ITL #228 From disruption to disorientation: a new approach to brand management1 year, 7 months ago
Amid fast-paced change and growing incivility, brands are finding near-future thinking more realistic than long-term mapping. By Ian Rumsby.
In the past six months, perhaps a little longer, the prevalent debate in our industry has shifted from one that was focused on disruption to something that is now predominantly about disorientation. There’s an important difference.
The disruption debate harnessed itself to the changing relationship between human ingenuity, machine learning and artificial intelligence. It remains grounded on the perceived impact of technology, on the creation and demise of specific industry sectors, and the consequences of ‘brand weightlessness’ – a marketplace in which those
Disorientation focuses on the end user. From their growing distrust of
For brands, many of which already express an increased sense of disconnection from their own future, understanding the factors that sit outside their traditional frame of reference is an imperative. That means anticipating a changed relationship with employees, realigning complex ideas with straightforward storytelling, and reframing what it means to be attentive.
Embrace adjacent curiosity
The disruptive nature of technology is a good starting point. The pace of change in markets means that near-future thinking has become far more realistic than long-term mapping. Brand innovation is simply no longer viable if we look too far ahead.
The automotive industry is a case in point. The prospect of the automation of mobility only came into the mainstream public consciousness three years ago when the major brands began to roll out their various driverless-car projects. Today vehicle automation is an accepted future-norm. Most 2010 industry projections have been quietly assigned to the dustbin.
Elsewhere, access to information about our genetic make-up is allowing those who can afford it to make decisions about the management and enhancement of our future health and well-being. But just as some societies are bedazzled by the principles of immortality, others have yet to arrest heightened mortality rates. Technology, for all its promise, may well be fast-tracking greater health inequality.
Of course, we don’t yet know the answers to these and many other possibilities. Things may go in a very different direction. But all the more reason why brands need to adopt a new and enhanced form of adjacent curiosity. Knowing what the competition is up to is no longer good enough.
A place for civility
Consumer disorientation, rather than market disruption, is equally real. In the US, the relentless hostility of the Trump Administration towards media,
But, that’s exactly what the Administration seems to want. The unsettling prevalence of fake news and alternative truths may be driving the media discussion, but in many
It’s of little surprise then to see a litany of reports over the past year each lamenting the cost to society of diminished confidence and the erosion of trust in governments and institutions. Perhaps what’s not been so openly debated is how brands respond to those shifts, particularly in the workforce.
In our own recently released annual poll*, Civility in America VII: The State of Civility, we found that with uncivil
Specifically, the survey found 86% of employees say their current place of employment is civil and nearly two-thirds (63%) agree that people are more civil at work than outside of work. Nearly three-quarters of those employed with co-workers (73%) say the people they work with are always or usually civil to other people.
We’re operating at a time in which disorientation and incivility now
So, whilst the most creative companies often attribute their success to the clustering of diverse opinion and experience, that approach must always be built on the internal promise that contradiction does not drive animosity. Progressive brands put as much energy into activating positive employee contribution as they do driving consumer engagement.
In her recently published book, No Is Not Enough, Naomi Klein puts forward a strong argument that the complexity and ferocity of the Trump Administration’s daily communiqués is a rehash of the Presidential election itself – two things in which simplicity and velocity proved to be more important than content and substance.
The same can be said about the UK’s own recent election, in which Prime Minister May gambled on extending her majority, but failed. Message ambiguity played a big part in the outcome and the result was a ferocious backlash against what appeared to be the over-intellectualisation of problem-solving.
There’s a lesson here for brands too. In times of disruption and disorientation, people crave simplicity. That doesn’t mean dumbing things down or playing to the lowest common denominator. But, it does mean
*Civility in America 2017 is the seventh annual nationwide poll conducted by Weber Shandwick and Powell Tate with KRC Research.
Ian Rumsby is Chairman of both Weber Shandwick Australia and Powell Tate Australia. He is also Weber Shandwick’s Chair for Strategy and Marketing Services in Asia Pacific. As a senior advisor to some of the agency’s largest clients, Ian helps teams develop powerful engagement programs grounded in data, insights and strategy. In 2016, he was named PR Week’s Asia Pacific PR Agency Leader of the Year.mail the author
visit the author's website
Forward, Post, Comment | #IpraITLWe are keen for our IPRA Thought Leadership essays to stimulate debate. With that objective in mind, we encourage readers to participate in and facilitate discussion. Please forward essay links to your industry contacts, post them to blogs, websites and social networking sites and above all give us your feedback via forums such as IPRA’s LinkedIn group. A new ITL essay is published on the IPRA website every week. Prospective ITL essay contributors should send a short synopsis to IPRA head of editorial content Rob Gray email
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook