Taylor Swift Effect or End of Branding? [Part 3]

It is bad news for everyone except Taylor Swift.

In the second installment of this three-part series, we explored the reasons why the Taylor Swift effect poses challenges for brands and brand building. We delved into how the main-effect-driven thinking, as seen in Taylor Swift’s strategies of leveraging fame to boost sales, could potentially lead to the downfall of branding by:

1. Impeding the brand-building process;
2. Oversimplifying branding, reducing it to mere performance marketing; and,
3. Robbing us of the chance to develop sturdy, evocative, and enduring brands that are both defensible and sustainable.

In this concluding third part, we will wrap this series by examining why the pervasive sales-focused, performance-obsessed, and tactic-driven ‘main effect approach’ is also detrimental for brand managers, CMOs, creator economy (aka influencers), and marketplace at large.

The industry loves this because all stakeholders in the marketplace are fixated on uncovering “main effects” — identifying the one factor that directly leads to increased sales. [Part 1]

Brand Managers are expected to achieve the impossible.

As we explored in the second part of this series, relying on the Taylor Swift effect, or similar main-effect-driven strategies, poses significant challenges to traditional brand-building approaches. To reemphasize, this approach oversimplifies the complex dynamics of branding and marketing, potentially hindering the development of robust and resilient brands, along with the necessary cultural strategies for their cultivation. These challenges in the realm of branding are creating a very challenging environment for brand managers.

Brand managers are expected to produce strategies that have immediate results.

In today’s landscape, brand managers are under pressure to deliver strategies with immediate, measurable results. However, branding is inherently a slow-burning strategy. Building a brand requires a gradual and intentional process, often demanding substantial budgets to fulfill the promises of branding. Even after establishing a strong brand, attributing its impact to key performance indicators (KPIs) can be challenging, as branding doesn’t neatly fit into a simplified cause-and-effect relationship. Brand managers increasingly find themselves in scenarios and projects where they are expected to produce quick, cost-effective, and sales-boosting outcomes, a demand that contradicts the foundational principles of core branding strategies.

Brand managers are expected to prioritize performance results over creative strategies.

Brand managers find themselves caught in a dilemma where the emphasis on performance results often overshadows the importance of creative strategies. Recognizing the delicate balance required between brand building and performance marketing, I acknowledge the vital role of both aspects. Despite the necessity for organizations to make long-term investments in brand development, brand managers are consistently pressured to prioritize immediate sales-boosting outcomes, putting creative efforts and visions at the back burner. The pervasive influence of main-effect-driven strategies, as manifested by Taylor Swift effect, has created an expectation for brand managers to deliver quick, measurable, and cost-effective performance marketing results, essentially sidelining the creative branding strategies.

The pervasive influence of main-effect-driven strategies, as manifested by Taylor Swift effect, has created an expectation for brand managers to deliver quick, measurable, and cost-effective performance marketing results, essentially sidelining the creative branding strategies.

This pressure is further compounded by the widespread adoption of these main-effect strategies to enhance sales. Even established brands like Gucci, as discussed in the second part, renowned for their cultural innovation, luxury status, and substantial marketing budgets, are turning to shortcuts by embracing quasi-strategies to drive sales. In light of such trends, the challenge lies in convincing brands to invest resources and exercise patience in the gradual process of brand building.

Brand managers are entangled in an impossible web of brand conflicts.

Brand managers find themselves ensnared in a complex web of brand conflicts due to the proliferation of celebrity brands. The prevalence of celebrity brands has skyrocketed, with many celebrities seeking to monetize their influence and venturing into various categories such as consumer packaged goods, beauty, tech, fashion, entertainment, athleisure, and jewelry. In a notable shift, celebrities are not just endorsers anymore but have evolved into standalone brands with diversified portfolios that directly compete with major brands they once endorsed. This expansion and competition across categories create intricate brand relations, posing a significant challenge for brand managers seeking collaborations with these celebrities.

Taking Taylor Swift as an example, the NFL aims to collaborate with her and leverage the “main-effect” during a halftime show, as discussed in Part1. However, this endeavor faces hurdles due to the NFL’s longstanding halftime show deal with Pepsi Co., conflicting with Swift’s sponsorship by Coca-Cola. Brand managers are tasked with navigating this intricate web of brand relations to orchestrate successful brand collaborations and tentpole brand moments.

Read the rest of the blog on my Cultural Faultlines newsletter on Substack.