big fan of the trendwatching.com, and have been for some time now.
anyway, this is just a quick little post with their "top 15 trend questions" - an interesting read for people wiyth questions about what they do, how they do it, and what's going to happen next.
http://www.trendwatching.com/trends/top15questions/
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Wednesday, 4 July 2007
Black Diamonds: valuable or risible?
Ah, another controversial topic for your arguing pleasure! It’s only been recently that I heard the expression, which at least to my knowledge is the new form of “buppie” or in its more politically correct form “the emerging black middle class”. Now, admittedly, it’s an expression I’ve used, to my shame now, but it is nonetheless a very convenient expression. People tout the “emerging black middle class” as the ultimate indicator that our country’s not running downhill, but what I had pointed out to me recently changed my views on this expression.
During a conversation about the “Black Diamond” phenomenon, the person I was talking to gave me the reason why they disagree with the term:
• The very term “previously disadvantaged”, which is also often used, implies that the people to whom the term refers are no longer disadvantaged.
• The term is inherently divisive, as it refers only to black people. Perhaps a more accurate term would be “South Africa’s expanding middle class”.
• Furthermore, the phrase “Black Diamond” has some somewhat uneasy connotations: firstly, it’s very akin to “black sheep”, or something that goes against the normal grain. Added to this is the fact that “Diamond” connotes rarity, once again marking the people who classify for this definition as something rare and “other”.
All this gave me a great deal of food for thought, particularly in terms of how people in this country are segmented and labeled (more on segmentation later). Are we being intrinsically discriminatory, or are we merely “telling it like it is” (to use an overly hackneyed expression)? And how useful is this term, and the segmentation behind it?
Yours
aimee
During a conversation about the “Black Diamond” phenomenon, the person I was talking to gave me the reason why they disagree with the term:
• The very term “previously disadvantaged”, which is also often used, implies that the people to whom the term refers are no longer disadvantaged.
• The term is inherently divisive, as it refers only to black people. Perhaps a more accurate term would be “South Africa’s expanding middle class”.
• Furthermore, the phrase “Black Diamond” has some somewhat uneasy connotations: firstly, it’s very akin to “black sheep”, or something that goes against the normal grain. Added to this is the fact that “Diamond” connotes rarity, once again marking the people who classify for this definition as something rare and “other”.
All this gave me a great deal of food for thought, particularly in terms of how people in this country are segmented and labeled (more on segmentation later). Are we being intrinsically discriminatory, or are we merely “telling it like it is” (to use an overly hackneyed expression)? And how useful is this term, and the segmentation behind it?
Yours
aimee
Aspirational brands: everyone wants in?
Aspirational branding and buying behaviour is a well-known, and oft-remarked-upon concept. What relevance does it have for South Africa, though?
Firstly, perhaps, a small qualification: the concept is well understood for teenagers, for whom brands are often a route to acceptance (or, at least, not rejection). I also see it every day, particularly here in Johannesburg, where many people buy a car, house or some other material thing that they can’t really afford, but which they feel lends credence to their existence. However, there is a very large part of the South African population (guess which part) where aspirational buying is clearly in evidence, but the reasons behind this behaviour are less well-understood.
Another useful story passed on to me to illustrate this: I’ve often noticed, as have many people, that black are often much more sharply-dressed, especially for work, than are, for example, white people. What is interesting is that this applies to people who clearly don’t have great means, but who nonetheless are willing to spend good money on, well, looking good. Apparently, someone went and actually asked people why this is so (unusual here, where assumptions about other people’s reasoning are the order of the day). What they were told is fascinating: black people who walk to the taxi rank, and then commute in to work every day on taxis dress smartly because they know that they are visible to lots of people during the entire journey, and are to some extent judged on their appearance. Contrast this with someone like me: I have my own car, so I get up in the morning, throw on whatever doesn’t look too horrible, and then drive to work. At no point am I really exposed to the public, and I don’t really care what the people I work with think of my dress-sense, so I have far less incentive to dress sharply. I was amazed: I’d wondered about this dichotomy before, but had no idea why it might be so.
This leads to the next issue: if people who don’t earn a great deal (which comprises the vast majority of our country) feel the need to dress sharply, and place great emphasis on brands, where does this leave the sought-after brands? I realize that a brand’s pricing is carefully worked out as an intrinsic part of the brand itself, but if it’s high it might have deleterious effects too: in one word, counterfeits. Counterfeiting is ubiquitous, and much bemoaned by the people behind the counterfeited brands, but the reason for people to make and buy counterfeits, especially here, is too clear to ignore.
Add to this, of course, government’s new (poorly thought out, in my opinion) legislation to severely restrict clothing imports into our country. This is going to drive up the price of clothing, particularly branded clothing, up considerably. The thing is, it’s going to be physically impossible for clothing retailers to absorb the full rise in costs without going out of business, so at least some of the cost will have to be passed on to the consumer (despite what government says). This is great for making brands more expensive, and therefore driving up their perceived value, but it’s going to give great impetus to the counterfeiting industry too…
Human nature means that most people do not think “I can’t afford it, so I won’t buy it” (our national debt levels prove this to a terrifying extent). People are also unlikely to think “I refuse to buy counterfeits so that these enormous companies make less profit”. All of which leaves brands in a sticky position: yes, it’s great that they are highly sought-after, but it is that very quality which allows the counterfeiting market to thrive. So what do we do about this?
Yours
aimee
Firstly, perhaps, a small qualification: the concept is well understood for teenagers, for whom brands are often a route to acceptance (or, at least, not rejection). I also see it every day, particularly here in Johannesburg, where many people buy a car, house or some other material thing that they can’t really afford, but which they feel lends credence to their existence. However, there is a very large part of the South African population (guess which part) where aspirational buying is clearly in evidence, but the reasons behind this behaviour are less well-understood.
Another useful story passed on to me to illustrate this: I’ve often noticed, as have many people, that black are often much more sharply-dressed, especially for work, than are, for example, white people. What is interesting is that this applies to people who clearly don’t have great means, but who nonetheless are willing to spend good money on, well, looking good. Apparently, someone went and actually asked people why this is so (unusual here, where assumptions about other people’s reasoning are the order of the day). What they were told is fascinating: black people who walk to the taxi rank, and then commute in to work every day on taxis dress smartly because they know that they are visible to lots of people during the entire journey, and are to some extent judged on their appearance. Contrast this with someone like me: I have my own car, so I get up in the morning, throw on whatever doesn’t look too horrible, and then drive to work. At no point am I really exposed to the public, and I don’t really care what the people I work with think of my dress-sense, so I have far less incentive to dress sharply. I was amazed: I’d wondered about this dichotomy before, but had no idea why it might be so.
This leads to the next issue: if people who don’t earn a great deal (which comprises the vast majority of our country) feel the need to dress sharply, and place great emphasis on brands, where does this leave the sought-after brands? I realize that a brand’s pricing is carefully worked out as an intrinsic part of the brand itself, but if it’s high it might have deleterious effects too: in one word, counterfeits. Counterfeiting is ubiquitous, and much bemoaned by the people behind the counterfeited brands, but the reason for people to make and buy counterfeits, especially here, is too clear to ignore.
Add to this, of course, government’s new (poorly thought out, in my opinion) legislation to severely restrict clothing imports into our country. This is going to drive up the price of clothing, particularly branded clothing, up considerably. The thing is, it’s going to be physically impossible for clothing retailers to absorb the full rise in costs without going out of business, so at least some of the cost will have to be passed on to the consumer (despite what government says). This is great for making brands more expensive, and therefore driving up their perceived value, but it’s going to give great impetus to the counterfeiting industry too…
Human nature means that most people do not think “I can’t afford it, so I won’t buy it” (our national debt levels prove this to a terrifying extent). People are also unlikely to think “I refuse to buy counterfeits so that these enormous companies make less profit”. All of which leaves brands in a sticky position: yes, it’s great that they are highly sought-after, but it is that very quality which allows the counterfeiting market to thrive. So what do we do about this?
Yours
aimee
South Africa: brand or bind?
Right, so, I introduced this topic in last week’s post “African Denaissance”. A short piece, then, on the issue of “Brand South Africa”.
Please let me make clear that these are simply opinions, rather than attempts to undermine the integrity of our foetal democracy. That said, though, I think a reasoned debate on, well, everything is pivotal to the success of any truly free society.
So, “Brand South Africa”, then. To begin, let’s take a look at some other countries and their “brands”: the Germans are organized, the South Americans are (so very very) cool, the Japanese are ingenious, the Italians are sexy and the French are suave (I won’t mention what the world thinks of America: it’s the perfect example of a negative brand). Now, these are great, and are definitely wonderful selling points for cars, perfumes, technology and so forth. However, these identities arose to some extent as the perception of people outside these countries and were then seized on and used by the countries themselves. In addition, the societies and histories in play are very different from ours.
South Africa is still in turmoil. It may be more subtle, but that does not mean it’s any less there. In essence, we’re desperately insecure. Rather than simply being ourselves, in all the multitude of selves available to us as a very fractured society, we are desperately afraid this won’t be good enough and so we’re attempting to force an image of ourselves both internally and externally. This is where the discussion intersects with that of the African Renaissance. Once again, our identity is a function of who we are - the various individuals and groups that make up this country – and so is emergent rather than designed.
Another significant wrinkle with the South Africa brand, and one I alluded to earlier, is that of fracturing. While sounding lovely, the term “rainbow” we use to describe ourselves not only connotes variety but as part of that variety, connotes divisions. Fractures. Barriers. We are a country of 11 official languages and ongoing political and racial strife. So what “South Africa” means is very different for each group. Apartheid destroyed a common history for us, and there is a great deal of time still needed to form that shared history. Perhaps then we can look at ourselves and say what we think we want people to think of when they think of “South Africa”, but first we need shared understanding and a common vision amongst the people of this country.
We will also need to find our niche in the world, something we are still struggling to do. For sure, South Africa has imagery attached to it in the minds of people overseas, but the picture is far from complete, or internally consistent. We are home to Nelson Mandela and Dessie, have a very progressive constitution, managed the changeover to democracy without civil war (although the crime levels could be seen as an expression of the anger that still resides here), are the only country to ever have voluntarily given up the technology to make nukes, and have some very sophisticated infrastructure. On the other hand, we have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world (we’re more dangerous than some war zones, apparently), some unbelievably incompetent people in very powerful positions in government, and certain political policies which are disenfranchising an entire new generation of people.
Where’s the brand? Certainly nothing we can force, as brands reside in the minds of the people exposed to them, rather than being dictated by their originators. Perhaps, then, we need to stop fooling ourselves with optimistic propaganda and blinkers, and work towards a country that is capable of having a brand that people respond to and that we can be proud of.
Yours
aimee
Please let me make clear that these are simply opinions, rather than attempts to undermine the integrity of our foetal democracy. That said, though, I think a reasoned debate on, well, everything is pivotal to the success of any truly free society.
So, “Brand South Africa”, then. To begin, let’s take a look at some other countries and their “brands”: the Germans are organized, the South Americans are (so very very) cool, the Japanese are ingenious, the Italians are sexy and the French are suave (I won’t mention what the world thinks of America: it’s the perfect example of a negative brand). Now, these are great, and are definitely wonderful selling points for cars, perfumes, technology and so forth. However, these identities arose to some extent as the perception of people outside these countries and were then seized on and used by the countries themselves. In addition, the societies and histories in play are very different from ours.
South Africa is still in turmoil. It may be more subtle, but that does not mean it’s any less there. In essence, we’re desperately insecure. Rather than simply being ourselves, in all the multitude of selves available to us as a very fractured society, we are desperately afraid this won’t be good enough and so we’re attempting to force an image of ourselves both internally and externally. This is where the discussion intersects with that of the African Renaissance. Once again, our identity is a function of who we are - the various individuals and groups that make up this country – and so is emergent rather than designed.
Another significant wrinkle with the South Africa brand, and one I alluded to earlier, is that of fracturing. While sounding lovely, the term “rainbow” we use to describe ourselves not only connotes variety but as part of that variety, connotes divisions. Fractures. Barriers. We are a country of 11 official languages and ongoing political and racial strife. So what “South Africa” means is very different for each group. Apartheid destroyed a common history for us, and there is a great deal of time still needed to form that shared history. Perhaps then we can look at ourselves and say what we think we want people to think of when they think of “South Africa”, but first we need shared understanding and a common vision amongst the people of this country.
We will also need to find our niche in the world, something we are still struggling to do. For sure, South Africa has imagery attached to it in the minds of people overseas, but the picture is far from complete, or internally consistent. We are home to Nelson Mandela and Dessie, have a very progressive constitution, managed the changeover to democracy without civil war (although the crime levels could be seen as an expression of the anger that still resides here), are the only country to ever have voluntarily given up the technology to make nukes, and have some very sophisticated infrastructure. On the other hand, we have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world (we’re more dangerous than some war zones, apparently), some unbelievably incompetent people in very powerful positions in government, and certain political policies which are disenfranchising an entire new generation of people.
Where’s the brand? Certainly nothing we can force, as brands reside in the minds of the people exposed to them, rather than being dictated by their originators. Perhaps, then, we need to stop fooling ourselves with optimistic propaganda and blinkers, and work towards a country that is capable of having a brand that people respond to and that we can be proud of.
Yours
aimee
African Denaissance?
I’ve been thinking about a suitable first post, and I though this might be it. It’s a contentious subject, I know, and one over which there is much debate. I’ve noticed, however, that the prevailing painfully-pc attitude we have here means that this is a question that is not always debated as well as perhaps it could.
So, then, onto my feelings on the subject. First, perhaps, I’d like to clarify that “brand South Africa” and the “African Renaissance” brand movement, while having much in common, are not in my opinion the same thing. Perhaps I should talk about the African Renaissance debacle first.
In an (unpublished) article I wrote last year after having been to Cape Town Fashion Week, the theme of which was, of course, “African Renaissance”. I had a few choice words to say on this matter, and I’ve reprinted them here because I feel they’re still topical, and also that this fashion extravaganza acts as a useful proxy for much of the creative industries in this country at the moment…
“[Regarding the African Renaissance]. I’d like to discuss the theme of the week: African Renaissance. It’s really a popular buzzword at the moment, to be found on the lips of all politically-correct cool folk everywhere. And that’s absolutely great, wonderful and peachy. My problem is this: there’s only so much that can be done with African fabrics and denim, so that while there was some lovely work, after a while it all started to blur together. Surely, all fashion (and other) designers who live and work in Africa are by dint of their geography and background, African, meaning that anything they produce is, de facto, African? The somewhat self-conscious attempt to Africanise everything (due to the week’s theme) simply resulted in narrowing the range of possibilities available to the designers, which I can’t help but feel did both them and us, the audience, a disservice. While I’m really glad that African fabrics and looks are being used – and, as an aside, I’m also really glad that clothing with shape and curves and waists and busts, which emphasizes the female form, is back in – there was nothing which really challenged me. Perhaps I’m cold. Perhaps I simply don’t get it. But I would have appreciated more challenge – where were the strange themes, the boys in dresses, the oddball designers, and the general outrageousness commonly associated with fashion? Perhaps that wasn’t the point of this particular event, but it left me thinking, when all was said and done: if Renaissance means rebirth, and doing things never before done, then Nokia Fashion Week (and other fashion events and weeks since then) was more of a Denaissance – I got the distinct impression I’d seen it all before.”
And that’s pretty much the gist of it. It’s a problem I feel pervades much of the creative endeavour in this country, and to our great disadvantage. I wonder whither this incredible urge to define ourselves as “African”, when I don’t believe that most other countries purposefully define themselves. Rather, their image is simply a product of how they behave…
For my views on the linked-but-not-identical issue of the South African brand, see my next post ☺
Yours
aimee
So, then, onto my feelings on the subject. First, perhaps, I’d like to clarify that “brand South Africa” and the “African Renaissance” brand movement, while having much in common, are not in my opinion the same thing. Perhaps I should talk about the African Renaissance debacle first.
In an (unpublished) article I wrote last year after having been to Cape Town Fashion Week, the theme of which was, of course, “African Renaissance”. I had a few choice words to say on this matter, and I’ve reprinted them here because I feel they’re still topical, and also that this fashion extravaganza acts as a useful proxy for much of the creative industries in this country at the moment…
“[Regarding the African Renaissance]. I’d like to discuss the theme of the week: African Renaissance. It’s really a popular buzzword at the moment, to be found on the lips of all politically-correct cool folk everywhere. And that’s absolutely great, wonderful and peachy. My problem is this: there’s only so much that can be done with African fabrics and denim, so that while there was some lovely work, after a while it all started to blur together. Surely, all fashion (and other) designers who live and work in Africa are by dint of their geography and background, African, meaning that anything they produce is, de facto, African? The somewhat self-conscious attempt to Africanise everything (due to the week’s theme) simply resulted in narrowing the range of possibilities available to the designers, which I can’t help but feel did both them and us, the audience, a disservice. While I’m really glad that African fabrics and looks are being used – and, as an aside, I’m also really glad that clothing with shape and curves and waists and busts, which emphasizes the female form, is back in – there was nothing which really challenged me. Perhaps I’m cold. Perhaps I simply don’t get it. But I would have appreciated more challenge – where were the strange themes, the boys in dresses, the oddball designers, and the general outrageousness commonly associated with fashion? Perhaps that wasn’t the point of this particular event, but it left me thinking, when all was said and done: if Renaissance means rebirth, and doing things never before done, then Nokia Fashion Week (and other fashion events and weeks since then) was more of a Denaissance – I got the distinct impression I’d seen it all before.”
And that’s pretty much the gist of it. It’s a problem I feel pervades much of the creative endeavour in this country, and to our great disadvantage. I wonder whither this incredible urge to define ourselves as “African”, when I don’t believe that most other countries purposefully define themselves. Rather, their image is simply a product of how they behave…
For my views on the linked-but-not-identical issue of the South African brand, see my next post ☺
Yours
aimee
A brief introduction
I started this blog last year, when consumed with the South African branding industry. I have since left the country (so continuing to write about it will be a little more difficult), but thought I'd post what I had written thus far anyway. I am as yet uncertain what shape this blog will take in the future, but that's not, I believe, any reason to deny the past :)
South Africa has some of the best advertising in the world, I’m told, at least in part due to the multiplicity of different races and cultures that need to be reached. However, while our advertising industry is top-class, it might be argued that our branding industry is not.
Before the hackles rise, however, let me qualify that statement. Our branding people are very good, but what is lacking is understanding on the business side. Many South African businesses are only now beginning to realize how important branding is to the continued success of their business, and this at a time when the rest of the world is beginning to question the value of brands. Naomi Klein’s No Logo is one of the epitomies of this questioning, but other books (Beyond Branding, for example) are also taking an (albeit softer) look at the issue of brands. Indeed, local advertising giant Saatchi & Saatchi has said that they believe brands are dead, and that the new “thing” are what they refer to as “lovemarks” (for more on this, see their website).
South Africa also has a number of specific issues which not all the internationally published books in the world can address. It is these issues, and branding in South Africa in general, that this blog will focus on. A forum where local branders and marketers can discuss their industry with reference to our very specific circumstances.
As mentioned above, this is not a “blog” in the sense of so many blogs out there. It is not a dumping ground for my mental waste, nor is it an ego-stroking exercise. Rather, I want it to be an interactive forum for everyone interested to contribute to, and please do! I’ll try and post something every week, but any other contributions would be most welcome ☺
From your aspiring branding guru, adieu
aimee
South Africa has some of the best advertising in the world, I’m told, at least in part due to the multiplicity of different races and cultures that need to be reached. However, while our advertising industry is top-class, it might be argued that our branding industry is not.
Before the hackles rise, however, let me qualify that statement. Our branding people are very good, but what is lacking is understanding on the business side. Many South African businesses are only now beginning to realize how important branding is to the continued success of their business, and this at a time when the rest of the world is beginning to question the value of brands. Naomi Klein’s No Logo is one of the epitomies of this questioning, but other books (Beyond Branding, for example) are also taking an (albeit softer) look at the issue of brands. Indeed, local advertising giant Saatchi & Saatchi has said that they believe brands are dead, and that the new “thing” are what they refer to as “lovemarks” (for more on this, see their website).
South Africa also has a number of specific issues which not all the internationally published books in the world can address. It is these issues, and branding in South Africa in general, that this blog will focus on. A forum where local branders and marketers can discuss their industry with reference to our very specific circumstances.
As mentioned above, this is not a “blog” in the sense of so many blogs out there. It is not a dumping ground for my mental waste, nor is it an ego-stroking exercise. Rather, I want it to be an interactive forum for everyone interested to contribute to, and please do! I’ll try and post something every week, but any other contributions would be most welcome ☺
From your aspiring branding guru, adieu
aimee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
