Mike Arauz is a strategist at Branding for a Recombinant Culture
We live in a world where we expect things to be taken apart and put back together in new way. We expect things to be remixed. You can learn all about the history of Recombinant Culture in this video of/from Faris Yakob.
How should Recombinant Culture affect the way that brands are imagined, constructed, and brought to life?
This was the big question posed to me by Ben Alter, a grad student at VCU Brandcenter. It's a lot to think about, so I'll only attempt to kick off a discussion, and look to Bud Caddell and Faris Yakob to pick it up and add their two, four, eight cents.
Traditionally a brand is created by and defined by an authoritative organization. This organization creates a name, a graphic icon, perhaps a mission, a core message, and certain qualities. It is created by the owners/producers of the products or services and then disseminated to the audience.
The biggest implication of Recombinant Culture is the destruction of this monolithic approach to branding.
1. A brand must be inspired by the culture of the audience you hope to reach.
2. The brand is not owned by the owners of the products and services it represents. And it is not defined by the words in the company's brand strategy Power Point presentation. Brands are owned by the people who support them, and they are defined by each person's perception of the brand's place in the culture, e.g. Brand Tags.
3. The things that represent the brand (name, logo, messaging, etc.) will be co-opted by the culture and used to represent what the people of the culture want them to represent (not necessarily what the company intended). The elements of the brand will be taken apart and put back together in ways that the organization never imagined.
The challenge for organizations now create experiences that have cultural resonance, and design your communications to be easily taken apart and reconstructed. Encourage your audience to discover their own meaning in their own way.
Well, that's a start. How should this post be taken apart? Where to next?
How should Recombinant Culture affect the way that brands are imagined, constructed, and brought to life?
This was the big question posed to me by Ben Alter, a grad student at VCU Brandcenter. It's a lot to think about, so I'll only attempt to kick off a discussion, and look to Bud Caddell and Faris Yakob to pick it up and add their two, four, eight cents.
Traditionally a brand is created by and defined by an authoritative organization. This organization creates a name, a graphic icon, perhaps a mission, a core message, and certain qualities. It is created by the owners/producers of the products or services and then disseminated to the audience.
The biggest implication of Recombinant Culture is the destruction of this monolithic approach to branding.
1. A brand must be inspired by the culture of the audience you hope to reach.
2. The brand is not owned by the owners of the products and services it represents. And it is not defined by the words in the company's brand strategy Power Point presentation. Brands are owned by the people who support them, and they are defined by each person's perception of the brand's place in the culture, e.g. Brand Tags.
3. The things that represent the brand (name, logo, messaging, etc.) will be co-opted by the culture and used to represent what the people of the culture want them to represent (not necessarily what the company intended). The elements of the brand will be taken apart and put back together in ways that the organization never imagined.
The challenge for organizations now create experiences that have cultural resonance, and design your communications to be easily taken apart and reconstructed. Encourage your audience to discover their own meaning in their own way.
Well, that's a start. How should this post be taken apart? Where to next?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
|
2 Comments:
Let me first say thanks Mike for trying to undertake this topic. When I originally proposed it I didn't quite know what I would be getting into. With that said I've done a lot of thinking and here's my bit.
I've been unsuccessfully trying to grab this idea of recombinant culture by the horns, hopelessly trying to figure out a way to "capitalist pig it up" by looking for avenues that brands, companies, and ad agencies could benefit from. But the more I think about it the more I realize that maybe this remix culture isn't meant to be tampered with. Here's my thinking...
Did Soulja Boy send out an RFP to America asking for people to participate in the remixing of his music video? Did President Obama ask the nation to remix his speeches or his face for that matter? The answer to both of these questions is no. The beauty of the remix culture is that it's completely organic, something many brands have a problem with. In it's most simple form remixing is an individual taking action, taking time to participate in a digital dialogue for self interest because he/she saw added value in making it different.
What would happen if a brand, lets say for now a packaged good company, asked people to take their product and "do something cool with it." Not only would responses exponentially decrease, but I would argue that the spreadability or likelihood of propagation would be a fraction of the success that Numa Numa guy. I'm certain there are numerous reasons why this is the case, and I'll try and take a stab at a few of them.
1) Brands need to understand why people share:
This goes into other elements of attention economies and the behaviors behind digital identities, but for the most part people share for the procurement of belonging. To feel apart of a group and to establish some sort of fame within their given community.
2) Brands need to have a strong POV:
Rather than surface level body copy of product benefits with a few droplets of emotional pull brands need to exhibit a deeper understanding of what makes people participate. This means giving consumers the tools, applications, and freedom to tinker.
3) Brands need to create content that doesn't smell like marketing. Stop trying to sell me something and start showing your opinion.
4) Brands need to make their content easily available.
Open sourcing is the key to making this happen. Many brands are afraid to loose control because of this, but I assure you consumers will find more value in brands when they are given the opportunity to see the good, the bad, and the ugly.
And lastly if a brand wants the remix culture to pick it up agencies and companies are going to need to learn to stop pushing the product and start pushing ideas.
Do you guys know the song "Nobody Beats The Biz" by Biz Markie? Way back in the eighties, he wrote a rap song based on a then-ubiquitous slogan. It wasn't exactly an unsolicited endorsement like Run-DMC's "My Adidas", and it wasn't a parody. It was just a way for Biz to connect with his audience of New Yorkers using an instantly familiar reference in a new context. I devote big swaths of my free time to remixing and mashing stuff up, and most of the music I like is based around the violation of copyright law. For me, some of the pleasure comes from reclaiming psychic space that advertising has forcibly taken from me. If brands are going to be demanding my finite attentional resources, I feel it's just for me to assert some ownership over them. It takes a courageous brand indeed to be okay with people like me and Biz asserting our ownership, because what we have to say is not necessarily going to be complimentary. On balance, though, I think that courage is going to become a necessity. I think about how Adobe tries to keep people from using "photoshop" as a verb, and how it just makes them look like a bunch of douchebags, and how it encourages people to just steal the program. By contrast, I'm happy to buy Lil Wayne or Kanye West tracks that I could just as easily download for free, because they're so generous with their work that I want to give something back to them.
Post a Comment
<< Home