Thank you – genuinely interested to read it. Most of the research I see relies on self-descriptions of what consumers *think* makes them buy brands, which bears little relation to why they actually do. I tackle a lot of it in The Road to Hell (sorry for the counter-plug) – and I think there's evidence all around us of how little values matter when it comes to most purchasing decisions. But I'm always interested to hear new evidence.
Problem is (one of the anyway) new consumers have a 3 second attention span, forced upon them from the internet and like (crave) obvious headlines without the depth to scratch even superficially under the surface. DYOR is meaningless through either nonchalance or being time poor so brands can get away with obvious attention grabs that are paper thin knowing they won't get found out.
Great article. And would I suddenly rush to Sainsbury’s to buy Surreal after seeing that poster? Not in a million years. Terrible name btw. It suggests the ingredients may contain a few surprises don’t you think?
Probably a hot take itself, but I think it’s becoming clear that all of the reactions on all sides are more about the societal pressure to say something about everything (ie have a hot take) than about really caring about the system forces invisibly permeating our lives like odorless carbon monoxide.
No, I politely reject that. There are a million things to have a take about, and I post about one thing about once a month. In this case, the subject isn't just some random poster, it's things like class, purpose, and the politics and ethics of business & marketing. I think those are good things to have hot takes about, and I don't think there are nearly enough of them.
Oh I apologize if it sounded like I was criticizing your thesis and your nuanced account of this story. That was a dashed-off and under caffeinated comment. I really enjoyed your post, as always, and found it thought-provoking and cogent. I think what I meant is the more general tendency for people to need to judge things: like that awesome guy who made the m&s video. Why did people need to have an opinion about that/him? Before social media, it might be fun to discuss the merits around the water cooler, but social media seems to turn literally everything into a thing. I really think this is my least thoughtful comment ever, so feel free to reject it — I’m exhausted. But I had to write back and clarify that I am totally with you and just frankly annoyed by social media takes on everything. I’ll quit while I’m only quite behind, rather than egregiously so. Again, I’m plaintiffs exhibit a today re: commenting without really adding anything ;)
Oh God, apology accepted to the extent it's even necessary! Reading back, my reply was pretty defensive, so maybe I'm the under-caffeinated one 😅 As you say, we're probably both illustrating the perils of online conversations. And you're right about water coolers – maybe they also had a valuable function as hot take coolers.
Anyway, massively appreciate you reading and please do not give this another thought. Life is too short (and some people's letters to their Dad are too long).
Haha indeed! Yes — perils of online conversations for sure. Imagine how many people don’t take the time to rectify misunderstandings, too. I’m so glad we did! Off to get coffee lol! 🙏❤️
Fascinating observations. With family from (hardscrabble) N UK, moved to W US; and (industrious) NE US moved to W US; and (rebellious) W US moved to (monied) NYC, it has been a challenge NOT to think about nepo-babies and the luck of their birth.
Yes, hard not to think about sometimes – and I definitely have my fair share of privilege myself. But even as I Googled to find out who his dad was, I got this premonition it was going to be someone on a whole other level.
Just so hard not to laugh out loud. Beyond satire. And so beautifully restrained. Apart from the comedy GODDAMNIT! which is warranted IMHO. Keep up the aim.
Made an account simply to say how much I enjoyed this article. Also, as an Aussie i've seen the success Cole's generated through that campaign. The hate towards it baffles me just as much as you.
You can get an Inspection Copy through De Gruyter. It’s very thorough and has had some excellent feedback as well as making it to the Finalist stage of two book awards.
I'd agree with everything you said here except this bit: "Either way, the best approach is always to focus on individuals rather than identity groups, whether they’re class-based or otherwise. Humans are complicated that way."
Class is not an identity group, it's a material position in terms of your relation to wealth. It's focussing on individuals rather than class that gets our politics where it is today — that leads Rishi Sunak to believe (mistakenly) he can hop in a Kia and appear down with the people lol. It's also why we obsess over the actors with famous parents, rather than on the real economic barriers that prevent working class people from getting in to acting.
Apart from that great read, I wondered what your thoughts are on this boom of advertising specifically made for linkedin... Those billboards are clearly not meant to be seen by anyone other than millennial professionals on linkedin, and maybe twitter at a stretch. It seems quite novel to me, but they've clearly identified their market as people on linkedin who can afford to spend £8 on a box of cereal, so what's the point advertising anywhere else?
On the last part – agree it's been an interesting development that billboards are very often created purely to be photographed and put on social media. So all the old rules about 'maximum 7-word headline' etc become slightly redundant. I don't necessarily think it's either a good or bad thing, just a notable shift in the game. In this case, I think Surreal are doing it wholly for the social media clicks, not passing traffic in Clapton. But one way or the other, if they're in Sainsbury's, they're going to need to appeal to more than just LinkedIn people.
On your first, more important, point – I get where you're coming from. I think class politics is a very different thing to identity politics, and often more effective politically because it cuts across identity groups and gets to the economic issues that matter most. But I disagree that too much focus on individuals is what has got us into trouble. I would say the opposite – in recent years, there has been a huge focus on judging people by the broad identity groups to which they belong, and class is often lumped in as one of them, because it's partly economic reality but also partly a chosen identity that people define in different ways (e.g. you can do well for yourself but still self-identify as working class, or you can be what others would call working class but self-identify upwards as middle class, as a lot of people used to do. These days British people tend to self-identify downwards quite a lot.)
But my main point is that knowing the class or identity (racial,gender etc) of any *individual person* doesn't and shouldn't tell you that much about that person, because we're all so different across so many different vectors. And I think that's a universal, human-centred principle that's been very unfashionable in recent years.
Anyway, probably trying to convey too much in a comments reply, but hope that makes sense.
Yeah I think broadly we're in agreement, that assuming someone's situation according to some perceived notion of their identity based on cultural signifiers is pretty unproductive.
I guess my frustration is with the fact that class politics is indeed muddied up with identity politics — that a guy on question time can proclaim himself to be working class when his income is above 80k and he owns a business and several properties. What I mean when I say there's too much focus on individuals and not on material conditions is exactly to your point on the focus on identity over reality. So I think we're probably using different words to say the same thing haha!
I think what's more interesting about your piece than the individual case of the Surreal and Days guys, is the proliferation of these *types of guys* (and this type of marketing), and their disconnect with reality that's due to them being financially protected from it. And it made me wonder if this will actually damage their PR or their business, given that their — and many similar startup's — target demographic are similar types-of-guy on Linkedin, who will broadly just see this as a bit of a laugh.
It reminds me of that Oatly stunt in Paris, which again was a demonstration of this absolute disregard for the wants and needs of the people in a place — who had collectively decided not to have advertising on their walls — while everyone on LinkedIn was just fawning over what clever marketing it was.
Anyway sorry, getting too ranty in the comments haha. I appreciate the discussion, and thanks for the words :)
Thanks Mike – yes, think we're broadly on the same page. I agree OOH and faux-OOH ads are a strange thing these days. Some poster campaigns are still doing a traditional mass marketing job. But many others are really just an expensive one-off photo shoot for a social media post, which is the real point of the whole exercise. I'm sure the founder-bros get a kick from that kind of part-personal, part-brand attention.
I find it interesting that their dad is probably the entire reason they are in Sainsbury’s. The amount of times I’ve seen this pattern is quite sickly.
Middle/upper class person tries to virtue signal by creating or doing something ethical, parades their success over the working class (mocking their lack of righteousness) whilst being secretly funded by some grossly unethical means.
Yes fascinating. Hard to believe there weren't lots of useful connections being leveraged behind the scenes. And very often, the same people go on to give inspirational 'do what you love'-type talks.
I love the wordplay: surreal / cereal. Thanks for an interesting post. Advertising takes you down some rabbit holes for sure.
Another great post and great points. I don't think it's just nepo-baby brands that are playing Gen Z btw.
No disagreement there!
Plenty of examples of ‘purpose-led’ strategies being bottom-up here……
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110718638/html
Thank you – genuinely interested to read it. Most of the research I see relies on self-descriptions of what consumers *think* makes them buy brands, which bears little relation to why they actually do. I tackle a lot of it in The Road to Hell (sorry for the counter-plug) – and I think there's evidence all around us of how little values matter when it comes to most purchasing decisions. But I'm always interested to hear new evidence.
Problem is (one of the anyway) new consumers have a 3 second attention span, forced upon them from the internet and like (crave) obvious headlines without the depth to scratch even superficially under the surface. DYOR is meaningless through either nonchalance or being time poor so brands can get away with obvious attention grabs that are paper thin knowing they won't get found out.
Great article. And would I suddenly rush to Sainsbury’s to buy Surreal after seeing that poster? Not in a million years. Terrible name btw. It suggests the ingredients may contain a few surprises don’t you think?
Excellent post. I've just cross-posted on my own substack www.thenewera.uk
Thanks for that. Interesting read!
Thanks Jeffrey, appreciated
Probably a hot take itself, but I think it’s becoming clear that all of the reactions on all sides are more about the societal pressure to say something about everything (ie have a hot take) than about really caring about the system forces invisibly permeating our lives like odorless carbon monoxide.
No, I politely reject that. There are a million things to have a take about, and I post about one thing about once a month. In this case, the subject isn't just some random poster, it's things like class, purpose, and the politics and ethics of business & marketing. I think those are good things to have hot takes about, and I don't think there are nearly enough of them.
Oh I apologize if it sounded like I was criticizing your thesis and your nuanced account of this story. That was a dashed-off and under caffeinated comment. I really enjoyed your post, as always, and found it thought-provoking and cogent. I think what I meant is the more general tendency for people to need to judge things: like that awesome guy who made the m&s video. Why did people need to have an opinion about that/him? Before social media, it might be fun to discuss the merits around the water cooler, but social media seems to turn literally everything into a thing. I really think this is my least thoughtful comment ever, so feel free to reject it — I’m exhausted. But I had to write back and clarify that I am totally with you and just frankly annoyed by social media takes on everything. I’ll quit while I’m only quite behind, rather than egregiously so. Again, I’m plaintiffs exhibit a today re: commenting without really adding anything ;)
Oh God, apology accepted to the extent it's even necessary! Reading back, my reply was pretty defensive, so maybe I'm the under-caffeinated one 😅 As you say, we're probably both illustrating the perils of online conversations. And you're right about water coolers – maybe they also had a valuable function as hot take coolers.
Anyway, massively appreciate you reading and please do not give this another thought. Life is too short (and some people's letters to their Dad are too long).
Haha indeed! Yes — perils of online conversations for sure. Imagine how many people don’t take the time to rectify misunderstandings, too. I’m so glad we did! Off to get coffee lol! 🙏❤️
☕️☕️☕️😃
Great to see sane people on this earth.
Fascinating observations. With family from (hardscrabble) N UK, moved to W US; and (industrious) NE US moved to W US; and (rebellious) W US moved to (monied) NYC, it has been a challenge NOT to think about nepo-babies and the luck of their birth.
Yes, hard not to think about sometimes – and I definitely have my fair share of privilege myself. But even as I Googled to find out who his dad was, I got this premonition it was going to be someone on a whole other level.
Yep. A family member has worked in several areas catering to billionaire and even trillionaire types. Hard to imagine.
I guess we all ultimately work in that sector! 😭
Oof. True! Thankfully not directly for me!!
Just so hard not to laugh out loud. Beyond satire. And so beautifully restrained. Apart from the comedy GODDAMNIT! which is warranted IMHO. Keep up the aim.
Thanks Ed – the Goddamnit is closer to my in-the-pub tone of voice. (Always like to flex my TOV to match the context.)
I sat in my car reading to the end even though I was going to be even later to an appointment than I already was. Zinger of an article.
Thanks so much, great to hear
Made an account simply to say how much I enjoyed this article. Also, as an Aussie i've seen the success Cole's generated through that campaign. The hate towards it baffles me just as much as you.
Thanks Daniel, good to hear. I watched the Coles ad and thought it was great (although I guess the 100th listen might get challenging 😅)
You can get an Inspection Copy through De Gruyter. It’s very thorough and has had some excellent feedback as well as making it to the Finalist stage of two book awards.
I'd agree with everything you said here except this bit: "Either way, the best approach is always to focus on individuals rather than identity groups, whether they’re class-based or otherwise. Humans are complicated that way."
Class is not an identity group, it's a material position in terms of your relation to wealth. It's focussing on individuals rather than class that gets our politics where it is today — that leads Rishi Sunak to believe (mistakenly) he can hop in a Kia and appear down with the people lol. It's also why we obsess over the actors with famous parents, rather than on the real economic barriers that prevent working class people from getting in to acting.
Apart from that great read, I wondered what your thoughts are on this boom of advertising specifically made for linkedin... Those billboards are clearly not meant to be seen by anyone other than millennial professionals on linkedin, and maybe twitter at a stretch. It seems quite novel to me, but they've clearly identified their market as people on linkedin who can afford to spend £8 on a box of cereal, so what's the point advertising anywhere else?
Thanks Mike, good comment.
On the last part – agree it's been an interesting development that billboards are very often created purely to be photographed and put on social media. So all the old rules about 'maximum 7-word headline' etc become slightly redundant. I don't necessarily think it's either a good or bad thing, just a notable shift in the game. In this case, I think Surreal are doing it wholly for the social media clicks, not passing traffic in Clapton. But one way or the other, if they're in Sainsbury's, they're going to need to appeal to more than just LinkedIn people.
On your first, more important, point – I get where you're coming from. I think class politics is a very different thing to identity politics, and often more effective politically because it cuts across identity groups and gets to the economic issues that matter most. But I disagree that too much focus on individuals is what has got us into trouble. I would say the opposite – in recent years, there has been a huge focus on judging people by the broad identity groups to which they belong, and class is often lumped in as one of them, because it's partly economic reality but also partly a chosen identity that people define in different ways (e.g. you can do well for yourself but still self-identify as working class, or you can be what others would call working class but self-identify upwards as middle class, as a lot of people used to do. These days British people tend to self-identify downwards quite a lot.)
But my main point is that knowing the class or identity (racial,gender etc) of any *individual person* doesn't and shouldn't tell you that much about that person, because we're all so different across so many different vectors. And I think that's a universal, human-centred principle that's been very unfashionable in recent years.
Anyway, probably trying to convey too much in a comments reply, but hope that makes sense.
Hey Nick, thanks for your response!
Yeah I think broadly we're in agreement, that assuming someone's situation according to some perceived notion of their identity based on cultural signifiers is pretty unproductive.
I guess my frustration is with the fact that class politics is indeed muddied up with identity politics — that a guy on question time can proclaim himself to be working class when his income is above 80k and he owns a business and several properties. What I mean when I say there's too much focus on individuals and not on material conditions is exactly to your point on the focus on identity over reality. So I think we're probably using different words to say the same thing haha!
I think what's more interesting about your piece than the individual case of the Surreal and Days guys, is the proliferation of these *types of guys* (and this type of marketing), and their disconnect with reality that's due to them being financially protected from it. And it made me wonder if this will actually damage their PR or their business, given that their — and many similar startup's — target demographic are similar types-of-guy on Linkedin, who will broadly just see this as a bit of a laugh.
It reminds me of that Oatly stunt in Paris, which again was a demonstration of this absolute disregard for the wants and needs of the people in a place — who had collectively decided not to have advertising on their walls — while everyone on LinkedIn was just fawning over what clever marketing it was.
Anyway sorry, getting too ranty in the comments haha. I appreciate the discussion, and thanks for the words :)
Thanks Mike – yes, think we're broadly on the same page. I agree OOH and faux-OOH ads are a strange thing these days. Some poster campaigns are still doing a traditional mass marketing job. But many others are really just an expensive one-off photo shoot for a social media post, which is the real point of the whole exercise. I'm sure the founder-bros get a kick from that kind of part-personal, part-brand attention.
https://www.startupdonut.co.uk/sales-and-marketing/your-marketing-strategy/how-i-began-selling-my-products-through-supermarkets
I find it interesting that their dad is probably the entire reason they are in Sainsbury’s. The amount of times I’ve seen this pattern is quite sickly.
Middle/upper class person tries to virtue signal by creating or doing something ethical, parades their success over the working class (mocking their lack of righteousness) whilst being secretly funded by some grossly unethical means.
Yes fascinating. Hard to believe there weren't lots of useful connections being leveraged behind the scenes. And very often, the same people go on to give inspirational 'do what you love'-type talks.