The Dark Side of Brands

A couple of weeks back at that APG talk, I met an interesting chap called David, one of the very few who braved the Tuesday night to come out drinking afterwards. [Note to planners - You need to come out drinking more. That's how you meet the interesting people. Seriously, it was like pulling teeth. I know it was a Tuesday in January but that's no excuse. I may have to start some kind of booze, evening based analogue of the coffee mornings. Booze evenings.]

We had a chat and he told me about his theory of Sad-vertising, which I found very interesting. In an Admap article, and now on his blog, he posits that negative emotions are underutilised in advertising:

Sad-vertising spurns the convention of using upbeat positivity to stimulate trivial, fluffy emotions in the consumer. Rather it embraces a downbeat tone which flies in the face of superficiality, acknowledging that people, emotions and real life are a confusing mess of ups and downs, all blended into one and nonetheless enjoyable, meaningful and powerful for it.

David has already managed to get Eric du Plessis, of The Advertised Mind and Millward Brown, into the conversation - head over to Feel Anything to check it out.

When I spoke to David I mentioned his thinking resonates strongly with some ideas that my mate Adam, from Naked Down Under, has been developing [both Adam and David are trained psychologists - I suspect this is unlikely to be a coincidence].

Adam has been talking about the Dark Side of Brands as the next stage in the evolution of branded communication. To summarise, in the 1980s brands were all yang: superficial, aspirational, glossy and inauthentic: think  Pepsi, think huge logos.  In the 9os brands developed a more authentic voice, reflecting our values not our aspirations: think Dove, Innocent, Body Shop, Big Brother.

Now, brands need to embrace their shadows. Shadows are qualities deemed unacceptable and thus are usually hidden, by brands and by people. But if brands could tap into their shadows, they would allow consumers to express and normalise the negative feelings they all have, and thus build much stronger relationships with them.

To create stronger, robust, believable brands, we must turn to the dark side.

All of which brings me back to something Jon Steel said at the APG talk. Or rather, something he didn't say. He showed an example slide from a pitch document but didn't talk it through, that highlighted the fact that great brands resolve contradictions: Apple makes computers human, Persil makes dirt good, that sort of thing.

And this helps explain further why brands need to express their dark side. The dark side allows them the complexity required to resolve these contradictions. In fact, it is in the resolution of contradicitions that the role of brands may be seen to lie.

Brands function in the realm of myth. Myths are inherently complex and polysemous - this is why I fall down on the complexity side of the brand arguement. And the cultural function of myth, according to Levi Strauss who knew a thing or two about them, is to:

"provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction."

Life is full of contradictions. Brands, like myths, provide a metanarrative that helps people find meaning and thus resolve them.

Which is why we have Dark M&Ms.
 

Comments

[Jonas]

"Life is full of contradictions. Brands, like myths, provide a metanarrative that helps people find meaning and thus resolve them."

I agree with that, it sounds like Holt’s idea, that brands works as a resource for the individual, to bridge a conflict between the ambition of the individual and the ideal of the collective.

[Dino]

Wicked stuff Faris, very helpful.
John posted some ideas about "conflict resolution" as well
http://www.brandtarot.com/blog/?p=524

[Will]

Nice thinking Faris. I agree - if brands can tap into the dialectic inherent within them (though John Grant wouldn't quite term it like this - I believe his term was 'Alice in Wonderland', a la Richard), they become far more interesting.

It's only in light of the idea that this can sometimes become apparent, however - but which should come first/or does it even matter?

Good call on the booze evenings; I'm keen (when I eventually move down). Sorry I didn't get to chat to you on Friday - I would have liked to.

[Dark Planneur]

Brillant...but I'm an advocate of Brand Eccentricity !

[Faris]

Hi guys,

Cheers/ Agree it is in the same area as Holt - I think he's done some great work.

Saw John's post - remarkable coincidence that.

Any more support for booze evenings?

Cheers Will - next time mate.

[Northern Planner]

Dammit, I was there and ghosted into a corner in my usual shy way.
Mr Bonney is a top chap and very clever, I'm liking his Sadvertising blog a lot.

[Faris]

Next time mate!

[Ed]

Dude. Can we match classic story telling technique to the planning process?

Protagonist audience care about = consumer/brand/product/cultural insight (it's all about Empathy)

Catalyst compelling the protagonist to take action = birth of your big idea

Trials and tribulations = your point on conflict (kinda like Jeffre and Russell's Interestingness)

Turning point = not sure if we have this. But whatever.

Resolution. = rational/emotional/subliminal take out

[mikej]

yeah I know Adam. Always addressing interesting points. I also think the presentation that Greg Nugent touched on at the APG big thinking conference is a good reference toward the dark side. People will limit buying food/fruit from other countries.
http://theapg.typepad.com/battleofbigthinking/

Ethical positions of Waitrose and the negative feeling toward Tesco in the same issue.
Branson putting 2 billion to working on carbon emissions of his company is another. Companies displaying the fact they have worked with the Carbon Trust in the UK. Carbon now will have a monetary value for a company, just like a brand.
The dark side is very much being opened up.

Love the slide... I think the booze meetings would definately bring me out

[liteo]

Very neet article indeed !
I also see in sad-vertising a way for those brands to evolve and embrace their fate : being a media !
The brand Danone have tried (in France) to communicate through sensitiv subjects (like anorexia). It had a very strong impact on peoples and created quite a stir as people weren't used to it ; a lot of them also didn't 'got it'.
French might like controversies, but Danone really hit the point here.
I can even remember them giving away some toys or gift to kids through cartoon shows and magazines at the same time !
Could it be sad-vertising with a grain of trans-media planning ?

[Adam]

This idea reminds me of those classic Hamlet Cigar Ads: "Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81VUHm6JEj4

Genius!

[:: greg]

brilliant stuff faris, kinda reminds me of the stuff in Robert McKee's 'Story' book. check it out if you haven't?

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Substance-Structure-Principles-Screenwriting/dp/0060391685

[Faris]

Thanks Greg - heard a lot about McKee so will have to check it.

[Gavin Heaton]

Excellent post, Faris, though I wish I had seen it earlier!

As consumers shift and begin to lose their own barriers between public/private/professional/lifestyle, we are seeing a convergence of markets. The tech guys were raving about this years ago with the convergence of devices ... but that is just enablement. And as we need to reach these multi-faceted consumers, we need to change the approach we take -- the new B2C is not really about business nor consumers, but brands-to-communities (even where it is a community of one).