Skip to main content

Advertising in Times of Inequality

An unequal society is a polarized one at all levels. People tend to have not only very distinctive political and social views, but also distinctive brand preferences. Consumers favor brands that mirror their beliefs and emotional aspirations. As a result, advertising strategy in times of inequality might be to market high and low.

 Though North America has yet to reach the inequality levels of other regions like Latin America, the social gap in the US has widened through the years. Inequality among working-age people has risen steadily since 1980, in total by 25%. This increase in inequality has a created a situation of class warfare. We have seen this through demonstrations from the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the political paralysis of our congress.

This class warfare goes beyond the social and political arena. This war also has affected consumers’ brand preferences. Brands are an extension of consumer personas. Brands need to connect with their audience at the emotional level to influence behavior. For instance, in societies with high levels of inequality such as Latin America, brands tend to market high or low, not so much in the middle.

The first reason is economic; the middle class is just too small in terms of market size. The second reason is sociological. This middle class tends to consume high and low. On one hand, they want to be associated with high-end brands to gain perceived social mobility. On the other hand, they consume low-end brands in non-aspirational categories to save money. In simple terms, a middle class person will go for Rolex rather than Seiko even though they might have to incur significant levels of debt. However, the same person will go to a discount store to save on groceries.

The US is not Latin America. There are significant cultural and economical differences. Still, the increase in inequality levels has affected consumer brand preferences in the US. Low and high brands are growing while middle brands are declining. Value brand such as Wal-Mart, Hyundai and McDonalds are doing well. Luxury brands such as Tiffany, Rolex, and Mercedes Benz have also posted strong gains. However, middle brands such as GAP, Sears, and T.G.I. Friday are struggling.

I understand that there are many factors that affect the performance of a brand. However, my point is that social inequality tends to translate to brand inequality. Advertising in times of inequality may suggest marketing high and low, and not so much in the middle.

Comments

  1. Your poster picture "We are 99%" is not an example of Social Inequity. It is an example of two items we found observing this. First the socialist/communist political movement and in particular radicalism designed at disruption and crisis creation is the nut in this activity. Second many involved have IPhone like possessions and well off families and are lost in false promises of their educations. They are looking for someone to provide for them. Now that is something interesting to translate into branding and marketing. The concept I do not want to work for it, I do not like others who have achieved it and gimme it now without effort. Central to all this inequity is the relationship of growing central government and controlled markets. That item is the real new branding and marketing challenge. Products, services and behavior in government controlled markets.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Aim for Love, Not Likes

Love is an unconditional emotion while like is a more watered-down version of love. Loving someone means that he or she means everything to you while liking someone implies that you are only happy being with that person. Love involves deeper, stronger emotions, while like is more of a tender feeling towards that special someone. In a world of infinite choices, love is everything. Like is a nice to have.  Today, we live in a world of abundance, where people intent to create content surpass their time to consume it. Video content is much easier and cheaper to produce than at any other time in history. YouTube sees 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. Facebook has more than 250,000 status updates in the same span. We could never read and see everything online.  With unlimited possibilities and limited time, we pay sustainable attention to what we love and divided attention to what we like. We spend hours watching Homeland and give our divided attention to our news feed on Facebook. …

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there. The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices. The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital? Here we have the Debate between TV and digital: Media Consumption TV: People are watching TV now more than ever.  Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices. The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours …

Winter and Summer in Adland

It is winter in Adland.  We have moved from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and algorithms.  We have lost the power of influence. Trust has been severely damaged.  Consumer attention is the new bottleneck. We no longer decide who sees us. Instead, we get picked.  30 second is not enough anymore. We need to take consumers through a scenic journey to create a long lasting relationship.  Everyone is a publisher. It is easier than ever to create, but harder than ever to make a hit.  The impulse to make has far outrun the desire to consume.  New forces have emerged in the form of sophisticated algorithms.  A new model has surfaced called "pay per play,” which scored everything we do on relevance to feeding the machine. It decides what gets picked, when, and where, based on extreme relevancy.  Mass media has vanished. Precision and personalization have emerged.  It is winter in Adland. The good days are all long gone.  It is Summer in Adland We now have the power to make bra…