. If Telegram says, “You can say this,” then do your complaint is with Telegram. They say you can’t be on it, your complaint is with Telegram. If they delete your tweets, you didn’t own them in the first place. So online, it turns out, you own much, much less of your digital life, which for many of us is our real lives, than people believe that they own.

19:22

All those Facebook posts and likes that you’re making, Facebook owns them and Facebook profits from them. You don’t pay to use Facebook. The reason is that you are the product. You’re not the consumer. They’re selling everything about you to advertisers, so they can target you more effectively to sell you stuff you may or you may not want. So who owns communities online? Not you is the answer.

19:49

That has a very profound consequence for what your life is going to look like. When people used to pass away, they would leave a trunk of old love letters or diaries, some tangible record that they had lived a life and they had loved, and they had been connected to people. Today, all of that potentially disappears. There’s no tangible record of the most intimate thoughts that you had beyond those controlled by companies that may well not have your interests foremost in their minds.

20:21

James:
There are these shifts taking place. I remember very well I moved about five years ago. I’d been at Duke for over a decade and then moved out to the University of California, Santa Barbara. I remember going through my Duke account, which is going to close, and printing out some of the emails. It just felt weird to do that because I don’t have the journals or the letters. There’s this very incomplete and awkward attempt to recreate what Michael is talking about.

20:46

Michael:
On the other hand, there’s also a panopticon, this notion of the all-seen eye, which is that much more of our lives are being recorded online than ever would have been put into our diaries. What that means is potentially, if you do pass away, for example, whoever does have access to your Facebook account can learn all sorts of intimate details, not just about you, but about all the third parties that you were interacting with, whose privacy would very much have been protected in a pre-online world.

21:15

Because was one of the questions for our day is, how do we think about this enormity of information that is being kept around for us? Not just the specific letters that we want to write, but every email, every tweet, every direct message, all of it is being saved in ways that are very much outside of our awareness, and to some extent, outside of our control.

21:39

Jasmine:
This leads me to another thing that I thought was very interesting in the book, which is this quote. “There’s an important difference between natural and virtual resources. So far, governments have not been driving ownership online.” Can you describe that a little more?

21:54

Michael:
Right. Think about kids fighting a playground. They’re saying, “Mine, mine, mine.” Psychologists have studied those fights and it turns out that whenever you hear that, toddlers four-year-olds, five-year-olds, they’re fighting about a shovel, or some food, something tangible. They’re never saying, “Mine,” about a joke or a story. That division goes back to the notion we were talking about before about the change in the idea of possession from nine-tenths to one-tenth.

22:22

The online world was never thought to be property. We had things called patent law and copyright law. The notion that there’s something called intellectual property, it’s actually a fairly recent ideological invention by patent lawyers and copyright lawyers to try to get people to think about our intangible lives, our online lives as being like our tangible ones. Most people wouldn’t ever shoplift a CD or a DVD, but when Jim and I poll our students, these are law students. 100% of them illegally download and stream books and movies and music.

23:00

So we have a really different sense online about what it means to own things. That’s been driven substantially outside of law. Governments really have not taken the lead in trying to think through what ownership should look like in the online world. It’s been driven much more by businesses trying to tell these stories about labor, “We worked for it, and therefore it’s ours.” Or sometimes the opposite, “It’s ours, but we want you to steal it.” That’s the magic of HBO. HBO actually lets… It tolerates, even encourages, people to steal their passwords.

23:39

All of our students use passwords that mostly aren’t theirs. They’re using somebody else’s HBO account. It turns out HBO can find you. They can find out who you are. But they choose not to. They actually far prefer for people to be stealing because it builds future consumers. HBO uses password stealing as another advanced tool of ownership design. Like strategic ambiguity for airlines, they’re using a tool there called tolerated theft, because tolerated theft helps build their business. This is mostly happening outside of the law.

24:14

James:
What’s fascinating is that Netflix is having second thoughts. Some of your listeners may have noticed on Netflix recently, there are messages coming up saying, “Just to remind you, you’re only supposed to use this within the same household.” And it’s a beta. They haven’t decided yet whether they want to crack down or not. 

24:31

Michael:
Yeah. HBO and Netflix, they’re long-term players, and they’re thinking ahead. What they want is for you to feel that you’re stealing just a little. Like when people use somebody else’s passwords, all our students, we know it’s wrong. We know we shouldn’t be doing this. That’s the feeling that HBO wants you to have, is to… People do it. They don’t want to pay right now, but they know that they’re doing something wrong. What they’re actually doing is actually committing a federal crime. It’s actually punishable by up to a year in jail to use somebody else’s password.

25:03

But HBO wants you to be vaguely aware that something is a miss, which is part of this longer term strategy to have you feel, to have your brain react, if this is possible, in the same way it reacts to the mug that you’re holding onto, to light up in the same way, to feel that copyright is like property, not just some ephemeral construction in American law. It’s an uphill battle for them. It’s why they have those… When the movie starts, the lights go down and says, “Piracy is not a victimless crime,” those scary Interpol badges.

25:38

What they’re trying to do is get you to feel that what you’re doing is stealing. That’s part of trying to have you assimilate or to analogize intellectual property, intangible property, to good old-fashioned hard, physical stuff. So they’re trying to figure out how do they activate those ownership instincts in an intangible world.

26:01

Jasmine:

Going back to the intellectual property thing that you were talking about, patents are being filed at a dizzying rate. I think the patent office in the US is struggling to keep up with tech eating the world. It seems like IP is never going to slow down. What’s the end game here? Where is this going to end up?

26:19

Michael:
Well, there is a phenomenon, actually, that I discovered about 20 years ago, which is a concern. I call this phenomenon gridlock. Gridlock arises when there are too many owners of the same thing. Paradoxically, when there are too many owners, it means scarce and valuable can be wasted, can be destroyed by being underused. The most important examples of this out in our economy today turn out to be in the area of patents.

26:48

It used to be the case that when a scientist figured something out in their university lab or government funded project, they just published it. The way that they got rewarded was that they got famous, maybe they won a Nobel prize, they got tenure. But all the basic knowledge you needed to make to put pills in bottles, all that basic knowledge was available for free. The scientists didn’t patent their discoveries, by and large. The drug makers did. But the basic tools they used to make drugs were all available to everyone. We all built on each other’s shoulders when we created.

27:18

Starting about 40 years ago, America switched to a new strategy, which let people patent really basic tools for science, all the stuff that we need to actually do research. Now if you want to put a pill in the bottle, you have to collect potentially dozens, or hundreds in many cases, of separately owned patents, and each one of those patent owners can block you

27:36

Jasmine:
Why did we make that switch 40 years ago? What happened?

27:38

Michael:
It was an illogical moment. That was when President Reagan was elected after Carter, and it was right at the very end of the communist countries regime as they were starting to fall apart. There was a real push in this country, a very heavy ideological push originally, but eventually it became an American push towards privatization, the notion that government couldn’t fix things and people should be more incentivized, motivated to do them on their own.

28:06

But if you really want scientists to be turbocharged and do basic science, the way to do that isn’t to have university science, is to have private science, to have biotech companies pair with professors as they’re doing their research. Indeed, the biotech revolution was started in this country. So having more patents available did lead to hundreds of billions of dollars of private money pouring into basic science research. So there was a tremendous amount of value from having that.

28:32

But what was missed, what was overlooked in that rush to privatize was one of the hidden rules of ownership, which is that too much ownership can be as costly as too little. So we ended up with, in the ’90s and the last several decades, is having way, way more patents, way more ownership of upstream or basic, the basic tools that you need to do science. But that’s led to actually fewer pills in bottles, fewer downstream, fewer actual treatments for disease, because all those upstream owners in certain areas block each other.

29:08

They each want to get a share of the profits from the ultimate treatment. If everybody wants the full profits from that treatment, there’s no deal to be made and the resource never gets discovered.

29:21

Jasmine:
I think one of the bigger questions around ownership lately, that’s been top of mind for people like me is NFTs. Like what do you actually own with an NFT? Why is this a phenomenon now? I feel like it signals a lot about our culture, but I’ve never really thought about it from an ownership perspective. What does an NFT mean about our beliefs about ownership, especially since you could argue the most valuable NFTs are the ones that have been already the most consumed by our culture?

29:48

Michael:
Just to explain to your listeners, an NFT stands for a non-fungible token. Your Bitcoin or your Ethereum, those are fungible tokens. One Bitcoin’s the same as any other one. A non-fungible token, an NFT, is a unique identifier. It uses the same blockchain technology that Bitcoin does. But it uniquely identifies something out in the world. What that thing often is, is some digital image. Could be the Beeple image that sold for $69 million, or LeBron dunking from an NBA top shot image.

30:19

And then NFT says, “I, the owner of this NFT,” on the quote unquote… I’m putting this in air quotes for your listeners, “The original of that image.” Now, all of us right now can go and download the Beeple image, or the LeBron dunk. One of the things about online art is that it’s exactly perfectly copyable down to the pixel. There’s one original Mona Lisa and a lot of college dorm posters. For online art, every image is exactly identical to every other one.

30:51

This has meant that online art has been one of our most democratic and innovative spheres of artistic endeavor. What NFTs do is they basically are designed, I think, are laser targeted on killing the creativity and value of digital art. For me, what NFTs do is bring together the worst of art and the worst of blockchain. They’re enormously energy consuming to prove that this is the original, all for the purpose of making art worse.

31:23

What NFTs, I think, emerged from is partly a response to the pandemic. It’s the attempt to impose artificial scarcity. It’s creating the artificial scarcity not for the benefit of art, but for the benefit of a handful of early adopters, the traders who got in first. Here would be my question for those of you who are thinking about investing in NFTs. Is there a secondary market for NFTs? That is, does anybody buy a used NFT?

31:52

The answer I believe is going to be that we’re not going to see that kind of secondary market. And I worry about being the person left holding the bag when this NFT market collapses, which I believe it will.

32:02

Jasmine:
Yeah. Talking about things born of the pandemic, I want to know how you guys have seen the pandemic possibly change our thinking around ownership, or forced questions around ownership. One thing that came to mind for me was a lot of companies are asking their employees slowly to start coming back to the office. You hear stories about employees saying no in large numbers and putting pressure back on their employers.

32:28

It raises this question of, who owns or how do you own the employee’s time? What are you seeing either in there, in that example, or anywhere, anything that’s happened in the pandemic, that shows pressure or change around our ideas of ownership?

32:45

James:
Well, part of it, I think, you can see in the commercial real estate market, the idea that do you actually, if you’re a company, do you have to own physical space for your employees to get together? I think there’s going to be, as these leases end over the next few years, there’s going to be a real shake-out, I think of what commercial real estate even looks like.

33:04

I mean, I’m seeing with law firms right now, they’re moving to shared office spaces. In a sense, you get this Tuesday, Wednesday, the other person gets it Monday, Thursday. Someone else gets it Friday. So this notion that we have to have this communal meeting place in very high-price location, I think is up for grabs. Now, as we said a number of times in this shift to the virtual economy, something is lost. I feel for young professors who are just starting to teach right now because they’re not making personal connections.

33:35

I mean, Michael and I met at a workshop I don’t know how many years ago in Montana, and that formed this lifelong friendship. That wouldn’t have happened if we had basically been relating to each other via zoom. So some something is lost. But my view is the whole notion of the workspace as something that a company has to own because they’re a company, I think that’s up in the air.

33:57

Jasmine:
When I look at the way you guys describe ownership. I see it as an image of resources going into the hands of many to the hands of the few, then back to the many hands. It just feels like ownership moves resources in the world between the many and the few. I think that’s what’s happening on a cultural level when it comes to work, because you’re seeing more and more things where employee groups, activists, and playgroups, like what happens at Google pretty often, where people arise up and say, “Hey, we don’t appreciate this part of corporate culture.”

34:30

When the pandemic happened and Google was treating their full-time employees and their contract employees very differently, like two classes of employees, full-time employees stood up and protested that and they caused change. It’s why we’re seeing a lot of unions forming too in a lot of places that you wouldn’t expect, like in the tech world. It feels like they are working to take culture back from the corporation, like, “You don’t get to determine the corporate culture here. We get to determine it.” I see ownership changing on the social plane like that.

35:01

Michael:
One change or one deep battle in the world of the corporation and corporate culture, is who the corporation ultimately is intended to serve. In the last generations, we’ve moved, in this country, very strongly towards a stockholder value model of who owns the company. Who is the ultimate owner? It’s the people who’ve got the leftover money, the people who have the leftover money after salaries are paid and after rent is paid, and those are the stockholders.

35:31

The theory of the American corporation has largely been the theory of the stockholder owner. And there’s been real pushback against that, which I think the pandemic is highlighting. The move towards more employees’ say and what their workspace looks like is a different model of ownership. Sometimes it’s called a stakeholder model. That’s been much more of the model in Europe historically. In Europe, a lot of decision-making around the flow of work that affects workers is made by a council that includes both representatives from the management and representatives from labor. So they decide together.

36:09

You’re beginning to see more of that in this country as well. Not that long ago, a new form of company was created called a B corporation, a benefit corporation. You sometimes see a little B on the side of your organic milk bottle. That’s a new form, a new structure of ownership where the company is explicitly committing to a stakeholder model, to a model that concerns neighbors, and workers, and the community, and the planet, along with the residual shareholders.

36:39

What we’ve seen in the world of corporations of series of shifts, historically, from old British shipping companies that were organized a certain way 15, 16, 1700s, up through the stock corporation. Now you’re seeing versions of corporations that have more attention to employee concerns. You see that with employee stock-owned companies, ESOPs, they’re called. You see that with cooperatives, companies. There’s been a lot of, for example, dairy farmers are organized in cooperatives.

37:10

You see that in benefit corporations. But you also see that even in the core American corporation, the Exxons and the Googles, that are having to compete in an environment where ownership of the firm has a range of models. They have to compete for employees against firms that have a different notion from the stock notion. That is part of what creates the pressure to be more responsive to the ownership of our most valuable resource, the most valuable resource that each of us has, which is our time and attention, like what we do during our day.

37:44

People are beginning to realize that they’re often selling that out too cheaply and giving up too much control compared to the life they actually want to lead. That sense of like, “What does your day look like? What does your work day look like?” That’s structured entirely by the ownership rules of the workplace that you’re a part of.

38:04

Jasmine:
Something that keeps coming up for me is, what comes first? Does culture change first and then the law is an output of that, or does the law change first and then culture adapts? Especially when I think of things like the experience economy, which I think was coined over 20 years ago now. As millennials started to focus more on experiences over ownership of things, and this was well-documented and we de-emphasized the value of ownership.

38:32

Then you start to see new models like the sharing economy, like what is it? Is it the chicken or the egg, especially in the digital world where you have companies that are basically playing in the clay of the law unhindered because there’s no government interception there. What do you think the order of this is?

38:48

James:
It’s an excellent question. The answer’s both. In many instances, law reinforces and reflects norms and customs, and that’s why the law usually… We know usually what the law is, actually. And it’s not because we studied statutes. It’s because we know that’s just the way we operate. However, laws are written by legislators, and legislators can be influenced. And so, there are a lot of examples. We talk about them in the book in terms of how copyright extension keeps going on and on and on and on. The lawmakers, I want to say, bought and sold, but lawmakers can be influenced, and they’re setting these rules.

39:31

For example, turns out there are separate rules for if you’re super wealthy, or if you’re not. If you’re super wealthy, you put your money in South Dakota because South Dakota’s legislators have essentially been told, “These are the rules the super wealthy want in order to park their money there.” We don’t know about it. What you want to call it, the chicken or the egg, is up to you, but that’s the model of basically the rules of ownership being written by very few for their specific benefit. And there are a lot of stories like that.

40:04

Then there are the other stories, the basic reflect, first come first serve, possession’s nine-tenths of the law, aphorisms that we learn as small kids, and then by and large tend to be reflected in the rules that we have around us.

40:19

Michael:
I would push back a little bit against your question as well, the notion that younger folks are done with ownership and they’re all about sharing. Oh, that’s not right. That’s very much what the sharing economy companies want you to believe. But the truth is not that we’re at the end of ownership. What we have moved to in this country is the hyper concentration of ownership. When you’re streaming something, it’s a handful of companies that control access to those resources, whether it’s Rent the Runway for a wedding dress, or your Uber or Lyft, or Apple or on Amazon.

40:51

What we’re seeing is the hyper concentration of the ownership of the resource and the control and the decision-making around that resource. And then the giving out some little twigs and branches and little bits and little leaves of ownership license to you. But it’s a license that they can pull back and they can say, “You can’t have this book anymore. We’re not going to offer it anymore. No, you don’t pay your bill, all your photos disappear.”

41:16

So it’s not the end of ownership. It’s the end of you having ownership. What you have is a stream of services so long as you can continue to pay.

41:23

Jasmine:
A big question that I had in my head while I was reading the book was, what do you guys think about suspending vaccine patents?

41:31

James:
This is the long-standing debate. I work in the environmental field and you can go back to the 1980s when the ozone hole was a huge concern. These companies like DuPont were developing these refrigerants, chemicals that would still run your air conditioner and your aerosols and such, and your freezers, but that didn’t destroy the ozone layer. A treaty was developed to address that. One of the sticking points was, should those patents be shared on a non-commercial basis with other countries, with developing countries?

42:08

The treaty kicked the can down the road. The companies basically said, “Hey, we’re not charities. We have business models that we have to meet.” Same thing with climate change. Renewable energy technologies. There’s other low-emission technologies. Shouldn’t we make them much more available, much cheaper, much more accessible to developing countries? It’s the exact same conflict. It’s the same thing we see right now. With the COVID vaccine, it’s not clear they’ve lost. Biden said this should happen. It’s not clear what’s going to happen.

42:39

But this is the first time that they’ve really been challenged seriously in the United States on this. Internationally, it’s always with environmental, India, Brazil, China, to a degree saying, “Give us these technologies on a preferential basis. You want us to help prevent ozone depletion, you want us to help battle climate change? Okay. But help us.” Companies, US, European, say, “Not so fast. That’s not our job.”

43:06

Michael:
This goes back a long time in the biomedical patent area as well, when retrovirals were discovered to treat AIDS. They were very expensive and AIDS activists said, “Those patents should be available to everyone on a non-commercial basis. No one should be dying of AIDS anymore.” The pharmaceutical companies were able to fight it off and a lot of people died. The overall American patent system is mostly wealth destroying.

43:31

When you talk to Elon Musk about his patents on all his incredible space gizmos, he says, “I have no patents.” He hasn’t patented anything. He’s like, “If we patent it, people just copy it.” For Tesla, for his electrical car patents, he says, “I want GM and Ford to use them. They all can use them for free.” He doesn’t use his patents as a way to block. “We need to move to a electric car economy, and I’m going to make my patents available for that.”

43:56

Overall, the patent system basically lets you create a fence, like remember barbed wire where we started the conversation. Patents are the barbed wire of the intellectual property world. Keep a fence to keep people out. For the most part, they actually destroy wealth in this country. If we basically eliminated patents altogether, America would be much wealthier. There’s one area where potentially patents actually do create wealth, and that is in pharmaceutical patents, because it takes so many hundreds of millions of dollars to create a drug to get through the FDA pipeline, to prove that it’s safe.

44:27

And then, once you create it, you can reproduce it for a penny a pill. If you had no patents or no protection for pharmaceutical patents, you wouldn’t have any reason to invest to create them in the first place. That’s the justification for the patent system as a whole. And then, particularly, it makes sense in the pill area. That counts against President Biden’s move, to some extent.

44:45

But I’m skeptical in this particular context, and for a couple of reasons. One is that most of what it takes to make these drugs is really deep technical know-how. The patent itself is disclosed. That isn’t particularly hard to reproduce. But they wouldn’t have the know-how to prove these very, very complicated drugs. Even that company in Baltimore that was producing the vaccines and wasn’t able to do it properly. That was a very high tech company and it was having a hard time.

45:09

So this is an area where the patents are somewhat overrated. The patent isn’t the real protections. Protection is the know-how that these firms have for producing these very, very sophisticated RNA drugs. But the notion that we should be able to patent a lot of very basic technology around biomedicine should be more controversial in this country than it is. And it is very controversial in a global perspective, and it’s a conversation we really haven’t been having.

45:33

On the sky is falling concern of the pharmaceutical companies that you hear around, if you lift the patents for the COVID drugs, research will grind to a halt, I don’t believe that that’s true.

45:45

Jasmine:
Ultimately, why are there only six rules of ownership? Why aren’t there more? Why these six? Do they really cover everything?

45:54

Michael:
We’ve been talking about this book with law professors and students for many years. We always actually ask that question as well. And so far, no one’s told us otherwise. We are the gurus of ownership. There’s a bunch of people teaching this stuff, but we would count ourselves among the people who thought about this. This is what our careers are largely about. We think back in history. We think what the online world is going to look like.

46:19

Ownership looks very different in different cultures. There’s tribal cultures, there’s customary cultures. There’s more social welfare, European legal systems versus America. There’s lots of differences around ownership around the world. But even with all those differences, you’re still, it turns out, fighting among those same six simple stories. The original claim to ownership seems to trace all the way back and all the way forward. So far as we can see.

46:44

That isn’t an absolute claim. It can’t be. The world can change in ways that we can’t predict. But looking in our crystal ball and looking back through a historical lens, pretty much it reduces down to that and every ownership battle that we can look at, and that’s everything. That’s every ownership battle that as you’re walking down the street, as you are thinking about climate change, as you’re thinking about wealth inequality in America, who owns your online life, or who owns your genetic data, it’s the same few stories that pop up again and again and again.

47:13

James:
I think, actually, as Michael said, I’ll be surprised if a seventh pops up. I think it’s actually hardwired. I mean, I think it’s no coincidence that many of the great cultures creation myths, try ownership. The Greeks, Prometheus steals fire from Mount Olympus. Garden of Eden, the fruit. It’s not yours, but they take it and they’re evicted literally from the garden. And so, I think that, basically, we’re clearly hardwired to care about ownership. And ultimately, the stories that are in play are remarkably, remarkably few.

47:47

Jasmine:
Looking back at all of this, you’ve written the book. Your careers have been dedicated to this. On a gut level, looking at the world through these six lenses of ownership, how do you feel about where we’re going?

47:58

James:
I think that our culture with ownership is essentially where we were 500 years ago, a thousand years ago, and 3,000 years ago. Whenever there’s scarce resources and more people want them than there are to go around, there are going to be competing stories. Whether it was in Babylonia, or Sumeria, or Victorian England, or 21st century America, it’s a small number of stories that are taking place. And the question always is going to be, which story is more persuasive? And how are we going to decide which story is more persuasive? That really, to me, is the story of the human condition. Ownership, to me, is timeless.

48:42

Jasmine:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Unseen Unknown. If you’re new here and like what you’re listening to, do us a favor and leave a review. Those reviews mean a lot and help our audience grow. Don’t forget, you can always get more of our brand strategy and culture articles, videos, podcasts, everything, at conceptbureau.com. While you’re there, you can also sign up for our awesome newsletter that will deliver valuable thinking to your inbox twice a month. Thanks for listening. We’ll catch you next time.

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcast Transcript

MAY 13, 2021

60 min read

Systems In Flux: Birth of the New Spiritual Consumer

00:11

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

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

01:00

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

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

02:00

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

02:30

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

03:00

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

 

03:30

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

04:30

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

05:30

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

05:50

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

06:00

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

06:32

 

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

07:00

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

07:47

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

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

09:00

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

09:12

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

09:27

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

10:09

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

10:32

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

11:37

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

12:07

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

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

12:59

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

 

13:30

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

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

14:28

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

14:46

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

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

15:25

Jasmine:
Right, right.

 

15:27

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

16:00

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

16:51

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

17:15

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

18:03

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

19:08

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

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

 

20:03

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

 

20:31

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

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

22:19

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

 

22:59

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

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

 

24:10

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

 

24:30

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

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

25:31

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

26:11

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

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

27:00

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

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

28:13

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

28:42

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

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

29:27

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

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

30:24

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

30:34

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

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

32:00

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

32:47

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

33:30

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

Jasmine:
Oh wow.

34:20

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

35:18

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

35:25

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

36:08

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

36:29

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

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

37:39

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

38:28

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

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

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

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

 

40:01

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

 

40:32

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

41:38

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

 

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

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

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

43:40

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

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

 

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

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

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

Podcast Transcript

APRIL 28, 2021

60 min read

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

00:12

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

00:48

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

01:38

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

02:29

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

02:53

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

 

03:01

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

03:38

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

04:14

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

05:12

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

05:44

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

05:57

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

06:41

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

07:23

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

09:15

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

09:22

Michele:

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

09:55

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

10:06

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

10:39

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

11:32

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

11:38

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

11:54

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

 

12:42

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

13:16

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

14:13

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

14:30

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

 

15:19

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

15:31

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

16:20

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

16:46

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

 

17:39

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

18:14

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

 

Michele:
Awesome.

 

18:18

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

 

19:17

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

20:01

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

 

20:36

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

 

21:09

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

 

21:54

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

 

22:28

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

 

23:03

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

 

23:46

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

24:34

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

25:00

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

25:19

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

26:06

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

26:55

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

27:25

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

28:00

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

28:49

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

Michele:
That’s right.

28:56

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

29:02

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

29:44

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

30:22

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

31:03

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

Jasmine:
Oh, wow.

31:27

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

31:34

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

 

Michele:
Okay. Let’s go for it.

 

31:49

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

 

31:52

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

32:46

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

 

Michele:
That’s right.

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

Michele:
That’s right.

32:59

Jasmine:
Okay. Silicon Valley.

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

 

Jasmine:
Move fast and break things.

33:11

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

34:04

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

35:03

Jasmine:
Okay. What about the NFL?

 

35:05

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

36:18

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

36:23

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

36:46

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

37:04

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

37:31

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

37:43

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

38:20

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

39:09

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

39:50

Jasmine:

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

40:01

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

40:56

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

41:29

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

41:55

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

42:38

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

43:15

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

44:01

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

44:44

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

45:02

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

45:14

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

Jasmine:
Marty from Brooklyn.

45:38

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

46:21

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

Interesting Links & More Reading

Categories
Podcast

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

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

Podcast Transcript

October 29, 2020

60 min read

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

00:12

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

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

00:41

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

01:14

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

02:26

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

04:14

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

 

04:45

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

05:23

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

5:58

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

6:11

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

7:33

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

08:24

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

09:21

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

10:16

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

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

10:54

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

11:18

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

11:42

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

13:00

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

13:42

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

14:00

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

14:47

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

 

15:15

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

16:19

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

16:54

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

17:34

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

 

18:15

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

 

19:19

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

20:10

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

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

 

20:55

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

21:43

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

 

22:50

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

 

23:36

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

 

23:40

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

24:03

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

 

24:12

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

 

24:57

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

 

25:34

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

 

26:10

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

 

26:39

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

 

27:38

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

28:25

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

28:59

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

29:44

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

30:07

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

30:32

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

31:19

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

31:58

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

32:23

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

33:14

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

33:57

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

34:43

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

35:27

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

36:11

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

36:48

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

37:43

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

37:58

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

38:49

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

 

39:42

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

 

39:49

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

 

40:10

Jasmine:
Yeah, that’s a great question.

 

40:11

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

 

40:20

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

40:43

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

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

41:42

Jasmine:
That is an unpopular opinion!

41:43

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

42:29

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

 

43:14

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

43:43

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

44:48

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

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

45:58

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

 

46:06

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

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

47:03

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

47:07

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

47:38

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

Interesting Links & More Reading

Think With Us:

Strategy In Your Inbox

Join over 20,000 strategic thinkers.