Volume 84: Facebook to unveil new...yawn.
1. Facebook to unveil new…yawn.
tl;dr: Facebook single-handedly keeps branding businesses in business.
I’m quite nostalgic for the day Facebook became FACEBOOK because it led me to write the very first Off Kilter. Inspired as I was by one of the most confusing branding moves in history.
So, it’s not at all surprising to hear they’re about to rebrand again a couple of years later. However, for all the people saying this is akin to creating an Alphabet to Google, I don’t think that’s right. Instead, this looks more akin to creating a Microsoft to sit atop their Windows.
Let’s start with Alphabet and Google. The reason for this new name and conglomerate structure was investor-driven - to drive up the stock price, Google caved to investor demands for a break out of the Google business from its scattered “moon-shot” projects. And, as anyone who uses Google knows, this had essentially zero impact on the experience we, as consumers, have with it.
The challenge Microsoft faced was somewhat different. Its brand portfolio had always been run pretty independently on more of a P&G type model, with Windows or Microsoft inconsistently acting as the cross-business catchall where needed. But as their business shifted from a product SKU focus oriented to an OS, to a user-centric focus oriented to the cloud, the relationship between brands broke down, creating confusing things like a Windows login for Microsoft Office running on a non-Windows OS. As a result, they chose to clean up the mess by explicitly establishing Microsoft as the dominant brand and re-focusing Windows around its core OS roots. It was the right thing to do.
In the same way that a legacy understanding of Windows caused Microsoft problems as they grew into a non-OS future, the plastering of FACEBOOK everywhere will likely be a problem as it seeks to move beyond social media to establish the “metaverse,” whatever that ultimately ends up being. The kind of muddle that already appears to be happening with users of their Portal product, reportedly confused by the voice command “Hey Facebook,” not to mention the skeevy weirdness of having to log into Facebook to stop your Oculus headset from being anything more than an expensive paperweight.
Now, what I’m describing above is the glass half full reasoning of why they’d choose to clean this up now. The half-empty perspective is they’re being forced to move from a position of weakness rather than of strength. I’m guessing their Ray-Ban partnership is a flop, and they’re staring at some very nasty-looking research that says the Facebook brand has poisoned the well in terms of consumer permission for a metaverse anyone wants to be a part of. Probably exacerbated by, say, Apple being given a huge thumbs up. (In consumer research, people often give Apple credit for innovations it never came up with and products it doesn’t even sell. For many, Apple is innovation)
Anyway, if this is the case, changing the FACEBOOK name looks a lot like a Hail Mary pass, as they attempt to transform the corporate narrative to one that’s all about a shiny new future while at the same time trying to constrain criticism that’s currently focused on the company to just the Facebook product.
But, here’s the challenge they’re going to face. If Facebook chooses to treat its long-running corporate sociopathy as a communications exercise instead of a root and branch DNA-shift, it won’t matter how much “don’t look here, look over there” they try. Their behavior will ultimately shine through.
And, if that happens, this won’t look like Alphabet/Google or Microsoft/Windows; it’s going to look a lot more like Philip Morris/Altria.
2. Twisted purpose.
Tl:dr: Sigh. Nonsense, that doesn’t have to be.
Last week, Peter Field, respected analyzer of advertising effectiveness and co-author of much-quoted “The Long & The Short of It,” announced the results of new research into the relative effectiveness of “purpose-driven” versus “non-purpose-driven” advertising campaigns.
Unfortunately, in trying to force the case that purpose-driven advertising outperforms non, he engaged in such blatant sleight of hand with his analysis (comparing only the highest performing purpose campaigns to the average of all non-purpose campaigns) he ran headfirst into a buzz-saw of criticism from exactly the people he sought to quieten.
This is a shame because if he’d parsed his analysis differently, and if the editor of MarketingWeek had even the faintest clue about an appropriate headline, the buzz-saw crowd might have had less to crow about.
Instead, Byron Sharp, arch-nemesis of brand purpose, chose a typically bombastic response stating that purpose will be the “death of brands” because it’s commoditizing and easy to copy and will lead to the domination of brands by retailers and private labels. Now, I’m pretty sure the brand landscape extends somewhat beyond retail, but I guess Mr. Sharp has a dog in that particular pony show because CPG pays his bills. And while he has a point vis a vis the risk of commoditization, he can’t talk when it comes analytical sleight of hand, as he and his Ehrenberg Bass posse also appear to have shaped methodologies to create the results they want, like “differentiation doesn’t matter.”
Anyway, if we strip away the ideological posturing on both sides of this issue, what’s left is pretty interesting. Now, when I say ideological posturing, what I mean is this: It’s entirely wrong to suggest that a commitment to goals other than improved profits or products is the differentiator to rule all differentiators and that every brand with such a commitment will be wildly successful. But, equally, it’s entirely wrong to suggest that such a purpose cannot ever play any role in any brand’s success ever.
As is so often the case within such toing and froing, the true answer is context-specific, which means it’s going to look a lot more like “it depends” than a binary yes or no.
And that, in a nutshell, is what Fields analysis appears to show. For some brands, under some competitive circumstances, a meaningful and longstanding commitment to a relevant purpose outside of their core product/service offering seems to work. But it isn’t going to work for every brand under every circumstance, and as a result, business leaders should think carefully about all of their options before hewing to this path.
Diving a little deeper, what the research appears to show is that while some purpose-driven brands do see outsize gains from their campaigns, the risk of underperformance is higher, as the average “purposevertising” campaign underperforms the average non-purpose campaign, and the lowest-performing purposevertising radically underperforms low-performing non-purpose.
So, what could, and perhaps should, have been said is that achieving success via a public commitment to purpose as your primary advertising focus is hard; it’s not for everyone, and how you approach it matters very much indeed. And while the risk of failure is relatively higher, the rewards might be worth it if you have ambitions that include being above average.
The real question, then, isn’t whether brand-purpose and associated advertising works or doesn’t work, the real question is of your appetite for risk, specifically:
That there is an appropriately differentiating purpose that fits your brand’s circumstances that you’re willing to commit to.
You have a risk appetite where you’re willing to trade-off a higher likelihood of failure against a higher gain if you can pull it off.
You have the long-term business commitment, capabilities, and top-tier partners to execute your commitment to a relevant purpose with the degree of quality and integrity necessary to increase the chances of a top-quartile result.
What should be clear by now is that brand purpose is neither magic bullet nor utter nonsense. Commercially, it appears to be an intelligent approach for some and a very wrong approach for what looks to be a larger pool of others.
Note: There are many purpose definitions out there. Since I’m talking about his work, I’m using Peter Fields’ definition of brand-purpose: “a commitment articulated by a commercial brand or its parent company to goals other than improved profits or products, involving contribution towards one or more positive social impacts.”
3. Debunking the nonsensical.
tl;dr: Generational segmentation needs to go away.
I’m going to get straight to the point. The myth of generational homogeneity is almost certainly the biggest sham in the marketing industry. And there’s been many shams in marketing, folks.
It’s simply ridiculous to think that millions and billions of people will have deep and abiding character and consumption traits that are shaped by nothing more than their shared date of manufacture. For example, it’s utterly bonkers to learn that the dominant and utterly false narrative of the ‘entitled millennial’ was based on little more than a 600 person survey handed out to students at a single high school in an upscale suburb of Virginia.
Last year, BBH, one of the smarter advertising agencies, sought to analyze the reality of generational cohesion by scoring different groups based on a cohesion score and found there isn’t any at a generational level. To put this in context, if you’re a part of “Gen Z,” you’re 25 times less likely to be like others in your generational cohort than people who read The Guardian newspaper are to be like other Guardian readers.
And yet, generational cliche remains one of the most pervasive societal myths in the marketing lexicon and is used to shape…almost everything. For example, just this year, I was part of a team responding to a brief from an upscale global hotel chain that rested its entire re-branding thesis on Gen Z consumers and a spurious statistic claiming they account for 40% of all consumer spending. This was unfortunate in two ways. First, Gen Z is not a meaningful segment to rest a premium hotel re-brand on (how many teenagers are booking any hotel, let alone an expensive one, I wonder). Second, the data point they quoted is dead wrong.
And things are getting worse.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but we’re currently being inundated with utter bullshit about the character traits of “Gen Alpha.” As best I can tell, the oldest member of Gen Alpha is about 10 years old (depending on who you ask), and the full cohort won’t be rounded out for another 5 years. So, to put this in perspective, we’re being asked to believe there are definitive, baked-in character and consumption traits shared by what will be 2bn people globally who are currently in grade school, or in diapers, or who haven’t been born yet. Huh?
Anyway, with so much rubbish being spouted on this topic, it’s nice to find something considered and thoughtful as a counterpoint debunking the nonsensical. Like many New Yorker articles, this one is well worth taking the time to read.