Alpha Mom

Remember the old saying your mother used? The one she used as the rationale for eating vegetables instead of junk food? You are what you eat.

Well it’s still true today. Our health is a direct result of the foods we eat.

But in another interesting way, you ARE the brands you eat. Our sense of self is determined by the brands we choose to consume, condemn or covet.

Think about it? We use brands to help define our identities. Are you a Fox News watcher, a Volvo soccer mom, an iPod teenager, a Razr cellphone dude. We use brands as shorthand for what we want to say or not say about ourselves.

This is why brands that have singular, consistent and powerful meanings attached to them are the most successful. It is also why when brands over expand they lose their power. When you appeal to everybody, then you really appeal to nobody. A brand can only have a powerful meaning if it is exclusive in some way.

You are what brands you buy but not forever. Our brand identities are not forever either. They change many times over our lifetime. Think about your own life and your own brand choices. Once I was a PBS kid, then I was a teenage Guess girl, then a 20-something Victoria Secret vixen. Today I am more like a Volvo driving, Spanx wearing, Bugaboo pushing, working Alpha mom.

Which brings up a great new brand. Alpha Mom! Did you see the cover of New York magazine last week? “The Rise of the Alpha Mom.” Sometimes you read about a new brand and it just hits you. Wow! That is me, I want to be part of that, I am that. It is me at this moment or a moment very soon to come. Things will likely change in ten years, but there are not many brands that you will carry through your entire life.

More brands need to celebrate this reality. Not shun it. Most brands try to be all-inclusive. You hear things like “we are for everybody”, “we want to grow with you,” “we will change with you.” Forget it. Better to be good for the moment and look for the next crop of customers in a few years. Because if there is one thing that I have learned from being an Alpha Mom is that things change constantly, one day my little boy is totally defined by his love for Thomas the Train and the next week it is on to the next new brand in a life that will be filled with many brand identities.

Comments

[Bram Pitoyo]

I agree with Mary. It's just that I see it from the company's perspective, because before the consumer can even interpret the brand in their mind, the company has to come up with a brand in the first place.

Branding is a tool. It can be used to make a good product image, or make a good product image AND "manipulate" people with it. The decision is up to the company and the agency who did the branding process.

And Moscow, your point reached an area in which we are afraid to talk about because of the huge consequence it will have in our mindset (and because we simply hate changes, don't we?) But it was brilliant and well-thought!

[Mary Schmidt]

In and of itself a brand (and branding) is neither good nor bad...it's what people make of it. We've been branding things since the beginning of human history. A brand is not a big company's logo or marketing speak - it's ultimately what we - the consumer/buyer/person - think it is. And, the same brand can mean very different things to different people. For example - the McDonald's Golden Arches are a symbol of affluence, status in some countries - in others, it signifies evil. And so on.

[PaG]

Here's the way I see it, Moscow. Branding is a way of identifying products so they can get attached to them. It really only works on quality products, because people can't become attached to products they dislike. If a person likes a product for any reason (e.g. its visceral attractiveness, how it can be used simply and efficiently, or how it projects a positive image of the owner) then they can remember the brand as something they like.

In this way, branding promotes quality. When somebody knows a high quality brand they're more willing to buy again from it and more likely to recommend it to friends. The company making the better product then makes more money, the company with the poorer product does less and overall the quality of products available increases.

Branding is basically managing reputation on a large scale. Reputation has existed from the start of humanity. People who do a good job get more work, even more so if they make it well known that their work is of higher quality.

Without branding, purchases become blind. There's no way to know what is good and what is bad, nothing has a reputation. In such a case, why would companies increase the quality of their product? They could just hope enough suckers would buy them, and without any reputation system it's likely it would happen.

You could argue that big companies have more money to show their brand to the public. That's true, but it's not that simple: it's almost always startups that make big companies fall. Without branding, these startups would have a hard time beating the dominant player.

[moscow]

I'm not out to destroy the Reis family or even to act as some prophet speaking against the evils of brands. I would just like to see an intelligent discussion about branding's place in society that goes beyond saying that it's everywhere. I mean, it's obvious that branding is now a powerful force, but that doesn't tell us if it's necessary. The argument that we need branding so people can have something to identify themselves with is circular, for that just tells us the definition of what a brand is.

My first post may have been a little crass for what I was trying to attain, and I'm sorry for that. But I just wanted to emphasize how cliche the usual talk about branding has become. I mean, there is hardly any difference of opinion on most of these posts.

Basically I see two lines of thought towards branding that both seem legitimate. One is that branding hurts society because it makes consumer decisions less rational, makes markets tend towards oligopoly and thereby reduces overall surplus as I said earlier. On the other hand, brands do increase company liability and increase overall quality of products. But other things, such as government, could also do this. Though it would probably cost more and be more inefficient for the government to do it.

I mean, the whole premise of this blog and the whole work of the Reis' is challenging the work of others. I mean, no one in the ad industry could have just said "why are you making fun of us?" in response to the death of advertising book.

[Bram Pitoyo]

I agree with your point, Jason. But I do have to stress that it's never right to namecall Moscow because he attacked your argument. If you want to counter-attack him, do so by directing your effort to his argument, not to him.

Moscow, can you explain your point more clearly? Because I don't quite get how brands are supposed to hurt society. Are you saying that the society is hurt by being "addicted" to a brand? That the addiction means that they will spend more money buying that brand instead of saving for their own needs?

To me, your argument sounded like nihilism. But I'm sure you'll have a good explanation.

[BZTV]

This is a good blog to read through... thanks... I was chairman of the TV Academy post 9/11, and the Emmy cancelations really tested our "brand" both internally and externally. There's plenty to be learned from brands because even bloggers have them.

[Jason Carruthers]

Moscow, how does your being the devil's advocate, and demanding proof of others' righteousness benefit society?

[moscow]

While it is morally right that you are supporting your family, that doesn't really answer the question of branding's place in society as a whole. Perhaps branding isn't morally good or bad, but simply morally irrelevant.

To Jason's argument, I would ask for some sort of evidence to the fact that branding "boosts sales." This would have to be proven on a macroeconomic level as well, because of course it boosts sales for one company. If anything, I would think the sales boost is morally wrong, because it turns markets into oligopolies and reduces overall surplus.

[Bram Pitoyo]

I'm not sure if Laura will agree with me on this, but I think that brands are very morally justifiable and they are also benefiting the society as a whole, for this reason:

Stronger brands create higher sales. Higher sales create faster flow of money in the market. Faster flow of money means stronger economy.

And of course everyone needs something to identify himself as. They always do. Hence the necessity of having a brand strong enough for people to "hold on" to.

Laura&Al only provided the method to develop a strong brand. It's like a "fire" for the marketing firm. They can use it to cook a delicacy, or to burn an entire forest. The choice is ultimately still up to them, and their morality.

[Jason Carruthers]

"tell us why what you guys do benefits society."

I'll tell you how, Moscow.
Society is made up of families and my family is one example.

I started a retail eyewear business because I wanted to provide for my wife and two kids, and give them a better life. My business plan was made using solid logic, lots of experience and good old fashioned common sense. My business failed miserably. If you have ever experienced a failed business then you know how devastating it can be to a family.

Then I read a book called Focus and decided to try again. Following the Ries laws, the new business is doing well and the best thing is my family has a future. That's a benefit you can see even without glasses.

[From Moscow with love]

Yeah, maybe brands should stick to one identity and continue with that forever. You and Al have certainly not changed your brand but have repeated the same idea ad nauseum. I'd like to know yours or Al's thoughts on the real heart of the matter: are brands morally justifiable? I mean, sure they make money and all, but don't they constitute a sort of metaphorical idolatry? Isn't it sad that people build their identites by the brands they consume? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I mean, I know that branding is your business and all, but you seem smart enough to see the bigger picture. Instead of just parroting the ideas of your latest book, could you tell us why what you guys do benefits society. I mean, I'm not saying that it doesn't and I'm not out to simply criticise you. I just want to know.