Life’s Signals do not Confirm the Mainstream Story
There is a disconnect between what we are told and what we
know through experience. The disconnect may be strongest only at the fringes of
what we see, but a growing schism in truth remains. Our lived experience is contrasted
with increasingly binary dialogue. There are only two available sides to every
story, every issue, every event. Our beliefs are driven to polarity. You are
either for it or against it. Left or Right. Diversity, gender fluidity,
Critical Race Theory, vaccination, universal basic income, sustainability,
global warming, fats, meat, free education, free trade, quantitative easing,
modern monetary theory, crypto, colonialism, the socialisation of debt, the
meaning of work and even the pursuit of happiness, are all more polarising than
prone to constructive adult debate.
Our Online Experience Drives our Disassociation
Many argue that our online experience and communication is a
factor driving this change. Social media has been criticised for furthering a
loss of empathy, alienation, and even anger. Empathy loss is attributed to a
lack of visual contact, a lack of nuanced exchanges, the aggregation of complex
emotions in simple emojis and the asynchronicity of exchanges on social media.
There is no consequence for “incivility” as Christopher Penn calls it. This is
the “disinhibition” effect of social media described by Dr Suler1 -
dissociative, anonymous, invisible.
The Internet is an Echo-Chamber
Online communications create an echo-chamber of attitudes,
beliefs and feelings. Social media and online algorithms encourage feedback
loops that reinforce who we are through limited exposure to thinking outside
our immediate group of friends and colleagues. It is known as “out-group”
exposure with “in-group” referring to those close to us. Our ability to see and
understand differences in people around us is reduced to binary stereotypes. In
fact, it has been shown2 that persistent exclusive “in-group”
proclivity is not only factionising but also economically constrictive.
In-group exchanges are risk-averse and preclude exposure to outsized pay-off
possibilities. The global growth in populist politics and protectionist
economic policies bears witness to growing in-group myopia. This phenomenon
“divides populations into belligerent groups with rigidly opposed beliefs and
identities that inhibit co-operation and undermine the pursuit of the common
good”2. With the absence of a common good and the polarisation on
issues and politics we witness trust as a casualty.
Our Binary Dialogue Mirrors an Erosion in Trust
Loss of trust has reached an epidemic scale. The global
Edelman Trust Barometer tells us that trust in government, institutions,
business leaders and media is lower than ever, in part exacerbated by the Covid
pandemic. Three years ago, the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer recognized the
‘Battle for Truth’, in which people selected media that reinforced their views.
They now observe a further degradation of the communications infrastructure,
resulting in a lack of quality information to enable the public to make
fact-based decisions. The Edelman 2020 Barometer says: “As a result of this
daily diet of distortions and counter-factual narrative, we no longer believe
our leaders. Fifty-seven percent of respondents say government and business
leaders purposefully try to mislead us.”
“Gated Institutional Narratives” are Unassailable
Professor Freyd goes further in raising the uncomfortable
spectre of Institutional Betrayal. Using Trauma Theory she links the failures
of institutions to deliver as promised, to anxiety and depression3. This
she calls a “betrayal of trust”. (Viz police brutality enforcing covid
lockdowns).
A new phenomenon of Gated Institutional Narratives (GIN) is
emerging. First coined by Eric Weinstein, head of Thiel Capital, the GIN
articulates the outcome of often heavily generalised institutional narratives
as presented by the media and other commentators. Without access to “in-group”
approval we have little ability to counter the GIN even with valid proven
information. Much of the Covid vaccination programme roll-out has been advanced
with this type of uncontestable sector narrative.
How do we Make Sense of Our World?
The world is not like it used to be. A genie has escaped the
bottle and we cannot push it back. More and more, we know this.
Our challenge is sense-making. The institutional narratives,
governmental failure and absence of leadership feed a myriad of issues and
questions we grapple with daily. Staccato social media bursts, asymmetrical
media “information” and the aggressive censoring of any voice outside the gated
narrative exhausts us.
We try to decode the world on a daily basis as we re-think
our role in the productive fabric of society. It is in this world too that each
brand’s narrative is summoned to resonate as aptly as it did a short while
back. Many brands realise this. Many do not.
A New Brand Leadership is Needed
Brands need to add to sense-making by building assurance and
security while acknowledging the uncertainty of our times. Naive positivity
falls short in this environment and is seen for what it is – insincere, even
fatuous. The tone of voice brands need now is rooted in authenticity and
inclusivity. The message essence, wrapped with a little humility.
Advertising has evolved through several phases and styles.
We have seen the use of feature-benefit messages, to solution-based
advertising, and most recently the emergence of the Challenger brand that seeks
to change a mindset. It is in the Challenger typology that the next brand
construct will likely emerge. The idea of challenging a mindset (or any known
opponent) will morph into a stronger need for customer allegiance and
partnership in world where we face uncertain outcomes. Building a brand in the
future will be more about an acceptance of unknowns than a conviction that we
need to change something.
Brand Authenticity in Action
Brand authenticity starts at a foundational level in the
brand narrative or construct. It will manifest in visible communication. A good
example is the Allan Gray campaign claiming that you should “Throw Time at Your
Money”. The profound truth in this message is that all the expertise of money
managers is less powerful than time itself. The essence is humility that speaks
volumes to audience intelligence. Contrast this, as an example, with the
countless other growth promises from financial managers who know, as do we (and
Magnus Heystek), that South Africa is trapped in a low growth environment.
The Brand as a Confidant
The successful brand as a challenger will morph into the
brand as a coach or compatriot or confidant. Empathetic brand leadership will
rise. The promise of brochure style benefits that fit the boxes of the past are
set to ring hollow. Brands embracing adult-style discourse will recognise the
need for flexibility, accessibility, and responsivity in their core narratives.
Promises of a product-feature laden tomorrow will ring less true than
assurances that, even though we face uncertainty, we do so together.
References
1. Psychology
of the Digital Age: Cambridge University Press. Suler. 2016.
2.
Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline: Alexander J.
Stewart, Nolan McCarty, and Joanna J. Bryson.
Published Dec 2020.
3.
Institutional Betrayal: American Psychologist. Smith, C.P. & Freyd, J.J. 2014.
Sources
https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/institutionalbetrayal/
https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer
https://brandgenetics.com/human-thinking/empathy-statistics-for-business/
https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Gated_Institutional_Narrative_(GIN)
https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer/insights/declaring-information-bankruptcy
https://www.christopherspenn.com/2016/09/subduing-incivility-online/
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2021/07/trust-public-institutions/
https://truecenterpublishing.com/psycyber/disinhibit.html
No comments:
Post a Comment