Skip to main content

Global "tribes" and branding

The Wall Street Journal (December 10) has a story about marketers closing in on global "tribes" who are united more by demographics than by nationality. The article gives the example of baby boomers, a transnational "tribe" that may well need hearing devices as they get older. Phonak Group is targeting boomers, who dread aging, by calling the device a "personal communication assistant." Multilingual advertisements all feature the same type of image--"youthful-looking customers who lead interesting lives." The CEO of Phonak says that baby boomers "all have a similar psychology--if we take away the stigma and show them a product that is high-tech and hip and easily improves the quality of their lives" they will buy it.

Other examples are teenagers "who socialize on the Internet and like the same music and fashions" and "working women trying to juggle careers and families."

The idea from a brand perspective is to "focus on the similarities instead of the differences," says Melanie Healey, president, Global Health and Feminine Care at P&G.

In an increasingly international world, it pays to be mindful of "tribes," and to cater to's an idea worth pursuing. In fact, I wonder whether consumers of global brands are not themselves kinds of tribes, whether the Prada buyer in the U.S. is similar to the Prada buyer in France or England or Spain. If so, we may be wasting our time trying to cater to people by their sociodemographics...we could just cluster them by the types of brands they buy. Certain brand tribes affiliate with certain other brand tribes, and you can just go from there.

People are increasingly tending to define themselves by multiple brands, not just one or two.

This brings to mind an interesting Harvard Business Review article from June 2001, "See Your Brands Through Your Customers' Eyes," that talks about "A new, three-dimensional approach to mapping brand portfolios" that "reveals the complex relationships between your brands and those of other companies." It notes that "Volkswagen and Trek team up to bundle bicycles with cars. American Airlines, Citibank, and Visa jointly offer a credit card. Subaru markets an L.L. Bean edition of its Outback station wagon. Dell stamps Microsoft and Intel logos on its computers. Toys R Us partners with to launch an on-line toy store. The interweaving of brands, now commonplace in business, is changing the rules of brand management."

The article notes that a tool is needed to look at brands the way they "actually appear to customers. In this article, we’ll describe such a tool and show how it can be used to create multidimensional maps—we call them brand portfolio molecules—that reveal the relationships among diverse brands and provide a powerful new way to think about brand strategy."

The point for tribes and branding is, it pays to understand the unique power of a brand, and how it aligns with other brands, when one is trying to classify a global tribe.

Also, an interesting document at this UK tourism site talks about "brand clusters" in terms of the type of vacation people like to take.

"To capitalise on this, Towards 2015 will concentrate on the development and promotion of what are known as ‘Brand Clusters’. These clusters define the sort of holiday our customers want in terms of the experience they are looking for. For example, there is the ‘sheer indulgence’ cluster which is characterised by fine dining, pampering, treats, luxury and celebration. Then, there is the ‘close to nature’ cluster which trades on the ‘wow’ factor of the South West’s uniquely diverse landscape, the fresh air, the wildlife and the stunning views."

That is another way of separating people into tribes...according to the type of branded experience they want to have.

One can keep going, but the point is to be imaginative about tribes, and not limited to the same old thinking (Internet teenagers, baby boomers, working mothers).

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …