Some people can't relate and others have a lot to learn

When I worked for Britvic, the Tango brand director (who I have to thank for hiring me in to my first real job), bought all the tabloid papers each day, in an effort to know what the brand's consumers were seeing, reading and talking about. For a while in the 90s I attempted similar discipline to the internet - visiting the "big" sites that would otherwise be out of my repertoire, as an act of professional diligence. Futile, obviously. (When vinyl records were invented my grandfather decided to amass a complete set of all the 78s published - he had to abandon that plan quite quickly too).

It is no longer possible to attempt to see through others' eyes. The biggest websites each deliver a combination of search and social, so we all see them differently. (The top 10 by hits are Google, Facebook, Youtube, Yahoo, Live, Blogspot, Baidu, Wikipedia, Twitter and QQ. You are forgiven for not knowing Baidu or QQ if you don't speak Chinese). Content led sites don't feature very highly - and I suspect our choices, at that level, are as fragmented as ever (the BBC is #41, livejasmin is #44 - take your pick).

This is part of a general trend of cultural and social fragmentation. I sat today on the tube next to a guy little more than half my age, as we both listened to our mp3s. I take a little pride in my music taste, but I suspect my age is beginning to show. Mine may be the most ear-bleeding trendy guitar based music in town but, as Decca observed with much foresight when they turned down the Beatles in 1962, "guitar groups are on the way out". My neighbour was listening to Tinie Tempah, for all I know.

Aside from being an obvious problem for media planning, this is a seismic issue for brands that have made themselves "relevant" to consumers by simply mimicking the consumer's perceived interests: "You like XXXXX, so do we!" If consumers aren't into the same things, just what should a mass market brand align to? The few big unifying consumer interests (such as major sports) are not very differentiating. And in many spheres there's little to unify consumers at all. (As far as I understand, the unifying theme of fashion these last few months has been nothing more complex than "socks".)

Affinity marketing was always lazy - the "in thing" is surely an overpriced way to reach the audience. Winning brands have the confidence to carve their own groove. The trick is doing so in ways that consumers are drawn towards.

Wake up and smell the own label coffee

The Economist this week has an article on the impact of the economic crisis on consumer goods purchases. It quotes PwC and McKinsey evidence that consumers have significantly changed their behaviour - such as by buying own-label products, by buying less, or conversely by buying bulk, or even by deciding that some things aren't as essential as they used to seem. (Air freshener, anyone?) Well, you heard it here first - six months ago, but the data goes to reinforce the point.

93% of shoppers say they have changed their behaviour as a result of the economic downturn. (PwC)
18% of packaged-goods buyers switched from a premium brand to a cheaper one during the recession, with most saying they found that the pricier brand “was not worth the money”. (McKinsey)

Even more alarming are some of the comments by the Economist's readers:

TomNightingale wrote: Oct 14th 2010 12:18 GMT
The price differences between branded goods and own brand are mainly spent on advertising, Advertising does not create value, it consumes valuable resources and returns little, if anything. The value of a brand is largely its ability to persuade people to pay a higher price than they need to to buy a product, Advertising and brands allow parasites to take good livings at the expense of others. If the recent/current economic woes leave advertisers and "branding experts" in difficulties we should all rejoice. We don't need them; they make us all worse off.

pasam wrote: Oct 14th 2010 12:47 GMT
If the recession leads to a "Needs based Society" than the present (or past?) "Advertisement Induced Society", then that is a "silver lining". Let the "shine" of parasitic advertisement be ignored and let the chemistry of needs take over.

It's not as though we haven't heard these anti-brand views before, and they aren't very well informed - they take no account of the role of brands in delivering innovation, consistency, reassurance, confidence or convenience, for example. (But then I would say that, I'm a parasitic "branding expert".) However, they do have a compelling basic thrust: products which only sustain their premium through advertising are in a precarious position.

The conclusion we must draw from recent consumer research (both quali and quanti - pretty consistent on this matter for months now) is that long term success means delivering a premium-justifying benefit. It can still be emotional - reward, status and so on - rather than rational - taste, quality, features - but it must exist. Large swathes of supermarket aisles are still filled with brands that don't truly offer a benefit. What's worse, I fear some brand managers haven't realised that the rules are changing, or have deluded themselves that their own brand has a "real" distinctiveness when all it actually has is residual market share supported by media share of voice and retail share of shelf. Wake up!