Brand Hijack - Page 4

In other words, Fruitopia was basically an exercise in corporate hypocrisy, just another fruit drink masquerading as something it wasn't and being marketed under a scheme that sought to tap into "aspirational beliefs" that it simply couldn't sustain. Wipperfürth does an excellent job of comparing successful brands to cults, and he examines what he calls the new "tribal" mentality of consumers. He believes that in the new age of marketing, appealing to the hive mentality of the brand tribe in subtle ways, while being receptive to the tribe's manipulation of the product in unexpected ways. If "brand communities" are the emerging social trend of the new millennium (perhaps in contrast to Wired magazine's suggestion that brands are dead, or at least in decline), then companies will have to figure out how best to connect with them.

These tribes are ephemeral; they are constantly forming, dissipating, and reforming. Nevertheless, they readily embrace, adopt, and alter brands in the marketplace. As Ostergaard and Jantzen put it, "Product symbolism creates a universe for the tribe." Companies that learn to feed and foster these brand communities will find themselves with an invaluable resource.

The author also suggests that the emergence of the "brand tribe" will dramatically alter how marketers relate to consumers and will require not just traditional consumer interviews but an "anthropological approach to understanding subcultures, their rituals and consumption patterns." While this may be true, I personally (as a consumer) question his contention that excellent products will become less important than communal belonging and that "the link is more important than the thing." This is the sort of thing that marketers have always believed - i.e., that what they do, which is provide the "aspirational belief" or in Wipperfürth's vision, the "communal belonging" - is not only of value, but of paramount importance. Personally, I don't discount the importance of the marketing and the associative imaging of products, but ultimately you have to deliver something more - you have to deliver a product.

Far too often companies buy into the notion that the image they present (or solicit and shape via a manufactured "brand hijack") is going to be sufficient to sell a product. Often, however, if the resulting product sucks, the tribe is quite quick to move on. Indeed, that is really part of the dilemma marketers face in dealing with consumers who don't like marketing; savvy consumers understand that they're being played, and they're willing to tolerate the game as long as they sense that the company is playing fairly and providing a product that satisfies them. If Apple had created a crappy mp3 player and attempted to market it, there wouldn't be the kind of "communal community" of iPod users there is today. I can understand why the author might believe that the communal link is of critical importance, but I really think there's a corollary being missed here: the "link" is only sustainable to the extent that there is a product which satisfies the community. If the community becomes dissatisfied, either because they sense that the company is somehow "selling out" or because of a sense that the product does not meet expectations, they'll bail.

Article Author: W.E. Wallo

W.E. Wallo is a book and movie junkie whose writings have appeared in a variety of print and online publications.

Visit W.E. Wallo's author page — W.E. Wallo's Blog