Taylor Swift Effect or End of Branding? [Part 2]
Reducing branding to performance marketing.
This blog is the second part of a three-part series delving into the "Taylor Swift effect." To reiterate, my intention in discussing this effect is to highlight a pervasive issue in today's marketplace. In Part 1, we explored the prevalent tendency to simplify discussions of her influence through a "main effect" lens. While acknowledging Swift's financial success and impact, our critique centers on the narrow emphasis placed on sales as the sole measure of her influence, whether economically or culturally. We argue that examining effects, including cultural impact, should go beyond basic cause-and-effect relationships. Taylor Swift serves as a prominent example of this fixation on main-effect leading to sales, illustrating the larger problem.
This issue poses significant challenges for branding strategies and approaches in the marketplace. The prevailing discourse around marketing and the execution of these quasi-branding strategies are all driven by the "main effect" mantra, focused on increasing sales and identifying key branding tactics for this purpose. The widespread adoption of this axiom among various stakeholders in marketing, advertising, and branding is concerning and detrimental. It's eroding the foundation of brand building and management, making it increasingly difficult to create robust, resilient, and sustainable brands.
In Part 2, we will delve into why this is concerning for brands and detrimental for brand building.
1. Leveraging fame will not help build brands.
Numerous blogs have drawn comparisons between Taylor Swift's brand and various other prominent brands. As mentioned in the first part of this blog series, Taylor Swift's brand has been juxtaposed with other franchises (e.g., the NFL), musicians (e.g., Elton John), and cultural products (e.g., Avatar, Harry Potter).
Her romantic involvement with Kansas City Chiefs player Travis Kelce has led some to assert that her brand surpasses the NFL in value. For instance, a Medium blog titled "Taylor Swift Brand Bigger than NFL Digitally" contends that her personal value could potentially allow her to purchase multiple teams from various cities due to her having ten times the number of Instagram followers compared to the NFL. (The brand valuation expertise of these self-proclaimed experts is a source of bemusement #rollingeyes). If you're interested in understanding how the PR machine operates, there are several blogs that repetitively discuss the comparison between Taylor Swift's brand and that of the NFL.
As previously mentioned, my interest doesn't lie in dissecting the branding tactics and strategies employed by Taylor Swift or engaging in discussions about whether Taylor Swift is a more valuable brand than NFL or others. Instead, my focus is on shedding light on how Taylor Swift-inspired quasi-brand strategies are impacting brands, branding approaches, and other stakeholders in the marketplace. Since we initiated the discussion with the NFL, I will continue to deepen the argument using the NFL as an illustrative example.
There's no denying that Taylor Swift has a substantial impact on NFL viewership for the games she attends in person. However, the industry's fixation remains on a singular "main effect" perspective: Taylor Swift attending an NFL game leads to increased rankings and viewership. A significant portion of these new audiences aligns with a demographic segment the NFL has long sought after – young, female, and emotionally engaged fans. I'm not here to cast blame on the NFL for being captivated by the rising viewership numbers when Taylor Swift is in attendance & bringing her Swifties along. My point is that capitalizing on this phenomenon does not equate to a comprehensive branding strategy.
The NFL is in dire need of effective branding strategies that can establish and maintain a robust, enduring, and defensible brand. The NFL has grappled with numerous branding issues, particularly following Colin Kaepernick's kneeling protest. Similar challenges related to diversity, equity, and inclusion have persistently plagued the NFL. While I'm not a fervent football enthusiast (coming from a place where it's known as soccer 😎), I am well-informed about the significant disparities in hiring and retention along racial lines that suggest discrimination within the league. (I plan to delve into this DEI issue in another blog focused on the league's brand.) My point here is that the NFL has grappled with branding difficulties both before and on multiple occasions, and it requires a sound strategy to cultivate a durable and resonant brand. Part of this branding strategy should seek to remain relevant in this attention-driven marketplace. The NFL urgently needs to transform its brand to foster greater engagement across diverse audiences, particularly among the younger and female demographics. Although enticing Swifties may seem like a potential solution to this challenge, regrettably, this current “borrowing Swifties attention” approach falls short.
The NFL and its broadcast partners have been unwavering in their promotion of her appearances, especially during the "Welcome to New York" Jets matchup, despite the game being played in New Jersey. They are capitalizing on Taylor Swift's fame and the considerable attention, including those coveted ratings, she brings to the games from a female audience demographic they've long aspired to engage. The league is enthusiastic about the impact her mere association with the NFL has had on demographics that typically aren't its strongest suit. But, this will not give the league a strong and defensible brand position. I'll provide more insights into the reasons behind this in the following section.
To illustrate the prevalence of leveraging fame as a quasi-branding strategy in the marketplace, consider a recent Gucci Valigeria campaign featuring Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny, a copy-paste of reminiscent of Taylor Swift's playbook with the NFL. It's a pattern of featuring young and famous individuals and commercializing gossip as part of a branding strategy. Just as Taylor and Travis announced their relationship during an NFL game, Kendall and Bunny made their announcement in an ad campaign.
My heart aches for Gucci and all the amazing and solid branding work that has been done in Alessandro Michel ‘s watch. Between 2015 and late 2022, Alessandro Michel, as the creative director of Gucci, radically transformed Gucci's aesthetic with a more romantic and maximalist design sense. Michele opened Gucci up to a younger, more diverse audience with flamboyant and ‘70’s inspired glamour. Although I love some of the directions the new creator director Sabato de Sarno are taking with the brand, I believe that brand like Gucci does not need these types of “leveraging fame tactics.” No brand becomes a cultural pioneer by leveraging these types of low hanging fruit branding tactic wins.
Some might argue that this is how branding operates in the new dynamics of the marketplace, and we can certainly discuss its viability with specific cases. However, I foresee that the ways branding is approached as leveraging fames and the ways we build branding playbooks using these quasi-strategies are detrimental to the overall brand landscape. And, these are the booby traps for the possibility of building culturally-relevant brands. The present approach to branding and marketing oversimplifies intricate dynamics, potentially obstructing the development of resilient and enduring brands along with the related cultural strategies necessary for their cultivation.
As we speak, Scott Galloway recently published a blog about the about Netflix effect, another manifestation of the industry’s fetish with the main effect. Enough with the “effect” discourse! #lesigh
2. These quasi-tactics reduce branding to performance marketing.
Branding is a long-term strategy in marketing, often requiring substantial time and significant budgets to yield noticeable results in KPIs ( Key Performance Indicators). Because of these required time and money investments, it's also one of the more challenging consulting services to sell as clients often seek immediate solutions to pressing issues. So, why do organizations invest or should invest in brand-building? This is precisely the topic of my first session in my MBA Cultural Brand Management class. While I won't delve into the specific benefits of branding in this blog post, I'd like to explore why relying on fame alone to drive sales may not provide the same advantages as genuine brand-building for most organizations, including the NFL.
Branding is a slow burn strategy. Brand-building is a gradual process that necessitates intentional strategic efforts over time, often requiring substantial budgets to fulfill the promises of branding. Even after establishing a strong brand, it can be challenging to directly attribute its impact to KPIs or performance, making it difficult to simplify branding into a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship.
I don't intend to digress from the central argument of this blog by delving into a discussion about why branding is still a valuable investment of time and resources. If you wish to explore this topic further, you can find additional information in various mainstream media articles and blog posts linked below.
I understand the significance of balancing brand building and performance marketing. While performance is undoubtedly a crucial aspect, organizations must also commit to long-term investments in brand development, even when immediate results are not apparent. However, the use of these “main effect” strategies diminishes the essence of branding and brand building by emphasizing performance marketing, simplifying the focus to a single main effect. This is precisely why the Taylor Swift effect is detrimental to both branding and brand building, as it has set an expectation for brands to deliver immediate, measurable/attributable, and cheap performance marketing results. In other words, reducing the branding strategies to performance marketing.
Brand marketing employs a long-term, emotional appeal to consumers, whereas performance marketing is specific and oriented toward more immediate goals like generating leads and driving sales. [Author’s note: My perspective about branding is not limited to emotional appeal but also entailing cultural & social roles and meaning making.
Even well-established brands like Gucci, known for their cultural pioneering, luxury status, and substantial marketing budgets, are resorting to shortcuts by employing these quasi-strategies to boost sales rather than committing to the long-term process of brand building. This raises the question: “How can we persuade other brands to invest their resources and exercise patience in the gradual brand-building process?”
3. Resilient and resonant brands are built via intentional strategies.
Brands are carriers of meaning. A strong brand is capable of carrying meaning in new contexts, in new circumstances, and to different audiences. Through these meanings, brands can assume cultural roles, foster emotional connections, and become integrated into consumers' lives. In essence, brands require this experience over time and across different contexts to maintain their resilience and relevance. However, the aforementioned "effect" paradigm does not contribute to brands acquiring enduring and sustainable meanings or sets of meanings. To illustrate this, let's consider the Taylor Swift - Travis Kelce and NFL example and contemplate some potential scenarios that demonstrate why these tactics may not build a brand, using the NFL as an illustrative case.
What would happen if Swift and Kelce were to break up? Swifties, who were drawn to the NFL due to Taylor Swift, might depart along with her. And, God forbid if there happens to be a bitter and messy brake up between these two…Commercializing romance may yield profits until a messy breakup that results in Swifties venting their anger and bitterness, implicating the Kansas City Chiefs and the NFL. If one side of the coin represents joy and fan engagement for the NFL, the flip side could potentially bring curses, tears, finger-pointing, and even elements of cancel culture in the current Zeitgeist.
The approach detailed above is not defensible for the NFL or any other brand. While Taylor Swift may temporarily direct her fandom's attention to a few NFL games, this does not equate to sustainable brand growth for the NFL unless they implement strategies to convert this newfound attention into resonant brand meanings. Taylor Swift lends her fandom's attention to the NFL, but not necessarily transferring the core meanings of her brand. Unless the NFL can provide a resonant value proposition tailored to these Swifties, the situation remains indefensible. The NFL does not inherently generate meaning; instead, it borrows meaning from Taylor Swift's brand, albeit temporarily. How will the NFL effectively communicate the value of its brand and its associated meanings to these newcomers? How can the NFL retain and engage them, fostering a genuine affection for the NFL brand or the Kansas City Chiefs, even when Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are no longer in the picture? It is possible, but it necessitates intentional branding strategies.
Nike, for instance, has demonstrated success in leveraging Michael Jordan's influence for its brand. Nike has adeptly harnessed cultural codes and amplified Nike's "Just Do It" mythology through the Jordan brand. The story of the Jordan brand within the Nike framework serves as an intriguing case study in cultural strategy.
Not sustainable. Whom will the NFL target once Taylor Swift and her Swifties are no longer in the picture? In this regard, the relentless pursuit of these main-effect actions creates a never-ending cycle. Brands become increasingly focused on engaging and leveraging the fame of others, leading to constant collaborations and an insatiable desire for attention, ultimately wearing the brand thin and weary.
Contemporary brands are suffering from collaboration exhaustion, with limited attention to the fundamental process of brand building. All the negative consequences I discussed regarding leveraging fame to boost sales are equally applicable to the other common main-effect axiom - aka brand collaborations. Brand collaborations do not build brands; they may amplify existing brands meanings, but do not create them.
In sum,
Main-effect driven thinking, exemplified by the Taylor Swift effect and her strategies of leveraging fame to boost sales, could spell the demise of branding, as it:
Hinders the process of brand building;
Oversimplifies branding, reducing it to performance marketing;
Deprives us of the opportunity to construct robust, resonant, and enduring brands that are defensible and sustainable.
In this blog, we've covered a substantial amount about branding. For the sake of readability, I've decided to create a third part to discuss the impact of the Taylor Swift effect on brand managers, creator culture, and the marketplace. Very soon, third part….