About this blog...

When I first entered the world of communication, I was presented with a perspective on how meaning is created, that have stuck with me ever since. It was that of Giora and Chittipeddi (1991), on how, in order to understand something, and be able to pass it along to others, we must first “make sense of it”. Once we have succeeded at that, we can begin to “give sense” to others - to share the insights we have made.

So this is me, making my sense of the world I meet, and passing it along to others who might share my passion for communicating effectively, for building brands worth remembering and marketing executions that create value. In doing so, I hope to also be “giving sense” to those who seek it.

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

We are what we “own” – or maybe what we “like”…?


Do you think differently of a person standing in front of you in the supermarket queue if her groceries are solely organic? And do you form certain assumptions about a person if he wears only high-end brands like Ralph Lauran and Burberry?

 

You might not want to admit it, and it may happen more or less deliberately, but there is a very good reason for this act. Since the beginning of time (or almost, at least) we have identified people and ourselves by possessions. One of the simplest examples being, that the man with greatest fortune, was a man of power[1].
One of my favorite insights on how we form our identities is the sociologist Erving Goffman’s theater metaphor[2]. Picture yourself on your first day in a new job - lets say in office environment. You will most likely want your new colleagues to see you as an equal, and you will properly dress in a manner, that you believe help you achieve this. If you are a man you might wear a shirt and tie, if you are a woman you might have bought a new “work-handbag”.
Now imagine you are actually on a stage, and your new colleagues are your audience. You are playing the role of “respected professional” and the shirt, tie, or handbag is the prop you use to convince your audience.
We do the same with brands. We might draw on the Fairtrade brand as a prop to portray the character of “the responsible consumer”, on the Nike brand to play the part of modern athletic, or on the Apple brand to become the creative and innovative first-mover.
In my previous post I tell of how we seek out brands with which we want to be friends, based on how appealing we find this brand person. Seen in the light of Goffman’s insights, we want to use this brand friend as a prop - we want to add elements of the brands personality to our own identity, by associating with the brand.
The key in all this is, that we need a stage and an audience in order to become the person we seek – in order to form the identity we desire. I find Facebook extremely interesting in this connection. What better stage to act on, than one where the audience is as big as your friend list, I for example have 118 friends on Facebook – and I could easily add more. The props on this stage are then of cause the posts we make, perhaps even more, the things we like.
Through Facebook we can connect with our desired brand friends by simply clicking “like”. The brand hereby becomes a part of us – or at least our virtual-representation – but never the less, a part of the character – the identity – we seek acceptance of.
But it not only the brands we “like” that forms our identities. Facebook is basically about making status updates and liking or commenting on them. As mentioned above we need an audience, and we need the audience to recognize the character we seek to portray, getting our friends to “like” our Facebook activity as well as linking their activities, also forms our virtual-me. I therefore strongly believe that we, perhaps more or less consciously, use Facebook seek acceptance of the identity we desire.
A new mother may for example seek to form an identity of the devoted mother. She might then use Facebook to share success experiences and post pictures of her little miracle. She might also “like” political correct baby brands such as organic baby food, or anatomically correct pacifiers. And she will properly also “like” and comment on her friends baby-related status updates. When her friends see this, and “likes” these activities, she will feel reaffirmed as the mother she wants to be.
I believe we all do this - whether it is the devoted parent, the motivated athlete, the fun party enthusiast, the experienced traveler, or the hardworking professional - we all use Facebook as a medium to create some side of ourselves.
However I can’t help wondering, how is this virtual-me connected our real-life identity? Do we use the online social world as a getaway, because it is much easier to become who we desire here, than in the real world? Or have we become so intertwined with our virtual profiles, that the two things cannot be separated? 
If we truly are what we “like”, do we put enough thought into our Facebook activities? How cheap is our identity for sale – will we “like” almost everything if we are promised a prize?
I am most curious on this matter, and will return to these thoughts later in my blog.


[1] Belk, 1988
[2] Goffman, 1959

Friday, 25 May 2012

A glance at Brand Personality


If your favourite brand were a person, who would it be?

Is the Fiat 500 brand for example a beautiful young woman, who knows how to accessorize down to the last detail, such as her car? And is the BMW brand then a successful executive, who always wears a suit and a great smile? 

 

See there you get a glimpse of my perceptions, and that is exactly what a brand’s personality is – a tangible representation of the perceptions each of us attaches to a brand[1].
I find the notion of brand personality intriguing because research have shown, that we as consumers are prone to seek out brands, and commit to them, if we find their personality desirable or admirable[2]. In other words, we want to be friends with brands who appear, as we would like to appear.
So how can we as marketing professionals uncover the personality of our brands, and does it even make sense to do so, if it is merely a subjective representation depending on the individual consumers interpretation of the brand?
In our study, we (my thesis partner and I), applied association exercises in our in-depth interviews. And we were able to uncover, that our narrow defined group, overall shared a perception of the Fairtrade brand as being a caring and responsible person, who could appear either superior to others or unattainable as a friend[3].    
Who would not want to be friends with a person who cares for others and does a lot of good in the world? And deep down most people would even admit, that being friends with the cool guy is quite desirable.
But what if the gab is to wide, and the brand person appears too far out of reach for us. Instead of being a desired or cared for friend, the brand instead becomes annoying, and only reminds us of all the things we ought to do – of the person we ought to be – who we will never become?
Seeing a brand in the perspective of its personality, therefore opens the door for a deeper understanding of not only which meaning we as consumers assign to a brand, but also to whether or not we find the brand appealing and inviting in terms of forming an relationship. 
It is widely argued that in order to create value, companies must connect to their consumers and build relationships[4]. Brand personality, is to us a relationship facilitator. By forming the brands identity to be a person with who the consumer would want to be friends with, the first step towards a meaningful relationship is made.
In this social media world we live in now, the possibility to connect brands to consumers is most certainty there, it need only to be grasped. In my next blog post, I concentrate on identity construction and in this connection the use of social media. Also I will tie it all together with my insights on brand personality, so stay tuned.
If you want to know more about the Fairtrade study I mention above, you can find the entire publication at http://studenttheses.cbs.dk/handle/10417/1867. It was written in a brilliant collaboration with Caroline Marie Tetzlaff Ebbesen and CBS.


[1] Levy, 1959 in Lee & Rhee, 2007; Aaker, 1997
[2] Veloutsou, 2007
[3] Hestehave Degn & Tetzlaff Ebbesen, 2010
[4] Ind & Bjerke, 2007; Hogan et al, 2005; Vargo & Lusch 2004

Thursday, 24 May 2012

Welcome to my blog


So this is me, giving blogging a go. 
Already I’m thrilled, and trying hard to figure out why I have waited so long to create a blog.
You see, I’m a bit of a geek - I actually love to play around with complex academic insights and groundbreaking theories. To be challenged with forming new understandings and hereby expanding my knowledge, is something that brings me great joy.      
I blog to share all the thoughts, that consume my mind. However, to spare you a bit, I dedicate this blog to the subjects of communication and marketing. Already I have many topics queued up, and I’m exited about soon being able to “make sense” of it all in this forum.
In future posts I plan to address: the notion of brand personality, the concept of the extended mind in reference to the extended self, my experience gained in working with different visual identities, the consumers identity creation through the means of social media, the field of BtB marketing, as well as comment on marketing executions/ads that either like or unlike.
I hope that you will enjoy my writings
- Nina Degn