The populist brand

An interesting article by Sathnam Sanghera in Monday’s Times.  Although the main theme is the blandness of much multi-national advertising, Sanghera also makes some important points about the dangers of taking consumer-generated content to its logical conclusion.  Handing over your brand to its consumers may sound like a fine idea in principle, but allowing them to define entirely what the brand stands for, risks, what Sanghera calls,  ‘the blandness of interactivity’.  

Sanghera picks on the latest campaigns by Vodafone and Yahoo as examples of what you could describe as the blank canvas philosophy of branding and brand communication – a view that the role of the brand is merely to provide a platform for consumers to express themselves.

I am all for a participative approach to brand development and planning – a brand’s most passionate supporters should have a stake in the articulation of what the brand stands for – but I share Sanghera’s criticism of brand owners who “have simultaneously decided that it is not up to them to decide what their brand offers consumers but it is up to consumers to decide what they want the brand to be.”   This is abdication, rather than collaboration.  Successful brands have a clearly articulated point of view and values that shape everything that they do.  They do not constantly define themselves according to the prevailing mood of their consumers.

In a sense, the dangers facing brand owners seeking to embrace consumer empowerment are similar to those of a  politician, who is tempted to always gives the electorate what it wants.  This is fine in the short-term, but such a populist approach rarely earns the respect of voters in the longer-term.  In fact, the term ‘populist politician’  is invariably used as short-hand for someone regarded as weak and unprincipled.  The same is true of ’populist brands’ … they may aspire to universal affection, but they are fundamentally weak.