A follow up discussion of this post's topic has been posted here (2 23 09)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am re-posting this example from March of this year....the message is becoming more relevant and timely everyday. If you are new to the subject of social mood and socionomics here's a link for the book to describe in detail what was noticed many decades ago. As always these days, there are many more sources that can take you very deep on the subject too. Dave
Most posts here at the Root Trend have focused upon identifying social trends and the implications for consumer behavior using social mood (from the socionomic perspective). Since so much of the value of using social mood as a guide involves looking back first, here's another trending issue twist using social mood that can be valuable to brand managers in the years directly ahead.
I drew the diagram in the thumbnail file (you'll need to click on it) a few years ago. This is social mood's relationship to marketing. (yes, this is a very general sketch with limitations) Spend a little time considering it and you'll want to know more about social mood and possible (actionable) ways business strategists and marketers may use the perspective.
In order to fit into a post, this is a speedy fly-by of two classic brand case studies I took the time to look into more closely than offered here.
What you are about to read is a revisionist perspective compared to the unanimous opinions in countless text books, and articles available on the internet. This perspective is possible by seeing different kinds of trends out of the context of time and specifically by looking at periods of distinct social mood as a unit. The different conclusion here will not change the world but it will, maybe, just maybe, will change the way you think or use what the pundits have to say about assigning reasons, blame to circumstances unfolding, (real and imaginary) as reported in the sources that matter to us in our verticals. More specifically, this post is intended to offer a basis for better "risk exposure assessment" for brands relative to the changing perceptions associated with the developing social mood. By looking back to these two settled pieces of brand history, we can look forward with an awareness adapted from these two different lessons.
In 1990, Perrier was the best bottled spring water you could buy as measured by market share and opinion. Then, a lot of change began after a small-ish production problem was mismanaged and became a really big deal. Why it did (why momentum shifted so notably) should be in question as much now as it was back then.
In 1982 and again in 1986 Tylenol capsules that had been tampered with and filled with poison and were shown to have killed a few people across the nation in these two distinct episodes. Both episodes for Tylenol were very difficult (being such trusted brand) and spread fear in public widely, if you remember those days.
Keep in mind that it is my intention to be very brief, not intentionally coarse about tragic details. That stated, consider the big picture: a little dirty water (measured in PPM), physically hurt no one and then permanently wounded (loss of dominant share of market in a very competitive category) a strong brand, and a few dead people were miraculously looked past by their markets because the hero management team of the day "handled it correctly"? These two case studies are considered lore for marketers and PR folk alike. Let me be clear: blame for Perrier's circumstances was on the managers at the plants and beyond for the poor reaction, and that Tylenol's circumstances were purely imposed on the business from the outside. With these circumstances in mind (and securely in history), here's a very different view and why the root trend matters to brand marketers.
Here's my thesis for this post:
Awareness of the present state of the developing social mood will go a long way to explaining the potential outcomes of a business crisis and so should be used as a means of calculating risk exposure and suggestive of the appropriate response by the enterprise. In this side by side example, Perrier's management temporarily miscalculated the public reaction and thereby did not foresee the potential extra downside risk to a brand that had been well established but, not ready for a crisis. The combination of a developing (developed) negative social mood and perceived poor (initial) response resulted in a heavy cost to market share for the brand. The social mood in this case accentuated the downside exposure and changed a very positive social buzz into a tide of negative sentiment. Tylenol's dramatic responses to twin episodes involving their core brand was oppositely supported by a primary degree developing (very developed by 1986) positive social mood and so their efforts were met with a measurable amount of social optimism supporting all of their timely efforts and a successful outcome both times. The lesson, in a sound bite, is the nature of the doubling effect of social mood upon polar opposite circumstances. This is both a timely and instructive lesson right now.
These two polar opposite case studies identify a critical reason to be purposeful and decisive in circumstances that seem otherwise benign, or likewise reason for hope in a dark scenario. Identifying risk exposure for brands may sound like a 'financial topic dujour' but knowing when our markets are likely to produce unexpected responses will soon be seen as a best practice in the years directly ahead. Please note that in this 'tree tops' view of this perspective, I am skipping a lot of analysis to offer the conclusion. So the case study positions are mostly right about the reactions of the individual companies. My revisionist perspective leans largely upon how by seeing social mood as a crucial component of our interaction with our markets, we would know when our bets have been leveraged using the brand equity we must protect, even if it is not obvious. To repeat the main point: Right now is when this lesson should be dusted off and memorized.
This comparison of one case with positive social mood and another with negative social mood is not making a case for "destiny". No way. Instead, it clearly shows us how during a time of a developing negative social mood (at primary degree of trend and above), unseen social risks to established brands increase and that any problems arising need to be addressed immediately, professionally, with appropriate empathy for customer's experiences. Social mood in each of the two separate cases were in opposite stages of development so they offers great examples on a few levels in an expanded discussion.
Periods known as a developing positive social mood can be described as producing a state of generally shared optimism toward the uncertain events of the future (or shared pessimism in the case of a developing negative social mood) These very basic distinguishing factors are an acknowledgment of aggregate social state....to be seen as a moving average. Social optimism, very generally, is seen to be characterized by long or short periods of societal expansion, growth, and general growth in our average increments of association with those around us(on many levels). Social pessimism is (very generally) characterized by periods of contraction, consolidation, pulling back, and general pessimism towards the same uncertain future. And while we tend to focus on economic expansion and recession as a defining state of society, social mood helps us to see much further into the social causality faced by business enterprises when faced with extreme events during periods of sharp inflection that appear like extreme swings in social mood.
Here are just a very few broad details of the cases....I leave it to you to think about it. (lots of easy Google searches available) Why does this matter right now? Because we are entering a period of developing negative social mood of the same degree as that when Perrier's crisis erupted.
Case #1 Perrier Brand Crisis (facts and some details):
1990 February, Perrier's bottler discovered a failure to filter benzine (used to clean bottling machine parts)before the bottling of its sparkling water for stores. This oversight, first seen in the US and then also in a European plant as well, was responded to but, supposedly not enough to suit those who reviewed the responses. I have read a lot about these cases and now let me share the wisdom of social mood relative to both these case studies. That is the basis of the arguments about why this brand's position suffered as much as it did following this mishap. The position of the developing social mood tells us a lot and is worthy of an entire discussion but since this is a blog post take the point and consider it relative to your challenges.
Case #2 Tylenol Brand Crisis (a few facts) 1982
The most trusted brand in over the counter medicine was hit by purposeful poisoning and deaths happened. Think about the comparison....multiple people died and the geography and extent were very vague, so fear erupted. A complete, very expensive recall was needed. The text books and articles on the internet suggest Tylenol's parent was hugely responsible and reactive to the instant needs of the circumstances. Since 15% of a very large company's profits were on the line, I'd say that was a good call. Social mood offers a slightly different perspective on the amazing positive outcome.
Case #2a Tylenol Brand Crisis #2 1986 contamination crisis. Since cyanide was used in both, death was not surprising. The parent company responded again remarkably well according to the pundits and somehow manged to be perceived as both responsive and heroes who saved the brand again...
a few big points worth seeing farther into:
In general, brand loyalty will be weaker in a developing social correction (negative social mood). why? Because , very simply (perhaps too), the natural proclivity toward declining units of association along with notable changes in how we value more subtle character qualities in our socially interactive lives will lead us to sometimes sharply change how we value certain things, and events like this will be inflection points where social energy is both expressed and dispersed quickly along the lines of changing shared values. Reinforcing the emotional anchors of brand loyalty at such times when other challenges may be present in numbers, might be a valuable decision. It depends largely upon the emotive anchors used by a specific brand and employing ongoing risk analysis. These two cases show us that "how" is as important as "if". These cases also show us why, very generally, brands are at increased, unseen, risk during evolving social corrections. The larger the social correction that is unfolding, the greater the risk that specific events may unleash a social reaction that could permanently swamp a venerable brand.
The key factor in good decisions (during difficult circumstances) will be detachment from the obvious emotion related to the effort/capital previously invested building the brand because changes in the market's reaction will be different from when you built the brand. It's all about the market and social mood is a crucial component in how our attention tends to shift along with our values. This one dynamic is important to be able to appreciate and measure somehow in each vertical. If it is gathered carefully, it will provide a testable means of tracking loyalty presently in your markets or in how changing values of your markets may somehow be likely to challenge your brand. Since all kinds of behavior changes in these periods(due to our change in outlook toward the uncertain future), I might imagine that directly measured behaviors might be more accurate in such periods than self-recall.
Ultimately, the conditions surrounding a period of social correction, otherwise called negative social mood (here), is worthy of a longer discussion and specifically, a lot of historical research with regard to your particular industry. In these two specific cases mentioned here there is a meaningful point to be made for risk analysis that includes social mood for any circumstances met by our enterprises and especially the brands we manage. This matters to marketers but, also everyone in the business.
Comments