Blame it on the Other Guy
This past weekend, I was in a debate with a couple friends over whether or not the American consumer is partially to blame for the current economic crisis. Amidst the debate, I was reminded of a presentation given by Chris Riley (then strategic officer at Wieden + Kenedy, now Apple exec) that I had read in an issue of Emigre back in college. Though Chris Riley’s presentation Sustainable Consumerism was given nearly a decade ago, it seems more relevant now than ever.
Chris Riley’s presentation ultimately drove home three points for me. First, he discusses brands. Brands are “business ideas that have achieved cultural influence. Big brands influence culture in a big way, small brands in a small way.” He goes on to discuss the implications of how many of the brands originally at the forefront of this idea have now lost their initial connection with the consumer. They no longer provide a nurturing relationship with their customer base because times have changed and their message hasn’t. A key factor in maintaining brand loyalty is evolving your image with the times so you still have that personal connection with your consumers. You care about the things they care about and you aren’t afraid to make progress.
Second, Riley explains the relationship between business and consumer monetarily. In regards to the consumer Riley says: “If money is a symbol of the value of a relationship, they simply reduced the amount of money they were willing to pay for the relationship they had with amoral marketing companies.” This stems from companies not appropriately updating their corporate culture. Case and point: America’s favorite auto-maker, General Motors. Instead of promoting fuel-efficient, clean-energy vehicles, they’ve ignored the paradigmatic shift in consumer culture and have been churning out Suburbans and Hummers, which is not only 1970s technology but 1970s culture as well. And we all know how that story ended.
Lastly, and most importantly, Riley addresses the fact that as consumers, we don’t need products as symbols of empowerment, we already have the power. This is the crux of the argument for sustainable consumerism. Riley alerts us to the power that we as designers/consumers really have. We must demand the best from our brands as consumers, and as designers, we must be the purveyors of strong culturally relevant brands.
The culture of sustainable consumerism is all about brand evolution and being able to address the needs of the consumer ethically, morally, and environmentally. If a company/advertiser/designer is unable to do so or chooses not to they are most certainly acting in bad faith.
So then, who’s to blame? Is it GM for following an unsustainable business model? Is it American consumer culture? Or is it us, the designer/consumer? After all, don’t we create the desire, the need, for whatever is bigger, better, best?
Filed under: Branding, Business | 5 Comments | Share 
#1383 jan said:
Corporations?
Consumers?
Designers?
All of the above.
“All of the above,” seems to me to be the answer. In each category there are a spectrum of people who enhance or degrade the brand relationship and potency. On one end you have the abusive and/or greed driven and on the other you have the smart and ethical. In the middle is most people share some shade of both extremes. Until we can harness the capacity for human corruption, we are stuck in this dilemma of really bad faith.
Oct 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm
#1384 Mike Karfakis said:
Thanks for your response, Jan. Are you suggesting that this “phenomenon” is simply part of a brand’s life-cycle? If so, how then would you explain a brand that is seldom tarnished? And when tarnished, the “stain” is handled with such immediate and appropriate action that the issue fades away quickly and rather seamlessly? A brand like this that pops into mind is Oprah Winfrey.
Oct 19, 2009 at 1:59 pm
#1385 jan said:
I would put Oprah in the “smart and ethical” category on my spectrum. Smart and ethical is easily forgiven. It means well. It operates in good faith. That IS the brand message. Nice talking to you!
Oct 19, 2009 at 2:58 pm
#1388 Michael Sanders said:
Mike, your article and blog comments reminded me of a lecture where it was driven home that greed always was and always will be. It is woven into our being. Ouch!
This leads me to say shame on us if we capitalize on it. Personal accountability must come into play. And that goes for business owners, marketers and consumers. Business owners must create the culture for honest ethics. And walk the walk. It may not always be profitable. Actually I’m wrong. There is profit in ethics. It is called a good night’s sleep!
So the manufacturer, the business owner, the designer/ad agency and the consumer greed will always be here. The trick is to recognize the trap and not embrace it.
And it is time for ethical conduct and accountability to the customer to have a higher value than the biggest profit. And it is time for the consumer to be loyal to those companies that embrace that practice. That becomes true power for a business and the customer.
Nov 12, 2009 at 10:13 pm
#1389 Mike Karfakis said:
Thanks Michael, but I cannot take credit for the writing. This one was written by a gentleman who will be posting future thoughts under the handle J. Grimes.
In any case, thanks much for your response. Greed seems to be a branded tarnish that follows us as business people in the eyes of the youth. It is unfortunate that some students leaving college and entering the work force associate this attribute with business in general. Not all of us are greedy and many business owners run very respectable and mutually beneficial work environments.
Nov 13, 2009 at 8:52 am