30,000 Years of Social Networking

Over the past few weeks I have been reading about different archeological finds, new ways of looking at existing artifacts. Things started popping out at me, that congealed this past weekend - amazing what a day off will do. So bear with me on this, but...

Tens of thousands of years ago Homo sapiens [the first real step toward modern man] created the first knock-offs. These took the forms of fake shells that were found around highland campfire sites. Yes, land-locked ancient humans started creating fake shells out of soap stone, mimicking the shells of far-off tribes. You have to ask yourself why?

It wasn’t New York City's Canal Street where ancient tourists and label-seekers in loin-cloths were looking to buy the latest logo accessory. Or was it? What would make someone, who had to fight every day for survival, take time out to carve a shell bead to hang around their neck? Did they just want to look like a far-off tribe that lived by the sea? The answer is apparently, yes. Call it one of the first forms of social networking. Call it one of the first uses of technology [bone carving tools in that day] to connect with other, like minded people. Technology may have changed, but human nature has not. We have merely changed the technologies we use to keep up with the basic human need to create a community.

Face it, we like other people.

Think about it, back then, early Homo sapiens and Cro-Magnon lived in tribes of perhaps 25 “people.” Each had their own language, as it were, their own signs, and their own look – think fur garments for land-locked tribes, versus reeds for sea-side tribes. When tribes met, they had a pretty quick choice to make. They could make friends or they could fight. So the ability to quickly show another tribe that they were similar and should be friends became a pretty important task. So, when not killing a deer or running from a tiger, making beads to show others they should talk and trade probably ranked up pretty high for anyone looking past tomorrow. They were making beads, not just to show off, but to connect with other tribes, to show others that they were of like minds. Think of how powerful a knock-off bead must have been 30,000 years ago.

Think things have changed? They haven’t. As tribes expanded, the people of the day started banding together under staffs, under banners, under flags. Roll forward several thousand years, to the ancient Greeks. These people grouped together under the banners of city-states like Sparta and Athens. They made treaties, they warred, they died. Then larger societies like Rome came into being. We humans were far from content to be of one people. We created social networks within each of these countries – the rich and powerful separated themselves from the commoners, and well above the slaves by their look and their mannerism.

A better example of this can be found in Rome's upper classes. In the day, they used a purple dye - Tyrian purple – to set themselves apart from other Romans. It was made from glands found in a specific sea snail. Anthroplogist, David Jacoby, remarked that "twelve thousand snails of Murex brandaris yield no more than 1.4 g of pure dye, enough to color only the trim of a single garment." i.e., it was expensive and only a few could afford it.

Apparently it produced a hideous stench, that ancient authors noted, but the cost of producing it was so high, the well to do didn’t care about the smell. What it did was create instant recognition among those of the upper classes, based on how much of a garment was purple. Just trim, or the whole robe? It was one of the first instances of class identification that went beyond country borders. Leaders in other places tried to replicate it with local dyes, with not so great results. But again, it was humans using the latest technology, gland extraction and dye development, to identify and isolate a community within a larger world.

For the next several hundred years, the sense of community has moved away from country borders, and more toward class. Up until about fifty years ago, one’s mannerisms and the way one dressed, spoke, and acted better showed the community one belonged to, than sewing a flag onto a garment. Think - the House of Windsor talking with Nazi Germany - community over borders. But, something happened. The ability to manufacture products at a higher quality and lower cost began to undermine the value of a luxury brand's label. Don't get me wrong, branded labels didn't go away. Instead, the concept of “mixing labels” appeared. People started venturing away from large stores in search of "they're own look". Once again, it was new technology - the ability to travel - that became the new social identifier. "Oh, look what I picked up in Paris..."

Then, along came the Internet, and once again, the technology of social networking changed.

Today, people are using Facebook, Twitter, Linked In, even creating their own, more personal social networks to retain a sense of social order. Don’t get me wrong, the old labels still matter. But new tribes are being formed. Power comes in different shapes today. Look how Twitter has been used among Iranian anti-government intellectuals. See how China is trying to shut down Google as a means to keep its own classes in line. Oh wait, they’re a classless society - oops...

From the day of sitting for hours to carve a single bead, to creating a page on Facebook, to developing a clique within a social network, it has all been a part of the human experience. So why fight it? Those who win, are the ones who learn to use the new technology, who learn to make friends, and who learn to work with a network of like minded people. It is the way humans have always managed to outgrow the competition – whether it lions, tigers, bulls or bears….

They've just turned to SEO, SEM and Keyword marketing...

Louis Vuitton and 40 Years of Moon Travel

Talk about a brand that truly knows itself and its customers. Bravo Louis Vuitton.

Yes, LV is a luxury brand. Yes, their logo and products are the envy of any high-end shopper. But more important, it is a name and brand that knows who they are. It is a symbol that stands for travel and the journey. How big and how small one goes with the concept of the journey is up to the individual. From a small clutch and a trip for a latte, to the kind of baggage one only sees in vintage shots of ocean liners, to a trip to the moon. It is this last journey that they were smart enough to realize just how big it could be. Not because they could latch onto the 40th anniversary buzz, but because they could help to make the buzz. They went from being a product company that creates luggage, to a company that moves people.

When I first saw their print advertisement months ago, I thought, "Wow, now there's a company that understands what they are about, and isn't afraid to use real people that truly exemplify their brand, instead of just another pretty body or face." I never realized how big they were going to go with it though. From a store wrap that attracts gawkers and, more important, shoppers, to today's reproduction of The New York Times July 21st, 1969 headline, complete with, yes you guessed it, their ad on the back, they not only captured the excitement, they built upon it by honoring the astronauts. Best of all, when I saw President Obama with the astronauts - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins - I couldn't help but think about the ad by Louis Vuitton.

To the other brands out there - first find out what is at the heart of your product and your company. Cull it down to one word. Then find a way to take that word off the drawing board and bring it to life. For Louis Vuitton, it was journey. For the rest of us, it was the Apollo 11 moon shot from 40 years ago.

Palin & Coca Cola

I got into a conversation last night over a few martinis, that is relevant to this. The conversation led us into talking about brands versus ingredients, academic positioning verson real product benefits, and which was more important. So with the political pundits chattering away, and with us PR folk talking about brands, we compared Sarah Palin with another well known American brand - Coca Cola. Watch, they do have some similarities...

In one night, Sarah defined a strong position for herself when she took the podium at the DNC. She did a great job doing os, and a great many people jumped on board. Trusting her ingredients matched her brand. Now, while many may think Sarah Palin's record is a risk, we all know records can be tweaked, shifted, and distorted by the politicos and spin doctors. So while her resume includes a long list of questionable acts that include attempts at ousting an in-law from the police force, book banning, even using lobbyists for fundraising [Time Magazine 9/2/8], her position and brand is extremely strong.

Now, here's the leap that's far easier to make over martinis than on a blog, but resumes are a lot like ingredients. They are the real benefits a politician brings to the table. And like any product, the formula that has made up her past is only half the equation of what makes her a true presence in the market. The image of her being a pit bull berating her opponents carries just as strong a message as what she actually did, or did not do.

So, here is the question. In today's politics, which is more important - brand or ingredients? And before you answer, just remember what happened when Coca Cola introduced New Coke in the 80s. It thought the public's love for its brand was so strong, they could change a tried and true formula however they wished, and the public would still love it.

So, can America overlook the ingredients that make up Sarah Palin's resume in favor of her image? Is her brand and that of the GOP strong enough to overcome the product's formula?
- cannon-brandcommunication.blogspot.com -