Humanising brand loyalty

I listened to endured Nick Cannon’s recent ‘interview’ with Kanye West on his Cannon’s Class podcast. Besides battling to find coherence in the monologue in general, Kanye and Nick alluded to a good point do to with branding that interested me. The exact comments were:

Kanye: “I was just thinking man, in my contract, in my Adidas contract, I should definitely be able to wear Jordans! Jordans need to be part of reparation! You can’t tell a black man not to wear Jordans!”

Nick: “It’s in our DNA!”

I’m not here to debate the terms or brand implications of Kanye’s Adidas contract specifically, but I do think that brand loyalty, in general, is worth some consideration.

The idea of brand loyalty is often thrown around loosely, featuring typically as the last or second-last step on consumer path-to-purchase journeys or conversion funnels. As brand-builders we assume loyalty to be the (near-)ultimate reward for our efforts. Once someone uses our brand repeatedly, it is considered, at face value, to be loyalty. And then, too often, we stop thinking.

Nick and Kanye’s comments prompted me acknowledge a couple things about brand loyalty.

First, it’s not exclusive. The days of monogamous relationships between brands and consumers are largely over. It’s unrealistic to believe that people use your brand exclusively, especially when you consider competitive value; changing consumers tastes and trends; macro-economic fluctuations etc. etc. And then consider choice. In a world where choice is offered and force-fed to people through constant marketing efforts on every channel or platform possible, people are more empowered than ever to be aware of (and obviously like) other options. Considering the economics of Kayne’s Adidas contract, should Adidas expect exclusivity? Probably. Considering the real world of real people who look up to other real people and where choice is a natural part of life, should Adidas dictate exclusivity? Probably not. If anything, their exclusivity clause just proved the argument for choice (and emotional decision-making).

Second, loyalty is often considered to be a state of commitment by a consumer to a brand. I’ll argue that this is misguided. It should be a commitment from a brand to a consumer; to a person. Instead of being driven by objectives of repeated use, i.e. practical brand loyalty, brands should aspire to holistic objectives to do with seamless integration, over time, into people’s lives, stories, histories and thus identities.

Nick Cannon’s words were simple, but potent. It’s in our DNA. In other words, Jordans are in our stories, our personal and collective [African American] narratives. We related to Jordans; we grew up with Jordans; we got to know Jordans; we liked Jordans; we accepted Jordans into our families; we choose Jordans to stay in our lives.

The type of brand loyalty that brands should aspire to should exceed likeability and purchase intent. In fact, it should surpass brand advocacy even. The unconscious, and unquestioned inclusion of a brand into someone’s world is a more ultimate and aspiring form of brand loyalty. This, for me, requires brands to stop thinking solely along economic lines and objectives and to start thinking more along the lines of how they can become more human and organically integrated into the human experience and unfolding story.

Let’s Work Together

TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR PROJECT

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.