Identity, Brands and the Next Generation

[Author’s note: I’m not really sure about this. I would really love some comments on what I’ve written here. Tear it down if you like.]

If identity is everything, what is identity? How does it fit in with marketing?

Is “identity” a fiction of a transient lifestage? Do concerns of identity stop after a time, become irrelevant because of other important issues? That’s probably another story.

But one thing’s for sure. It’s impossible for identity to cease to exist. The notion of identity is a definition (both externally and internally) of who we are.

My identity is made up of a set of identifiers, a set of characteristics that combine to constitute who I am. These range from the most superficial (Clay has brown hair) to the most hidden (Clay carries a Zippo just in case attractive women ask him to smoke. He’s never used it. Don’t even think that this is the most hidden piece of who I am. Again, another story.)

Just like power defines every relationship, identity defines who we are individually. It’s in conscious and unconscious decisions you’ve made in your life; in fact, that is what it is all about. The decision to purchase a certain thing; the decision to take the train instead of driving; the decision to style your hair in a certain way; the decision to listen to a certain kind of music; the decision to dress and act a certain way, or to hang out with a certain kind of people.

And just as importantly, it’s how the world perceives those decisions. Because it’s very likely that a combination of how you understand your decisions, and how the world’s stereotypes color those decisions, comes to define your identity both externally and internally.

Shared Identities
Ultimately, the sum of these associations — both external and internal — begin to formulate an identity that is probably not 100% unique to you. At least 10 people in the world share the exact same conscious and unconscious preferences. It is nice to imagine that you are a snowflake, unique and distinct and wonderful in every way, but let’s be real. You’re not. After all, think of how many people in the world share only some of the characteristics that you call unique. Imagine how many people in your life have prompted you to say, “Omigod, we have SO much in common!” This population probably numbers in the millions. I’d say the average person today has met about 10 people that fit the bill. And this ought to become easier in the future… (get it? foreshadowing)

The international relations community — some of them, anyhow — have been talking about the disappearing nation-state for some time. Eventually states like “France” and “England” and “The United States” and “Iraq” will cease to exist. Technology is tearing down borders. [Who needed them, anyway? They just seemed to cause problems. Most of them were flawed from the start] We’ll someday become a loose network of societies (many of which will be online), governed generally by continental, regional or international ruling bodies.

In this “new order,” people around the world that share characteristics WILL find each other. Think long tail, but for people: make everyone available, and help them find each other. It’s already happening. If dating services allow you to find matches based on 40+ characteristics, then why couldn’t that idea be used to build online e-nations of people that share ideas, beliefs and goals? Once these e-nations are created, doesn’t it follow that marketers will jump at the opportunity to talk to pre-organized, homogenous demographic groups?

The Next Generation
In Marketing 2.0 (a placeholder term that I’m inclined to use because I have to call it something), brands and people communicate back & forth. We haven’t quite perfected this yet and there’s still a huge amount of marketers that continue to message to people unaware of how they’re receiving the information.

So here’s a cocktail we’re all thirsty for: take 2.0-style 2-way communications and with the aforementioned prealigned “new order.” Splash of vermouth. Three olives. A world of more specific, smaller communities that share intricate, collaboratively designed identities … combined with improved global communication to these groups results in a single multimedia channel for brand-to-person discourse.

In order to be effective, these brands have to be relevant to the community/e-nation. Otherwise they won’t make it past the bouncer. And I imagine these e-nations being very exclusive. I don’t think that’s a good thing but it’s probably the way it’ll shake out. The improved 2-way communication helps the brands become more relevant to the identity of the community. The brand identity changes and gets more specific to a given audience than it was when it started out. The changes that the brand undergoes bring it ever closer to the center of the characteristics shared in the e-nation. The differences that separate the identities of the “group” and the “brand” start to fall away. At the same time, the brands that are accepted by a given community become globally broadcast signifiers of what that community is all about. And while brands have always done this, in the future they become more accurate and more relevant standards for who we are. At that point, brands become part of our identity.

And we end up in a spot beyond Marketing 2.0, scratching our heads and wondering if it needs a name.

[Help me finish this. What have I left out? What doesn’t make sense?]

[Primarily written in an RV park in Grand Prairie, Texas. Thanks to Cameo, The Roots, The Beatnuts, De La Soul, Le Tigre and Handel, and of course, to my iPod’s shuffle feature.]

May I offer another post?

• No Related Post