The Rise of Brand Empathy in a Polarised World

  

 Yesterday’s boxes can’t hold the future. Those railing for a return to conspicuous consumption, endless motoring, the roll-out of urban sprawl and the long-term security of home ownership in bucolic suburbia may have missed a few pointers.

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

Changes in Dispositional Empathy in American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis. Michigan U

Do Hunter-Gatherers Notice Advertising?

Optimists are predicting a V-shaped economic recovery after the Covid-19 crisis. This is unlikely. Henceforth many people will hesitate before visiting shopping malls, will think twice about eating in restaurants and forego airline flights where possible. Not all economic sectors will be equally constrained but on average the V-shaped recovery will not happen.

Compounding the improbability of a V-shaped recovery is the fact that at an aggregate level we are all poorer now. Many people have lost incomes, many more have increased debt levels, and still more are dealing with business closures.

Despite the optimist’s claims, trends show that the loss of affluence in SA is not new. This trend, even while “lumpy” at times, has been underway for a couple of decades. Research shows that white-collar wages have declined in real terms over the past 10 years* while middle class growth has stagnated**. Personal debt levels have inched inexorably higher, the residential property market has stagnated and the precariat (those living precariously from day to day) has mushroomed with our perverse cheerleading for the new entrepreneurial class, the wastepreneurs. 

Image from New York Times

In this environment of diminishing discretionary choice is it wrong to suggest that we are the emergent nouveau hunter-gatherers? Are we not the 99 percenters with an ever-narrowing economic horizon? Whether we are able to plan one day ahead or one month ahead we face similar limitations on what we buy.

Choice is a luxury that poverty does not tolerate. In the branded arena it means avoiding experimentation and the disappointment of underperformance. We use price points as proof of diligence while acknowledging silently that our money might just get us to month end when the cycle starts again, but not always. This is the modern interpretation of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle which is true for nine tenths of our time on earth as bipeds. But with a little advertising thrown in.

Our recent branded past was significantly different. The 1970’s and 1980’s witnessed the emergence of truly inspired creative advertising and with the birth of the Cannes Lions Awards, the advertisement became the celebrated objet d’art. If ads were liked the brand was bought. A simple straight-line correlation was in play with massive investment underpinning the creation of brilliant brand vignettes used in media channels you could count on one hand. 

The industry rewarded creativity almost to the exclusion of any other measurable marketing gain while globalisation peaked and cheaply made goods flooded the freshly built western suburbia.

Delayed-cost economics was embraced with fervour and dictated advertising best practice where the words of the late actress Carri Fischer ring abundantly true: “Instant gratification takes too long.”

This is changing very quickly now. Covid-19 brings new marketing challenges into stark relief. The time-tested mantra instructing brands to maintain a share of voice during the crisis is questioned. What about brand presence? Does the fact that your brand is in the store staring back at you with commensurate devotion not count for anything during this crisis? Professor Byron Sharpe at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science has made it clear that brand presence is critical - “showing up” as he calls it. Similarly, what is the role of clutter-busting creative adverts at a time most people just want to get to the end of the month in one piece with some joy in assured regular brand performance?

The answers are not clear. Advertisers have used and dismissed many insights on why people buy and how they relate to brands. The importance of factors such as humour, relevant news, and liking have all proven to be essential in advertising at one time or another. Most of these, however, were underscored by a period of excess, of overconsumption and the cult of consumerism.

Covid-19 might bring us closer to our genetically imprinted forager roots. Marketing goals have morphed into the pursuit of engagement rather than exchange, story rather than instruction, empathy rather than aspiration. The brand, as an abstraction, is now a conversation and wider brand investment extends to CSI, CRM, CTA, SEO, B2C, and so on.

The search continues for the advertising holy grail – the thing that works best. In this time of declining affluence and risk aversion the actual moment of purchase, the instant of selection, still offers scope for marketing encroachment. At the point you choose one brand, the seduction by another is most likely. It’s an instant when, as the hunter-gatherer, you might pause and switch to another fruit. “In the moment” marketing invades this instant with increasingly powerful technology. It explains why SEO is important, why pop-ups work, why digital connected billboards are appearing and why the measurement of attribution is more important than before.

At this time, albeit of crisis, marketers have a wider range of tools and new frontiers to explore and develop their craft. It seems unlikely that what worked well 30 years ago will work equally now. While ad creativity was a pre-eminent goal in the past, the frontier has moved to media and tech. These are the creative playgrounds of today as the luxury of surplus and choice escape most consumers.

* Broll Research

** Professor Murray Leibbrandt, Southern Africa Labour & Development Research Unit (Saldru) at UCT.

By Andrew Barnes - andrew@noted.co.za