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

The Irrational Power of Nudge Brands

Nudge brands are brands built on interactions, not attitudes. They are mostly defined by experiences, not TV campaigns. They are designed around people's inconsistencies and errors, not for machines. They are simple, not complex. They like to break things into small chunks that are less daunting than big tasks. They focus on changing behavior, not generating awareness and interest. The Paris metro system card is a nudge brand. It is designed against human errors. You can use the card in any direction. IKEA is a nudge brand. It uses the power of personal investment. The more involved people are in creating something, the better they feel about the end product. Ryanair is a nudge brand. It chunks the whole purchase process. They lock you in with a low 'seat price' first to get a mental commitment. Then, they start to add the extra charges in bite-sized 'chunks.' Hare Krishna is a nudge brand. It is built on the reciprocity rule by giving away daisies. People should …

The Curse of Advertising Resources

With more platforms, more products and more content who are trying to reach a disengaged audience, it is becoming harder and harder for brands to stand out. Conventional practices are no longer working. People don't watch TV as much as they used to, so they don't see commercials.  They don't click on banner ads. They don't pay attention to billboards ads. And they don't trust brands' messages. Part of the problem is that we are too dependent on traditional ad resources, which limits the realm of our creativity. To thrive in this new environment, we, ironically, need the freedom of a tight brief: what can you do with no budget for mass media?  Or limited marketing communications dollars?  To make a comparison, traditional advertising is a lot like countries and economies that rely on oil. This reliance handicaps innovation. Countries with a vast amount of natural resources tend to have (1) less economic growth and (2) worse development rates than other countrie…

The Engineering of Digital Consent

Today, we build brands through social interactions. People opinions online shape our decisions on what brands should we buy or endorse. 90% of customers said that online reviews influence their buying decisions. Our challenge is that consumers don't pay attention and trust the message coming from brands. So, how do we affect the opinion of others in this environment? In marketing, we spend a lot of time and money creating advertising with the hope that it goes viral. However, most of the campaigns have little influence in today's consumers. Many campaigns have even the oppositive effect, with consumers sharing negative opinions or blocking advertising altogether. Changing behavior is hard. I don't think we have a silver bullet to influence people online, but we can learn best practices from behavioral science to increase our chances. Getting a little better in predicting behavior can make a big difference. Here are four behavioral principles that we should consider when c…