|
Dear CMO: When we think of our relationships to institutions, we can categorize them in one of several ways. There are brands, and we talk a lot about them here and elsewhere. There are causes. There are memes, ideas, manifestos, and viruses. And then there are movements.
All of these are pushed to the innocent listener except the last, which assumes the acceptance of your message and its re-transmittance. We all giggle when we hear the earnest CMO proclaim, “Our plan is to launch a series of ‘viral videos’ on YouTube.”
This is like hearing a Hollywood studio chief say, “Our plan to revive our sagging fortunes is to launch a spate of hit movies.” It isn’t viral unless other people say so, and implying that you have the ability to predict with Carnac-like accuracy the public acceptance of your thirty second bit suggests that you’re not quite street enough to talk this particular talk.
But let’s not give up just yet, because I think this can work in some cases, but not all. Let me float a half-baked idea for your feedback and see where it takes us all.
We can launch a brand – Nike, Starbucks, and Fox Racing Shock Absorbers are all brands – which, to oversimplify, is a connected series of evoked feelings we elicit in the minds of our consumers.
We can embody a movement -- from Mark Pollan to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Sir Bob Geldof, and even Al Gore – which requires that we ignite a spark in our collective imaginations that continues to fire other imaginations long after we’re history.
A movement can become a brand: look at Project(RED) or LiveAid or “Global Warming” or The Civil Rights Movement. It’s stretching the bounds of what we’d usually call a brand, I know, but stick with me.
Can a brand become a movement?
More importantly, can a brand become a movement on purpose?
If you were launching a company and aspired to a unique, relevant and ownable brand, could you plant the seeds of a movement within your messaging architecture and outbound communications? I think in some cases, the answer is ‘yes,’ although clearly not in all. If you sold great ball bearings, you could have a great brand but I think moving towards “movement” status might be impossible. What would you stand for that wouldn’t just be “branding”? You need to have certain prerequisites that define what constitutes a movement – here’s a draft:
- You must be replicable, in spirit if not in form.
- You must have transparency in your mission so that your ‘branding’ is clear and easily adaptable to related works by others. There must be a consistent ‘arc’ to the story – a movement must have internal consistency.
- You must be willing and open to not just release control of your ‘brand’ but to acknowledge that your brand and movement are owned by a collective group of people who may never actually meet.
- Importantly, for a brand to become a movement, there must be something deeply emotional and communal that connects users, providers and influencers to a degree that transcends simple functionality. There must be something to it that is “right.”
- And as a free-market entity, there must be something in it for you.
If my friend Tom who is launching (soon) TaxLifeboat.com took this approach, how would he do it? He’s in the business of helping those at the bottom of the pyramid who are most in need of help by giving them a disruptively affordable and immensely robust web 2.0 solution to tax delinquency. Instead of charging them thousands of dollars, he’s charging $199. On purpose. He could charge more, but he’s keeping the cost low to ensure that those who need help the most can afford it. This isn’t price elasticity, it’s altruism. Tom mentors inmates. He feeds the homeless. He cares about people.
Tom is a movement. And fortunately, his company name lends itself to the mission. A lifeboat is a powerful metaphor. It saves people who are adrift and would otherwise drown. If Tom looked at “the lifeboat” and said to the 1-percenters who are paying attention, “take the lifeboat wherever it makes sense to go and use it to do the kind of work I’m doing here,” would others respond? We didn't have this in mind when we first starting working on this idea, but it could work. If you were providing substance abuse prevention or treatment, tax preparation, debt consolidation, financial planning, affordable housing, healthcare, education, tutoring, after school programs, or counseling of any kind, how would you take this mission and make it your own?
If you created a “lifeboat” logo that anyone could use as a mark – not necessarily their logo, but an identifier that says, “my business runs in the spirit of other companies that also use this mark” – would it stick? Could it be a self-policing “Good Housekeeping” seal? Would the community actually do the policing?
And what about Tom, who’s made this his mission. Beyond the altruism, he gets something bigger. Because every person exposed to the “lifeboat” wherever it happens knows that ultimately, if they need his services in tax delinquency relief, they will come to him. His movement supports his brand and his mission.
It’s a living, breathing, self-policing, free-market wiki of aligned people.
Frankly, I’m not sure this all holds up to the scrutiny of my peers in its first iteration, but I like the idea. Tell me what you’d do with this. Here, take the lifeboat…
Regards.
|
Comments
Interesting post, Stephen and good points.
As a member of a company that helps turn brands into movements I think the most important thing is to reframe the context of the movement. In other words (and in the majority of cases), you can't get people to rally around a product or service. But you CAN give them the means to really around what the product or service allows them to do or accomplish in their lives. So really, movements are a celebration or a belief system about life and love - not products and services.
It sounds like your friend and his service has the potential to be a movement. But movements run on power of (and to) the people. Just like the CMO you talked about before, it's not a movement until the people embrace it and run with it. As marketers, we can reframe the conversation, provide tools, seek out and empower passionate people who feel the same way. And then hope.
Posted by: Spike Jones | 04.17.08
Spike: here's the thing, for me -- I don't think brands can easily become movements. Apple is a strong brand but will never be a movement. Same with Starbucks, same with Nike, even same with Body Shop.
Licensing, franchises, and other ostensible business models that capitalize on other people selling other stuff won't qualify in this example. But in the spirit of "citizen capitalists" of a like-minded persuasion, I think it is possible for a brand to promote its "movement-worthy-ness" constructively and with some degree of authenticity, providing they meet certain criteria.
There is no substitute for consumer pull, and their loyalty will determine whether it becomes a movement -- my (rhetorical) question is whether you can sow the seeds of a movement consciously. I don't think I've seen this before -- can anybody put an example up?
Posted by: Stephen Denny | 04.17.08
Stephen - I didn't mean to imply that it was "easy" for companies to become movements. It's a lot of heavy lifting - but it can be done.
I would think that a pretty good argument could be made about Apple being a movement. That being that people are drawn to a movement because they want to be a part of something bigger than themselves. Something with a purpose. That makes a statement. And unites. Sounds pretty Apple-like to me.
Yes. You can absolutely consciously sew the seeds of a movement. Let me make it 100% clear that it won't work for a lot of companies.
An example of it working? I give you the Fiskateers - the Brand Ambassador movement created by Brains on Fire and Fiskars. Or Rage Against the Haze - SC's youth-led anti-tobacco use movement (which we just won an EFFIE for). These were consciously created. Tools were developed. Curriculums crafted and facilitated. Empowerment galore.
But as I stated before it was not about the company or the brand - it was about the customers and what they do with that brand to make their lives better. It's reframing the conversation. It's bigger than the brand - as all movements are.
Posted by: Spike Jones | 04.17.08
What's the difference between a campaign for a cause, and a brand that is a movement? The examples above sound like well-done campaigns. I suppose whether they are a "movement" may be semantics, but "movement" suggests something much bigger than a single-issue cause to me.
Brands often try to borrow the attributes of movements (usually in pretty cynical ways) and brands can be associated with movements for honest, valid reasons, but I honestly cannot think of a brand that is a "movement" in the way the term is normally used. Apple is certainly a brand with strong characteristics and one that some people identify strongly with, but "movement?" Like "environmentalism" or "civil rights" or "gender equality" or "libertarianism" or "veganism"? I don't think so.
(I'd call Project RED and LiveAid brands that associate themselves with movements, and whether you think that's honest or cynical depends, I suppose, on what you think of the financial arrangements involved...)
Maybe we are using these words to mean different things.
Posted by: John Whiteside | 04.17.08
John, there are HUGE differences between campaigns and movements: http://tinyurl.com/2ogqvc
Environmentalism, civil rights, etc. are all movements. But those are the movements we are familiar with. Movements don't always have to be centered around social change. The very definition of a movement is, "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals."
Posted by: Spike Jones | 04.17.08
I'm with Spike on this (I often am, so you know) -- the quote "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals" helps crystalize this idea.
My point here is that most brands -- the ones that take their branding seriously, at least -- strive to be great brands. A movement, by definition, is something characterised by an entity's affect on a group - it's a result. I think that by general definition, most movements are social and ideologically driven - which seems like it falls outside the norm for most 'brand' activities. You can be pro-Mac but I'd argue that falls short of ideology even for the most hard-bitten former Lisa user.
So if the definition of a movement is a successful adaptation of common ideology aimed at achieving a goal -- if we can agree on that -- shouldn't this also be a tremendously aspirational goal of a brand that meets a few requisite ideological hurdles?
Posted by: Stephen Denny | 04.17.08
how about the Open Source movement?
Posted by: patricia | 04.17.08
Any time you are trying to help someone, it can become a movement . . .
All it takes is a critical mass.
Stanley F. Bronstein
MrAchievement
Attorney, CPA, Author & Speaker
Official Guide to Achievement on SelfGrowth.com
Posted by: MrAchievement.com (Stanley Bronstein) | 04.17.08
Telemarketing is a inexpessive marketing and branding stategy.
Try It, you will be pleasently surprised!!
Pro-Sales Solutions
www.pro-salessolutions.com
EMAIL: pro-salessolutions@live.com
Posted by: Beth G | 04.18.08
Patricia: open source is a viable option here - that's a good suggestion.
Mr. Achievement: Any further comment on your comment would be wholly redundant.
Beth G: thanks for adding to the conversation.
Posted by: Stephen Denny | 04.18.08
I'm thinking Linux. There's a mark that everyone rallies around (the penguin), its replicable...somewhat (different types are out there), there's Linux Trovalds who gets something out of it all eventually and there's the likes of me who try to convert people away from commercial software to Linux, not Unix which is a very good system. I'm speaking Geeklish now aren't I?
The Linux community is made up of people with strong feelings towards open source software and especially Linux. As a result, a huge percentage of open source software is primarily for the Linux operating system.
Was Linus consciously starting a movement? I don't know but Mr. Trovald's Linux had an effect on people, a result, that became a movement. Therein probably lies a clue. I think.
Muchiri
Posted by: Muchiri Nyaggah | 04.21.08
In reference to the conversation between Spike and Stephen above:
I think it is possible for a brand to sow the seeds of a movement consciously, however, they first must understand what constitutes a movement or what has cause movements to become such. That would require some in-depth study and analysis, but would ultimately be worth it if the ends were achieved.
I also think that the categorization of Brand or Movement may be too narrow. It is almost certain that a "mega-brand", Apple, for instance, will never achieve movement status for the majority of people. However, if you talk to their users you will find that they are engaged bordering on fanatical about Apple and it's products. I'm pretty sure my nephews iPod has become the equivalent of a pacifier to a baby. Take it away and he will start screaming.
Perhaps the discussion should include Brands, Brand Movements and Cause Movements.
Great post. I'm going to link to it from my blog if you are ok with that.
Posted by: Chad S. | 04.21.08
Chad: I'm OK with it. Thanks, good comments.
Linux and open source seem to pass the first round of 'sniff tests', which I must admit I really didn't see coming. My preconceptions were that this would be a pure-play 'social/cause' thing.
This social media thing might just catch on...
Posted by: Stephen Denny | 04.24.08