Faking it
Does a brand need to be authentic to be effective?
Sunday, 1 July, 2001
It’s hard to know what they might have been drinking in the DB marketing department the day thecompany closed production at Monteith’s West Coast home. Public reaction, in case you were outof the universe that week, was so strong the company reversed its decision and revived, albeit inpart, the original Monteith’s West Coast brewery. The episode reminded me of when Coke, afterlaunching the failed New Coke, was humbled into reverting to the good ol’ faithful recipe. Goodbrands ultimately belong to the customers. And good marketing departments, like the one at DB,are humble enough to acknowledge that.
It also got me thinking about the origins of brands. They grew out of the branding of goods, suchas cattle, to indicate their point of origin. Brands were a sign of authenticity, to help customersdistinguish between fakes and the real thing. That has changed. “Brands nowadays are not usedto help consumers choose, but to help sellers sell,” says Alan Mitchell, a respected UK marketingwriter. Take Nike, an American brand that was meant to stand for helping sports people. Rightnow Nike probably means (rightly or wrongly) “made in China by uneducated villagers” or “thebrand people wear to think they are sporty”. The brand is disconnected from its origin. It’s a fake.
In a climate of such bullshit, authenticity is hot stuff. So hot, argues author David Lewis, it hascreated a new, powerful consumer group. The “New Consumers”, Lewis says, are an amorphouslot, “as likely to be affluent over-50s as ambitious under-30s”. They are linked by oneoverwhelming imperative: their “drive for all things ‘real’, in everything from fashion to furniture,technology and spirituality. Their attention has shifted from commodity to authenticity.”
There’s plenty of evidence for Lewis’s idea. Take beer again. US beer Rolling Rock threw a wildlysuccessful rock concert that took consumers back to its “authentic” Pennsylvanian roots. Thisbrand joins Absolut, Jack Daniel’s, Speights and Monteiths in seeking genuineness through linksto its place of origin.
Lewis’s emphasis on authenticity is backed by one of the most successful brand builders of the1990s: Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks. “The companies that are lasting are those that areauthentic. If people believe they share values with a company, they will stay loyal to its brand,” heis quoted as saying. Schulz’s inspiration came from a visit to Milan in 1984 — a city boasting 1500espresso bars. At the time, the US coffee market was dominated by General Foods, P&G andNescafé, all fighting for shares of similar products. Schultz threw open the coffee market bypromoting the language and passion of the Milano specialists. By 1991 he had 100 coffee houses,with $US57 million in turnover. A decade later, the company has more than 3500 locationsworldwide, and last year’s revenues were $US2.2 billion.
Authenticity works. Authoritatively. Absolutely.
But hang on. Starbucks, Absolut, Jack Daniel’s, Monteiths — what makes these brands moreauthentic than, say, Nike? Often brands start off being seen as authentic because they arestrongly connected with their founder. But over time, that can drift. Other brands’ true originsbecome mythologised simply through advertising. Take Jack Daniel’s. To the real bourbon drinkerit is now just a run-o’-the-mill commercial bourbon, not the real stuff. Authenticity? Give me abreak, I hear you say.
Easy there, tiger. For a start, there’s authentic and then there’s authentic. In the early 90s, which
Leave a Comment