#professorgosline

Reflecting on what we have covered in the Branding class so far, I learned a lot about the external aspects of branding - the visuals (logos, printed ads) and voices (tones, taglines). And now I am starting to see the importance of the internal aspect – the core values that guide everything a brand does and its relationship with customers. Core brand values are the compass that points to the true North of business success. As Doug Levy and Bob Garfield argued in their Advertising Age article “Ignore the Human Element of Marketing at Your Own Peril,” core values can’t be faked.  

I want to discuss a brand that I love and does well in identifying and communicating their core values. It is Fabletics. In 2013, Fabletics was founded by Kate Hudson, an iconic actress, a fashion tastemaker and a mother of two. Fabletics provides stylish and high-quality activewear at an accessible price point.

What is at the core of Fabletics is their mission: inspire you to stay active and live your passion (see picture below). The brand’s core customer group is moms in their 30s and 40s. How did Fabletics manage to attract this group of women, who may not feel confident in their body figure? The secret to that traction, Hudson noted, is that Fabletics puts less fitness pressure on its shoppers - and that resonates with consumers who aren’t looking to be stressed out by their wardrobe.

“Sometimes, for an average woman or an everyday woman, or a soccer mom, or someone who doesn’t necessarily know how to get into the healthy lifestyle, it can be a little bit intimidating. So, I kind of wanted to create something that was more about a lifestyle than an actual fitness brand. And it seemed to really resonate. I personally think that there wasn’t a company or brand that was taking the healthy lifestyle with a ‘more fun’ approach, that was more about like doing the best you can,” she said.

While this week’s reading was expressly regarding pitching thyself - contextually, in the professional sense - one of the important, if understated, applications of this idea is modulating across different settings.

As a proud member of the LGBTQ community, I spent the lion’s share of my life trying to find the perfect way to “pitch myself” to a primarily heterosexual audience. In effect, I was covering, as I knew that my social standing and rather instantaneous (150 milliseconds, according this week’s article) would in no small way be determined by my ability to “pass” as heterosexual - especially in red state Texas. Better yet, I collaborated with other catchers to co-create my own personal brand; I’m not sure I fit into any of the three positive stereotypes, as I lacked the heterosexual cultural capital to speak vernacular or navigate authentic flirting. Nevertheless, much of my “pitching” lacked authenticity, and perhaps it was for this reason that fitting in was such a significant challenge in middle and high school.

I’m also reminded of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ “The World And Me”. Coates speaks at great length about the kind of “code-switching” and self-modulation that he must “perform” between his school environment, where teachers expect him to be polished, polite, scholarly, and the streets, where courtesy and good behavior were perceived to expose weakness and leave oneself vulnerable to assault, or worse. 

Burberry’s approach to fashion and branding is conservative - it appears to focus on the traditional and classic, with side product lines slowly evolving alongside. Firstly, Burberry’s brand consistency is also a reflection of its British lineage, back in the day when it clothed national heroes and celebrities, the Ernest Shackleton’s and Humphrey Bogarts. Burberry trademarked its signature plaid in 1920, and it was added as a lining to its trench coats, giving instant brand recognition but also emphasized understated opulence. Its focus on its history and heritage no doubt, appeals to its absolute segment of customers, the ones with the purchasing power to own unique pieces that emphasised their elitism, and who could afford to support the brand even in times of economic downturns - this is their steady consumer base, and they shun “masstige”.

Burberry through the years can be summarized as - Plaid and the Trench Coat.

However, because Burberry’s designs did not change much over time, and it relied so heavily on an iconic pattern or design, this have counterfeiters time to produce good imitations of its products - which its aspirational customers can now afford. Enter the Chavs - aspirational Burberry consumers who represent the changing face of England, but who are also associated with a less-than-glamorous part of Britain. If Chavs are now donning Burberry en masse, it demotes a once exclusive brand to “masstige”, and Burberry now risks alienating its absolute segment. Who wears a luxury brand matters - because that image becomes an iconic and enduring representation of the brand for the era. If the Beckhams wear Burberry, it is still glamor; if chavs wear Burberry, the brand mystique and inaccessibility that made it desirable is gone.

Burberry became the go-to brand of chavs - who loved the brand and its look - but ironically cheapened its brand image.

ChatGPT tells me that the brand that is least likely to be harmed by counterfeits is Hermes - because it is known for its craftsmanship and uniqueness, retains exclusivity and controlled distribution, has strong brand loyalty and customer trust, and adopts proactive legal measures against counterfeiters to protect its IP. Burberry has done all of that, but what the LLM fails to account for is that brand image is also about who the brand is associated with. This is why Celine enjoyed a revival after appointing Lisa from BlackPink as its ambassador - and why LVMH is courting the global popstar now; this is why Zendaya models for LV and Yang Yang for Valentino - these celebrities are the epitome of the customer they want to go for in each regional market. This is where Burberry has failed to evolve fast enough, and only reacted to later.

Who Wears the Brand, Makes the Brand.

So how can consumers help defend brands? Aspirational customers can start with brand advocacy, by helping to sell the brand, and even if they can’t afford it yet, by sharing that desirable ad of BlackPink’s Jennie wearing Chanel. When they eventually get to the earning level that allows them to purchase the brand (i.e. they become who the brand wants to wear them), they will likely choose only the real product, because years of loyal following has instilled a strong desire for the authentic product, which will also be part of their customer experience.

Where Burberry has reinvented itself after its "chav attack" is also a lesson in Branding. Christopher Bailey ditched the infamous check print much loved by the chavs, and appointed new faces of "English chic" like Eddie Redmayne and Cara Delevingne, to reintroduce the posh and elegant touch to their brand. It is also this understated posh and "class-less" new look that was embraced by the upper class, and also made the brand more difficult to imitate. Today, its plaid is referenced only on occasion, and it is usually done in tongue-in-cheek or rebellious fashion.

Humans may think that because AI is pre-programmed to reduce errors, it is accurate and neutral. To counteract these biases we hold about AI and ensure more responsible use of AI, “good friction” can help - this involves introducing strategic obstacles in AI systems that encourage ethical practices, such as greater transparency and human oversight.

I've been a police officer with the Singapore Police Force for more than a decade, and human decision-making has always been an important part of the operational decision-making process, even if we augment our decisions with data. This is partly because data can also be unintentionally biased. For instance, operational data predicting crime rates often face the issue of being self-fulfilling prophecies, as sending officers to patrol an area more often leads to a greater likelihood of detecting crime and having that area listed as a hotspot for more policing. Data fed to AI systems may also not capture everything - data can only capture the measurable and quantifiable aspects of our world, but there are intangible aspects of the world that is difficult to capture in a structured format, e.g. data may not capture the poor security measures in a store that an officer observed last shift and had to advise the store owner on, leading them to question whether that area may become more susceptible to opportunistic crimes like theft.

One of the ways to strategically use friction to achieve more responsible AI systems is, as Gosline mentions, to practice acts of inconvenience for areas where we question: “Should AI be doing this?”. As such, you do not see officers relying on hotspot crime data alone to plan their patrol routes. Here, the friction added is more time required for decision-making for officers for patrol route planning before their shift, but this is a “good friction” that the officer can afford, and it allows the officer to think through their various recent experiences, recent events and data that they are provided on crime in their area. The sum of their human experience, informed by crime data provided by the system undoubtedly provides a better informed decision. Within an organization, it is important to conduct “friction audits” to identify the areas where introducing friction could encourage human-first thinking that benefits the customer and community.

As much as I love Tom Cruise, Minority Report is not happening anytime soon (left). Instead, the best "data" officers can gather about the ground is really just from good old fashioned community policing, and getting to know their neighborhood (right).

Another way we can try to introduce “good friction” is to be on the lookout for “dark patterns”. In my time with the Singapore Police, we’ve identified several lobster traps when it comes to scams. Very often, victims of scams will give away their bank account details, and money gets transferred out of their bank accounts very quickly - but it becomes extremely difficult to get the money back once that transfer is made. In an effort to combat such dark patterns, good friction was introduced in the banking systems, where monetary limits are set on both local and overseas bank transfers, and delays are introduced if a new payee is added to a bank account. There are also frictions that you can impose when your rational System 2 brain is in charge, such a "money lock" feature to secure your money for a set period of time - to prevent any losses when your System 1 brain succumbs to any scams or dark patterns. Such frictions undoubtedly make it more inconvenient for the customer, but they have been accepted so far, as they have been useful in reducing the amount lost to scams and the incidences of scams in Singapore.

It is interesting to me that the customer journey map is perceived linearly rather than as a cycle. I understand the idea that intent needs to be put into getting a customer to purchase the product, but why not consider in your designed customer experience the directing of them back to your product for the next journey? I believe this is something that Apple has done very well.

Imagine you are an Apple user. When you consider starting your next product journey for a smartphone, my guess would be that you do not consider any other products than an iPhone. But why is that? From my point of view, Apple has constructed your customer journey in such a way that you have no other alternatives. If you have any other Apple devices, such as a MacBook, AirPods, or Apple Watch, then choosing any other product for this customer journey would result in losing substantial product synergy that Apple has inherently designed into their products.

Heineken and Corona are both importers of Beer to the US in large quantities. Heineken was present in the US much earlier than Corona and held a considerable market share at the time in which Corona entered the import market. Heineken had dominance for such a considerable period of time, holding the top role in imports since the repealing of the prohibition. Heineken's biggest vulnerability is their content attitude though multiple decades of market dominance. Heineken was good at advertising their high quality, refined European product, but had no true response to the new entrant Corona, which took a more personal and emotional product strategy.

Corona grew via grass roots movements, where representatives were on the ground pushing the beer at bars and restaurants across the US. This builds trust and confidence in the consumers who are actually meeting with the company representatives, showing that the company representatives care about the product so passionately that they traveled all the way from Mexico.

Heineken's brand stands for quality. It is a refined import with decades of high quality brewing experience. "Just being the best is enough" is what Heineken pushed as their brand. Corona took a considerably different angle. With no face existing in their advertisement, Corona appealed to the consumer to give them a taste of pleasant times in Mexico, which is reinforced via the visual of faceless individuals enjoying beer on the beach in such a way that the consumer could easily imagine they were those individuals.