How do we brand tradition?

                                                      photography credits: SA brand Okapi

I don’t want to approach this subject from a creative process standpoint. A lot of marketers tend to place tradition at the forefront of their brand communication. A certain French champagne brand has been around since the 1950s, but brands itself around 17^th century ideals. There are many brands which do exactly that, and we've come to accept them. My understanding of what tradition is, is that it is ‘the way in which things are done’, or ‘a certain way of doing things’. A grape cultivator has the objective to cultivate his crop in a manner which best suits his business. The grape cultivator can either choose to stick to an existing method, one which has existed for centuries, or he could ‘innovate’ and begin a new method which he’ll be credited for starting. To my understanding, the former case would be following a particular tradition, and the latter case would be beginning one’s own tradition. Both these scenarios are important to be able to distinguish because of the luxury industry’s present state; be it wines, chocolatiers, hotels, fashion, publishing, any sub-domain of the luxury industry hasn't succeeded yet at effectively defining what tradition is to them. 

Closely positioned alongside tradition is the notion of heritage. This is when a certain tradition is passed on from generation to generation. In this case, the grape cultivator has inherited all of his knowledge and skills application from his ancestry. Heritage is interesting because it’s a broad subject matter. I've encountered brands which define themselves as having an “African heritage” for example. To be fair to those brands, that’s completely acceptable provided that their heritage is in line with what their ideals stand for. Heritage can be overused, or understated. It can also be effectively communicated. But the one thing I've realized with setting heritage as a unique selling point is that its appeal tends to narrow the potentials of a brand. It’s more of a ‘core clientele’ prerequisite. There are brands which balance these two centers very well. But not all brands have a unique attribute to their heritage, and not all brands view tradition as their core differentiator. 

Perhaps we need a broader scope of assessing a brand’s legitimacy. We cannot only use tradition and heritage to validate the way a brand prices its products. We should also observe other dimensions of that brand. Critical aspects such as the provenance, the product quality, the technical application, material, methodology, design, refinement, and the brand’s core ideals, are just some of the differentiators which could be applicable, along with looking at its tradition. Luxury branding has never been this accessible to so many people. There’s a 2.5 billion middle-to- upper income population globally that’s just waiting to hop onto all things ‘luxury’. They possess the buying power, the tools, and the knowledge. But can they identify with what they’re consuming? Branding ‘tradition’ is like slapping a gold encrusted label onto an empty cardboard box. It’s really easy to be grabbed by the detailing of its packaging, but it’s still empty! 

Brand Constancy in a rapidly changing macro-environment

the below piece was originally published in PhsicsMag's Private issue 

Trading down is an interesting but controversial notion. As you would recall, Aquascutum, the 150 year old British luxury fashion brand, filed for administration in April 2012, which led to the house subsequently being taken over by a Chinese consortium called YGM Trading Ltd for a fee of USD 24 million; shockingly absurd don’t you think? For a brand with that much history and tradition, one which is considered as an icon of British culture? In her Redefining the Luxury Concept working paper, Uché Okonkwo introduces two notions; trading down and trading up. In her argument, taking into account today’s macro influences such as a surge in wealth accumulation and the wide accessibility of upscale retail establishments, Ms Okonkwo points out that “fashion brands are for the mass market, whether they are of high quality or not”, and she goes on further to identify luxury brands as being “for a distinct narrow market and are defined by high quality, differentiation and precision in product design and manufacture”.

               all digital marketing enthusiasts, order the book Luxury Online by Uché Okonkwo

According to Uché Okonkwo, the existence of “mass-premium” branding has created a situation whereby the Marketing Mix of an H&M or a Zara for example, no longer reflect that of a low to mid-range retail establishment. To counter claim her latter observation, one would agree that indeed there has been a blurring-out of the differences in the Marketing Mix between low to mid-range brand and retail establishments with luxury ones, but there hasn't really been an effort by luxury brands to justify their high prices effectively, because Zara, H&M, Uniqlo; all these fast fashion establishments are proving to be more relevant on the high street each day. In trying to understand the trading down concept, and whether it contributed to the likes of Aquascutum’s demise, I would like to introduce the notion of brand constancy.

Unlike Burberry, Aquascutum tended to target older and slightly more sophisticated consumers. Unlike Burberry, Aquascutum didn't really have a consistent communications strategy. Unlike Burberry, Aquascutum didn’t evolve into a web 2.0 luxury brand in time, and looking at the company’s history, its previous owners tried their best to keep it rooted to 19th century British ideals. If trading down caused established makes such as  Aquascutum to go bankrupt then why didn't it happen to the likes of Burberry? Trading down reflects directly on a brand’s constancy because consumers will be loyal to the brands which have been relevant to them throughout. Brands that die-out in the minds of consumers will simply become replaced. I do agree that the “mass-premium” approach is making it easier for high income consumers to trade down, but does this mean that there isn’t a middle segmented consumer base which is willing to trade up anymore?