Hi Claudia, in a culturally strong societies like India and if you wish, can include entire Asia including Middle East and ASEAN countries, a lot of success of a brand depends on how well it responds to cultural nuances. They were co-dependent and will remain co-dependent in time to come, whether it is internal or external communications.

You can witness importance of adapting the brands and communications to the cultural requirements in India and Asia where societies are more diverse, the decision making process is still dependent on suggestions/advice from friends and colleagues or to some extent on new means of communications. Societies are still closely knitted.

KFC did not get success in first attempt in India due to its wrong selection of menu. In second avatar they are expecting to get success. Similarly Mcdonalds has been successful in India because it adapted to cultural settings in first place itself by adapting its menu suiting hindu/indian culture. You can see McArabia in Middle East and McThai in Thailand. Another example is Kellog's failure in first place to understand Indian Breakfast habits. Majority of Indian houses still have heavy and filling breakfast and flakes do not fit into this habit, which has been developed for century.

Having said that, I believe economical and technologicial changes which are happening in India, China and rest of Asia will over a period of time will push changes in the culture but more specifically how people eat, talk, communicate, dress. A deep routed cultural belief held over centuries will never change or at least will take very long time.

posted November 16, 2007

Claudia,
Yes,absolutely-brands and culture are very co-dependant which is why it takes a lot of time to 'call it a brand' when it had found a fit within the culture of a particular geography/region/country.

With organizations going global and promoting their products/services into newer countries the inter-dependance between the two is being re-affirmed.This also affects the branding,communication & product strategy-as what might work in a particular country/culture may not be replicated in another.

posted November 16, 2007

I disagree that culture has changed faster than brands.

What is happening in countries like the UK is government intervention driving the market. Certain books have been pretty much banned.

IT, especially internet, "advances" have been imposed through legislation and encouraged through subsidies. People have to learn the Internet for work and school, but that market was created by government intervention, not cultural revolution.

After the government, the companies have moved what we do more. Culture, when it does change, is driven by corporate marketing, government sponsored education... and those are driven by expiring patents and greed.

I think people crave more tradition than brands and governments are giving them, but many people are afraid to say so. The "new" culture is an emperor with no clothes.

So, no.

posted November 16, 2007

Hi Claudia,

Very interesting question ! I'd suggest you have a look at experts' white papers on www.ssrn.com in the marketing=>beahvioural marketing section, it's typical of what they're working on.

Otherwise, more on the philo-socio side, if it has been translated from French, I'd highly recommend :

Bernard Stiegler "De la misere symbolique" - edition Galilee - 2004 - 2 volumes

(On social hordes and consumerism, usage of mass media, destruction of individual peculiarities and so forth).

IMHO, answer to your 2 questions is yes. But this leads to a next question : who is shaping the "culture" ? I think the market's offer does, through the mass media, and then in turn adapt to the market's demand reaction.

Seems to me that from WWII onward, industries have created a segmented population of all like minded consumer groups in which "culture" (ethical, spiritual, self thinking, auto actuating) has been replaced by "guidance".

Regards,
Bruno.

posted November 16, 2007

Hello Claudio,

I've put a powerpoint presentation together related to this subject where I address the "content" vs "context" question.. If you send me an email (herman.willemen@telenet.be) I'll be glad to send the ppt to you...

posted November 16, 2007

Claudia

I love this question for the neurons it stimulates...

Speaking of neurons and decisions, the most current research is that all decisions are made unconsciously (those neurons fire first) and the conscious mind makes up an explanation (firing second).

So marketers should be asking themselves, what programs the unconscious?

About 50% of your brain is pre-wired at birth by your genes. We don't all have the same genes, so there's variation. However, there's more similarity than difference. Therefore, there are human bias, filters, habits, etc. that transcend time and culture. Joseph Campbell made famous, "The hero's journey", as one such theme that runs across all cultures through time. Brands that can connect with these essential human instincts have a good chance of a long life and broad appeal.

The other 50% of the unconscious programming comes from experience. Most of our experiences are filtered by our cultures. I say cultures with an "s" because cultures are relative to groups. Every group has a culture and we all belong to multiple groups. My family's culture might be quite different from my neighbors. Now layer in all the groups of a person's life: churches, community, classrooms, schools, departments, companies, region, country, world. Marketers must be alert to the commonality and the differences among various cultures.

Brand experts do best when they know their groups. The brand's story is targeted to those groups, and the nuances of the messages fit the specific unconscious beliefs, symbols, values, etc. of the target groups.

The fortune of the brand depend on the fortunes of their groups. Also groups change over time. If your brand is associated with farmers, and farming is fading as a profession and lifestyle, that's bad news for the brand. Conversely, if your brand is associated with groups growing in size and influence, the brand goes along for a lovely, profitable ride. Here in the US, all "green" (environmentally friendly) products are riding a wave for many years to come.

On the other hand, brands can become symbols for groups, and if something terrible happens to the company's brand, say a scandal, it affects the status of the groups associated with those brands. For example, imagine you love your local sports team and are proud of it. The team goes on a long loosing streak, and worse, it gets caught trying to fix games. The shame and ridicule now associated with that brand rubs off on you and everyone else by association in your city. Even people who don't follow sports.

The bottom line: any association of a product or service to you, directly or indirectly, alters your identity. Whoever makes, sells, buys, or uses a brand, alters the image of the brand itself. codependency is obvious.

Some companies today realize that every aspect of themselves affects their brand: their office location, furniture, colors, use of space, etc. Even every aspect of their people matter: age, looks, behavior, etc. Discrimination law aside, the truth is that firms hire people who fit the brand and fire anyone who makes the brand look bad.

Yes, it is possible for a company to have an outward image different from the internal culture, but in today's super-connected world, incongruence can easily and quickly become exposed to the general public. In addition, when companies say or imply one thing and do another, it lowers trust and morale of the employees. So there's a performance drag on companies that are incongruent.

Summing up, culture by definition means commonality of thoughts. Brands are woven into the fabric of common thoughts (culture and genes). Common thoughts affect the success or failure of brands. Brands affect our fortunes, and that's a big part of why we by one brand and not another.

Thanks for a great question! You made my neurons happy. Hopefully, my answer is useful to you and the other readers.

Ciao, Michael

posted November 16, 2007

Claudia
I alwas like reading your questions they are very thought provoking (even if I can't spell I can think)!
YES brands and culture are codependant! That much is very obvious as to the why I think Michael Cushman answered a portion of that but there is more to it as well. We are human beings and as such have the ability to allow our minds to choose whatsoever we will.

The funny thing is that some items will forever stick in my mind but I have never or will never use them for one reason or another. EXAMPLE: I don't drink Alcohol but Budwieser is the brand of choice just due to familiarity (loved the big horses pulling the old time wagon) My culture/religion causes me to refrain from drinking beer but everytime I have been asked to go and get some for a party that's what I get. So that kind of situation; NO the culture and the brand have nothing to do with each other.

I think the real issue and question here is how to position ourself and our company in a place where even those who don't need our services remember who we are and what we do. I don't know the answer to that one but I think that in all of us is a spark of the recognition of good and the emotion of love. THE most sucessful marketing and brand awareness has to appela to those senses but how to get thru to those things is not so easy. All cultures have a slightly differnet take on this but basically it's a matter of treating others and yourself good. If you have more then you need then give if you are even then stay if you need then accept help. It's very basic but then so are we.
I personally think the best you can hope for in marketing is to go for what you understand and market to them. If you don't grasp how another culture works then you haven't got a lot of a chance to win them over.

Hope we can get this figured out better!!!!!

posted November 16, 2007

Great question Claudia. As we all know, a company's brand is determined not by themselves but how they are perceived by a person or group of people that have come to the same thoughts or perceptions about them. This is dependent upon the messages, images, and actions they promote. Successful companies recognize this and work internally to adjust to this image of themselves or try to change that image to how they want to be perceived.

People cannot always define why they like a brand or why not, because they are dependent on the numerous impressions they have from those multiple touch-points. When enough of these touch-points start to appear in their daily lives from different angles and locations the message starts to get through to them and they feel connected to that brand. These people then start to look for other people that have had that same experience. The association with that brand becomes a way of identifying people like themselves or bringing people they know into that experience.

We live in a world where technology has allowed far more brands/companies to be successful because they can reach a greater audience. Brands now serve as the connection points between people in great distances or small ones. In a way they are building communities for people to gather together and recognize one another. This then starts a dialogue that allows people to talk about other brands they like or dislike. Not only does the brand help people define how they want to be seen or categorized but also enables them to find like individuals and further define their beliefs. This is culture. I think now more than ever culture and brand are intermixed.

posted November 16, 2007

Brands and culture as increasignly co-depedent??!

Yes...and No, at the same time.

As you wisely maintain :"Often a brand is stuck in a certain place, while culture has moved on.".

If we reckon that at least 75% of new brands (considering the whole launch of a product) fail, we would rather say no.

Other brands, as against, are able to capture the essence of a product or a service as to drive such communication to an unbelievable extent.

And on the other hand there are, you are right- no doubt- unconscious decisions in consumers' behaviour.

So I'd say that consumerism and culture are increasignly co-dependent, whilst brands (though at the top of a theoretical stair of marketing value) keep on being an unpredictable factor.

You might answer that even in case of a failure, a bad chosen brand is the clear-cut evidence that there's an increasing co-dependency, and I could be partial to such explanation.

Yet I'd say that a launch's failure is not necessarily ever a matter of brand.

I do adore, strategies and naming and branding, being the matter a something I'm very concerned with.

But I also like the old-school theory pursuant to which some G&S works, whils others simply don't.

Regards.
C.

posted November 18, 2007

I wouldn't think of it in terms of what is a conscious decision and what is not. To build a strong brand and sell, you need to build its equity and character and to do that you need to be able to talk to your target consumer and have them listen to you.
Now to do that, you need to take into consideration several factors including social context, culture and cultural trends. That does not mean your brand needs to fit that culture. But you definitely need to understand it to know how to talk to your target consumer.

posted November 20, 2007

I'd agree that brand and culture are related and consumer behavior is certainly culturally driven, making it more important for brand developers to take care of the cultural aspects of their products and promotion.

One point that maybe hasn't been made yet is that the cultural meaning of a brand is not necessarily the same everywhere, even if the product and the promotion were to be identical. In some places MacDonalds is just a cheap meal; in others it is a young persons option while in a few it is an "exotic" import. The same happens with Spam, which is some pacific island nations is considered a welcome wedding gift, not just a cheap food kept for emergencies. You see the same also very clearly in automobiles/cars, where the brand image of a model varies dramatically from country to country. What might be the model chosen by a doctor in the UK might be seen as a pimps' choice in Italy. The same variations also evident across generations, so an SUV that has a positive image for older people might be considered wasteful and selfish by younger consumers.

And some brands do not travel because of the name. I am thinking of things like "Pisse Dru" Beaujolais wine, common in France but not so popular in English speaking countries, a Swedish lamp called "Prick" (it means "dot" in Swedish), some Finnish candies called "Viol", which I guess they will not export to France, and a Swedish garden product called "Lekaculor", which will probably not sell well in Italy. (I usually blog these as I find them).

Links:

• http://andrewhennigan.blogspot.com

posted November 21, 2007

Brand resides in the mind of a consumer as it's a promise. In my opinion I believe it's definitely increasingly cultural driven.

For instance, I'm from a 3rd world country and in the teen culture, one's popularity can come from the simple things as the 'brand' name clothes you wear to the brand of your car. This may be similar in North American countries but here's the shocker; for a country with no regards for the importance of design it's amazing how nike, addidas, bmw, etc has the effect on them. No one buys local because they are all looking to be part of the North American culture.

So the culture of developed countries influence the decisions of what people buy everyday, not only in their world but even that of lesser developed country. Truth is, everyone wants the good life.

However, I don't think culture alone is at fault. Smart marketers use culture to their advantage as well.

'Diamonds are forever' now a popular statement in our culture and part of our culture to give the ones we love diamonds but 10/20 years ago, that wasn't part of our culture. JWT made it a part of our culture when they introduced that tagline and their famous tv ads. The idea was there but people could get away with giving their wife to be something other than diamonds. Today, I hardly believe they could.

So in conclusion, it's a mix. Culture pulls from brands and brands pull from culture.

I hope I made sense.

posted November 21, 2007

Great question.

In my opinion the answer is yes and no but I would say the majority of the time brands and culture are not co-dependent. Brands need culture. Culture does not need brands.

Brands exists as a reflection of what is happening in the culture. Not the other way around. Michael Jordan was a phenomenal basketball player at North Carolina and during his early years with the Bulls before the brand of Air Jordan even existed. The Air Jordan brand associated itself with the culture of top level basketball play. That culture, that reality, came first then the brand came along second. The Air Jordan brand may one day disappear but the culture of excellent/cool basketball playing will continue (and sooner or later a new brand that associates itself with this idea will come along).

Apple is another example. Apple is the brand choice for creatives - DJs, Rock Stars, designers, artists and the like. Apple was aware of what culture was doing and created products that were able to be used effectively and efficiently by these populations and as a result the brand is associated with this market. Apple as a brand, product and service provider doesn't determine what the culture does or is doing and then the artists follow suit. It's always the other way around.

Cool Hunting is a classic example of businesses/people looking for what is happening in culture (what is cool) and then trying to package it and sell it. This pertains largely to the teen market. This has been met with varying success. Frontline did an interesting piece on this a couple of years back (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/etc/hunting.html)

A company's ability to successfully win customers over (consciously or unconsciously) and keep them loyal is its ability to successfully speak to their customer's lifestyle/workstyle and provide solutions to their customers' needs. This again speaks to understanding the culture (which comes first) and then adapting your brand to reflect the wants and needs of these multiple professional and social audiences and communities.

Thanks for asking the question.

Rasul

posted November 21, 2007

Hi Claudia,

Lovely Question!!

Will try to be short ...and to the point.

Culture Leads to=>Actions / Behaviour =>Habits=>and Habits die hard !!

So the brands which either entwines in the DNA of a particular Culture and flourish ,as it eventually becomes apart of the lifestyle of the TG or can decay if it's not done well...

At the same time a brand ,which can re-engineer the entire DNA , can give birth to a NEW CULTURE and hence start the entire process all over again ,can flourish.....

Hope it helps...

posted November 21, 2007

In today's consumer-driven information age, brands are becoming cultures. People look to brands to self-identify. Brands that share their values and beliefs are the ones they buy (like Apple, an example used earlier). These brands are badges that say something about who these people are. For example, the Toyota Prius definitely says a lot about the person who owns and drives it. Also just look at the most recent developments where Facebook is now linking brand preference with its members.

The brands you use are increasingly telling the story of who you are and what you believe, which represents your ethos, or worldview. This is literally the definition of culture: a system of commonly held values and beliefs that join people together, so to answer your question, YES, brands and culture are becoming inextricibly linked.

Links:

• http://www.idbranding.com

posted November 21, 2007

Claudia,

Nice question. My sense will be to distinguish between culture and sub-culture while looking at this issue. Of the two, sub culture is more visible and gets talked about.

My view is - successful brands build and develop their own sub cultures and thrive on it. Sub-cultures also change relatively fast unless such ‘tribes’ adopt/ made to adopt rituals (including brand rituals).

I am not sure if culture changes very fast and perhaps, only mega brands can afford to be culture dependent (say, Coke). I also think such brands link to the timeless & classical part of the culture and the core human values rather than the changing part.

Can large brands become meme’s and foster culture change – may be but I do not know.

posted November 21, 2007

Hi Claudia,

My answer would be yes.

Brands, I believe, can be culture lagging, culture reflecting or culture leading.

Culture lagging brands are those that are still caught in the past - in terms of language, trends, actions.

Culture reflecting brands (most exist in this zone) catch on to what are the most prevalent trends or language or ways of life at present. And these attempt to keep up with societal and behavorial changes.

Culture leading brands, and there are very few, set new trends, speak a new language, act differently - and in this process spark people to imbibe and spread this culture.

It is always possible to link your brand to basic universal human truths that don't change - however you body language, style, expression can define to an extent which zone you belong to.

So it is sometimes culture defining the way a brand shapes up.

And in rarer cases brands that define a cultural shift (of course by virtue of consumers adopting the brands way of life and spreading it).

Cheers

Rahul

posted November 22, 2007

Hi Claudia. I do think that yes brands and culture increasingly co-dependent. Its a step ahead of advertising which is art of making people buy without knowing why?
Brands are developed keeping in mind the consumer's need and preferences.

posted November 22, 2007

Claudia,
I have a different viewpoint
I analyse a consumer's attraction towards a brand through three filters:
a) her demographic - age, social class, gender - these are fairly obvious and a fairly basic filter
b) her culture - the influence of community/environment / upbringing on the individual : many have discussed this already
c) her psychographics : this is by far the most sophisticated filter and transcends culture.
Culture is the set of meanings derived from a person's community/environment and upbringing. This can be fairly homogenous within communities - and therefoe easier to identify
Psychographic aspects transcend culture and demographics. Psychographics depend on an individual's personality and vary vastly within the same cultural community. Example - an appetite for risk in financial products will vary from one individual to another, within the same cultural context. Another example, an emotion like 'collective fun/ togetherness' would appeal to a Coke lovers across the world - from different cultures and demograhics. Admirers of Pepsi may share a common aspiration for 'Adventure and Individuality', regardless of which culture they belong to.
Which is why, within the same family, two same sex twins raised in a homogenous culture could make different brand choices based on their psychographics.
Psychographic filters have enabled successful multinational brands to win the hearts and franchise of a very dispersed audience scattered worldwide.
I believe culture would be an important filter for all brands, but would still be subservient to psychographics

posted November 23, 2007

I say yes definitely. Corporations have learnt that brands need to be tailored or adapted and speak the “language” that different target groups can understand. World and markets were segmented into cultural groups. That was degree zero. Today’s consumers are increasingly empowered to deliberately define the culture to which they belong, as part of groups, tribes, or communities not only geographic or ethnic, but also around values and behaviors, and these groups can morph in time. Brands need to develop cultural “agility”. One interesting example is the project of L’Oréal to create brands that will evolve with the age group it was created for. In this agility context, definition of core values and brand alignment will become more and more crucial. Otherwise the tribes can decide to leave you on the side of the road...

posted November 24, 2007

I guess unconscious decision making was always around and is not a novel concept anymore. For example the words you have used in your question have sprung up from your unconscious mind. Similary, a brand does not exist in the brains of the individual who are deemed fashionable. They exist in the collective brains of the society and influence other dependent cultures without any logical interpretation. (Much like how when ants reach a critical mass, they start working on sand holes and are integrated in their awareness of what individual purpose means).

Brands are a subset of culture but do not depend on culture. Brands are the like the moving clouds in the sky, the sky itself will always remain blue.

posted November 27, 2007

I think brands can create culture.

I think culture can create the need for a specific brand at a specific time.


Consumer behavior is a complex and tricky thing to nail down.

As people who create, we must be aware that you can't force culture - the Sony PSP fakeblogs are perfect examples of an artificial attempt to pre-empt the usual viral route of the internet. .

In short, if you brand it properly, the culture will come. Or, if you can keep an ear to the ground, you may find yourself in the right cultural moment at the right time.

Links:

• http://www.brandxculture.com/blog/

posted November 27, 2007

I don't think brands and culture are increasingly co-dependent. I think they have always been co-dependent.

Major demographic shifts that we abstract and track as generational shifts are hitting important age cohorts. "By 2010, [millennials/Generation Y] will outnumber both baby boomers and Gen-X'ers among those 18 to 49 -- the crucial consumers for all kinds of businesses, from automakers and clothing companies to Hollywood, record labels and the news media." (“A Generation Serves Its Notice: It’s a Moving Target,” _New York Times_, 1/22/2006)

With other generations, brand loyalty could be taken for granted. Brand consistency made sense. But you're right--without that automatic brand loyalty the brand will have to communicate meaning and purpose.

What will brands have to communicate? I've linked to a book's promotional site (and third party review) that compares this generational shift to the Renaissance (a little extreme--but useful comparison):

Links:

• http://www.therengen.com/
• http://www.cooltownstudios.com/mt/archives/001172.html

posted November 27, 2007

Hi Claudia,

I think that the question that you have asked is probably the most vexing for a brand manager. Lets take the example of India (where I currently live and work). India, over the last few years have been experiencing a huge surge in the health, fitness and lifestyle culture.

Due to this, more and more brands operating in the above three domains have become relevant to the Indian consumers (when previously they were considered the priviledge of the elite few). Fitness equipment manufacturers like Reebok, Adidas, Nike now consider India as the market that has the greatest future potential.

Lets look at some other categories. Upper end apparel & lifestyle manufacturers like Marks & Spencer, Debenhams, Giorgio Armani have set up shop in India. Mercedez Benz had set a target of only 20 cars for their elite INR 1 crore vehicle (custom fitted). They exceeded the target in the first 3 months of launch. A small town called Ludhiana in the Northern Indian state of Punjab has the highest numbers of Mercs in the country. The average dollar value of personal accounts is the highest in a state like Kerala, which sees huge inflow of funds from NRIs.

All these do point to the fact that brands and cultures are co-dependent. But it also brings another point of view in the picture, which is that some brands become relevant / necessities with the progression of culture. As culture evolves and people get more used to the finer things of life, luxury brands become more relevant. When culture evolves and people become health conscious, fitness brands become more relevant. As culture evolves and dining out becomes a part of the lifestyle, then restaurant brands and chains become more relevant.

As you had asked in your question, whether a brand stuck at one place should move ahead with the culture, I think what is important in that situation, how well can you extend your brand. Some good examples come from the FMCG industry in India. Nestle has been launching food brands aimed at the health conscious population in the country. Most of them are extensions of already existing powerful mother brands.

Also, unconscious decision making, which is any marketer's bane, starts changing as your lifestyle changes. When you are aspiring to have a lifestyle which is more premium than your existing state of affairs, your decision making in a supermarket shelf, will vie towards chosing a Garnier Fructis shampoo rather than a traditional shampoo offered by Unilever. You will probably look for a plasma TV first and throw the conventional flat screen color TV out of our preference basket altogether. But again in the Indian context, these changes are miniscule in nature, because the volume still lies in rural and semi-urban markets. But if recent reports and trends are anything to go by, then these people are also waking up to the fact that there is a world which exists where your Hugo Bosses, Armanis and Max Factors rule.

It was great to comment on this question. Hope to connect with you in the future also and share thoughts and opinions.

Best Regards
Sandeep

posted November 30, 2007