Quite the quote . . .

“You should banish any thoughts of how you may appear to others. If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.”- Marcus Aurelius

Of Longing and Belonging; the psychology of consumerism

Everybody loves to belong. To feel part of something larger. Its the same for consumerism.  Aren't we trying to define who we are by the choices we make as a consumer?

Take televisions for example. Personally, I'm a Panasonic man.  I'm not sure exactly why, but I do seem to be drawn to their particular identity.

A large part of it for me is aesthetics; I just like the way Panasonics look. They have an air of quality and an understated, monolithic design. Samsung on the other hand (despite being, I'm sure, equally good TVs) seem to me plastic and flashy (as do their phones) so despite the whizz-bang digital acrobatics they are capable of, I have not identified with that brand. 

Sony, for me, exudes the same vibe of beautiful form and function, yet because the brand is so huge and invasive, I find myself avoiding it because I don't want to be another Sony slave. Silly I know, all of the above brands are class leaders and perhaps a few of you techies out there could tell me why I've made the wrong choice, but there you go. I just like them. And this "mojo" is what a brand desperately longs to achieve with its clients. They can explain the features and benefits until the cows come home but its that "I don't know why I like it, I just do" feeling that gets punters to part with their money.

So that leaves me wondering, how do you create that desire?  How does a brand go about developing and defining how people view it? Is it up to the consumer to mould and shape a brand into their corporate identity? Or is it the brand's Mission to define its values and target a particular consumer?

Perhaps, I suspect, it takes two to tango.  Take Apple, that Leviathan of aesthetic functionality. Before they became bigger than God, it felt great to be part of "the other lot" that questioned the  Gospel of the Microsoft Corporation. Not only were they supremely beautiful in form, but one felt special to be part of the club. Its what they built there massive following on. Yes, their products were more expensive, but you could really feel like every millimetre of glass and brushed aluminium was worth the price. It had done the impossible and sold millions of units of high-end and expensive hardware so much was our desire to have a slice of the, er, apple.
 

At some point, and I suspect that the premature demise of Steve Jobs has effected this, Apple stopped being the interesting alternative and became the biggest predator in the ocean.

"Great!" say the shareholders. "Mission accomplished". But by becoming so successful has Apple's brand identity changed simply by the sheer number of its consumers?  Have they shaped the company's values and become a watered down version of itself? You could argue that they are no longer quite the innovators that they used to be. The pressure is enormous when you set the benchmark so high. As soon as your competitors respond you must raise the bar again, but at what cost? And at the same time as enjoying loyalty to a brand, consumers are so fickle that it doesn't take long for that brand to be dropped like yesterday's takeaway curry.

This phenomena has also happened, in a slightly different way, to luxury brand Tiffany & Co. Its a vicious circle that goes like this:

Luxury brand, small but with loyal following and great cache starts to grow. They become worldwide name and increase profits tenfold. Company becomes huge and client base expands rapidly. They start to take control of the market and buy their own diamond mines. Seeing how successful the company is becoming, efforts are made to introduce the brand to a still larger client base, by introducing a range of products that are almost affordable to the average consumer, looking for a precious gift. This proves to be very successful, and as profits increase still further, more stores are opened around the world. It is an aspirational company.

At some point along this timeline, the brand starts to lose the values that made it special in the first place. Yes, its a very much desired brand, but that beautiful and romantic idea you have of Tiffany & Co has become so watered down that the company has started to mean something else to its clients.

Its not necessarily a bad thing. The company is still doing very well, and many people are able to buy into the brand and become loyal Tiffany customers. So why worry about it? Well, eventually the company will start to slide down the pyramid of luxury retail so much that it will have to re-position itself. the question is, how easily is that to achieve whilst still maintaining profits?

So, to keep the values that made a company so special in the first place, those values that really spoke to you as a consumer, it must really listen to its clientele, and ask themselves the questions: As we become larger and richer, are we still the company we were when our clients first fell in love with us?

Are we just better and stronger at what we do, or have we morphed into something else? Eventually, your clients will tell you with their feet.





 

Iconic designs: In praise of the new London bus

There's something very comforting in coming across a design that works in a simple, beautiful and effective way. I go all Zen when I see something perfectly imagined (at least in my eyes).

 

The new London buses do this for me. It could be a number of elements; the modern/retro merge, the beautifully shaped windows that sweep across the back and illuminate the stairs. Its soft-scoop curves, "friendly Robot" face and of course the great decision to reimagine the old route master hop on/hop off platform.



They have a presence that I think will remain even when we no longer see them as a novelty.  It reminds me a little of the VW Beetle, in that however many times we see one, our eyes linger a little longer not just because of its iconic design, but because of how pleasing on the eye it is.


Well done to Heatherwick studios (Peter Heatherwick of London Olympic Flame fame)  In creating a modern design masterpiece that we can see everyday.

 

School of Thought

Why we should be teaching our children to think, or rather how to think.

 

After reading this great BBC article by Hugh Schofield about his daughter’s impending philosophy exam (She’s doing her baccalaureate in Paris), it inspired me to wave the flag a little bit.

I think the French have got it spot on. Much value is placed on educating a mind that can reason and develope a set of values, to question what they see around them. Philosophy is seen as a very practical and useful tool. Je pense donc je suis.

 These days children are connecting with the world at a very early age. They are asked to make  important choices, both in their social environment and in their education. They have so much pressure to find out where they stand and how they feel about a forbidding and chaotic world. The ubiquitous nature of social networking means children are exposed to more of the human condition than ever before, and at an earlier age. Is this such a bad thing? Not if they are given the tools with which to handle these situations. One thing understanding philosophy can do is help to develop a kind of system to live by, or at least a personal set of values that we can arm ourselves with when faced with life’s problems.

Sometimes I think we are a little too afraid to discuss the really big questions with a child. Why are we here? What is evil? Why is love so important? Does humanity need a society? Is truth more important than feelings?

Perhaps it is because we fear they are not yet ready to deal with these enormous themes. Or is it because we don’t actually know the answers ourselves? Or more pertinently, never even bothered to mull them over? So many of us (including myself although I'm trying to change this) breeze through life with out bothering to think about the really big questions. I think to some extent its human nature.

Trying to answer an abstract question can scare people because there isn't one answer. This is unacceptable to most people’s minds as it doesn’t provide us with comfort or a secure footing in the order of things (Enter Religion, stage right). But why not? If through their education, children arrive at University age with a sound understanding of what it means to reason, to balance a thought and see both sides of a moral argument, even just to have developed an opinion about something, are they not better equipped to make the right decisions for themselves?

Big decisions are all relative. What seems like a life-changer to a child may not seem much to an adult, so it might happen that a parent could miss a serious problem in a teenager’s life (especially as most teenagers are about as communicative as Stonehenge). Wouldn’t it be great if a philosophy class could help to provide a moral solution to that dilemma? Of course its naïve to think that all your childhood problems can be solved by dipping into a bit of Sartre but it might help to know that there is a way of thinking that can put things into perspective. And I think perspective is everything.  As Marcus Aurelius says, "Everything we see is a perspective, not a truth"

By exposing students to several different schools of thought, it may just be that, even if one doesn't entirely work for all situations, its possible to dip in and out of several different theories and find a bespoke system of values that suits that individual. That's what I think is the best way to treat philosophy. I take great comfort from the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius for example, but I don't delve to deeply into one mantra. One can get too bogged down into one philosopher's idioms (especially if that philosopher is Nietzsche!). If a child can be introduced to several ways of looking at the world and the moral questions it raises he/she can find the one that works best for them.

So, why not introduce compulsory philosophy lessons into the British curriculum? I'm sure there are those out there who would question its need, and God-fearing folk who would feel threatened by the idea that one can develop a moral code without the need for religion. I suppose we have never been as introspective a nation as France, but, well, perhaps that needs to change? An emphasis on celebrity and quick fix solutions is in danger of turning our youth into myopic Zombies fed on popular culture that never stops to ask why? but when? The trick is to make philosophy relevant and usable, not a dry and dusty lesson about History's greatest thinkers.

To quote Marcus Aurelius again ( I really do like him)

"The happiness of your life depends on the quality of your thoughts: therefore guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature" 

 

 

The German Eagle is landing, and I think we quite like it this time

This Saturday, for those interested in such things, I’ll be watching a Teutonic festival of football. Two German Titans of the game, namely Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund, descend onto Wembley for the first ever all-German Champions League final.

 

What is interesting to witness is the reaction from our press towards what would have been coined by certain newspapers in the past  as “an invasion". It seems to me that we are starting to love our German cousins and what in the past (so excruciatingly highlighted in football) was a blatant antipathy towards Germany, has melted into an almost gooey tenderness.

 

As an Englishman married to a German, the somewhat stiff relationship between our two nations has often amused me.

 

The great thing is our slight frostiness towards all things Germanic (Ok, everyone loves a good beerfest, and boy do we love those autos.) is melting away, and Germans see that in these wobbly economic times, the Brits are fairly reliable partners even if we do sometimes run upstairs to our bedroom and slam the door like an hormonal teenager when it comes to Europe.

Wembley hosting this year’s final has put our relationship under the microscope for a few days (At least in the back page articles) and it has been interesting to gauge the tone of not just the broadsheets but the red-tops too. “The Germans are coming”, “the towels are already down”, but for the first time we as a nation are happy to say “wilkommen”.

 

Lets face it, we are not so different. The English are a pick-and-mix nation but a lot of us would consider ourselves Anglo Saxon. The British Royal Family, the last sinuous connection to our more illustrious past, is itself coursing with German blood.

 

The differences between our two nations are many and varied. And yet, there is a cultural DNA that we share and understand. A lot of it is down to language. I certainly feel more affinity with German than with French (despite the mind numbing declensions), but it’s more to do with a feeling of familiarity. When I visit Germany, the cultural shift is not as great as with other countries. I love France, for example, precisely because it is slightly more exotic than England, not because it feels like home. I am of course making a massive generalisation, the minutiae of cultural differences between our two countries could fill libraries but despite these we do share something, perhaps like twins separated at birth, who meet and seem to know instinctively they share the same mother.

Yes,  I hear you screaming about the big white elephant in the room. I have been trying not to mention the war but its difficult not to when explaining our love/hate relationship with Germany. No one reading this blog needs a history lesson, so perhaps what is more interesting is to ponder how our relationship would have developed if there had been no world wars to speak of? Would Britain and Germany have embraced each other as brother and sister? Would there have been room for both our Empires? Perhaps not.

 

Of course it’s impossible not to have our relationship with Germany flavoured by 20th Century events, but what’s interesting is that finally the football press have decided to put that old warhorse to sleep when mentioning German football.

 

In years gone by the press here would have begrudgingly accepted their talent, but swiftly reminded everyone that, well, we won the war, and who do these Germans think they are anyway? They would have commented on how coldly and ruthlessly efficient they are. Assassins of football who will, if we’re not careful, dispatch us with disdainful insouciance. “Football is a game played by 22 men for ninety minutes and in the end the Germans win” to quote Gary Linekar. (Well I suppose this time we can be assured of that!) But, they cry, is it really entertainment? No, give us a Brazil any day.

This time I have noticed real respect and admiration coming from English football supporters, and even more bizarrely, the English press* towards these two teams.

As we all love an underdog here most of us will be rooting for Borussia Dortmund, who play a lovely expansive and high tempo game of football, have a noisy and passionate following, and own a steeply raked cauldron of a stadium that most English fans would gladly claim as their own. They also represent the industrial heartland of northern Germany, their fans are factory workers and blue collar types, echoing the working class roots of English football in Northern industrial towns such as Liverpool and Manchester. We understand the demographic landscape.

 

But in all honesty we have been purring over the lavishly skilled and powerfully gifted Bavarian Motor Works that is, and forgive me for labouring the metaphor here, perhaps the ultimate footballing machine. Bayern Munich are clearly the best team in the world now, having overcome the achingly beautiful but ultimately fragile Barcelona. The interesting thing about that is that Bayern beat them at their own game, just more powerfully and with a quicker and more efficient engine.

Let’s not hide from the truth; we are sometimes quite understandably jealous as a nation of how things are done in Germany. We perhaps accuse them of more than a little arrogance. But a flourishing Germany is good for Europe, and we should be celebrating their prodigious industry. And let’s not forget, Germans know how to throw a party.

 

When the 2006 World Cup was held there, they created a footballing fiesta of a type that the English FA would have had a hard time fitting into its dry corporate blueprint. It was the first world cup to allow every fan in the home nation to come to a platz in their local town and watch together on the big screen. They could drink beer. They didn't charge the earth for tickets (this is true of the Bundesliga too) nor make them impossible to get hold of.

 

The 2006 World cup saw Germany for the first time wave its flag without apology. You could almost hear the collective sigh of relief as a united Germany sang their national anthem with gusto and pride, and we applauded. Once England had been duly and inevitably dispatched at the quarter final stage, was I alone in wishing Germany on against the Italians? Perhaps, looking back, it was because Germany failed so heartbreakingly close to a final on home soil that we cared. It made them so English-like in defeat.

 

This leads me to a very important difference in our two nations: Germans just don’t feel the need to apologise about winning, whereas we always seem to feel a little uncomfortable with a triumph. We can’t seem to shuffle of this tall poppy syndrome. Manchester United, for example, are hated mostly because of their serial winning streak. They have become “arrogant”  by continuously winning. It’s as if we feel that consistently being on top is a little unnecessary. One or two triumphs are fine, but really, twelve or thirteen? That’s taking the mick isn’t it? Let some other poor chap have a chance.

This is the kind of collective sensibility that Germans have a hard time relating to. It’s also what makes the British sense of humour so popular. We’re not afraid to have a pop at ourselves, and we love to wallow in our national failings and actually pride ourselves in them. It’s what makes us charming. Germans get this but find it a bit silly.

 

To be honest, Germans never really had a problem with us, only with the stubbornness we have in this country to accept change and embrace new and innovative ways of doing things. It leaves them perplexed. I tend to agree with the Germans on this. We are very slow to adapt to a new way of doing things. This has affected our industry, as well as our football. It’s simple. When we won the world Cup in 1966, instead of using it as a Launchpad and creating a dynasty of winning football teams, we sat on our laurels and slowly reverted back to mediocrity. We refused to evolve our style of play during the seventies and eighties and consequently fell behind other nations, but somehow carried the belief that our way was still the best. Is this not arrogance?

 

Now let’s look at Germany. After the great failure of Euro 2000, where for the first time they failed to make it to the knockout stage of the tournament, what did they do? A complete overhaul of both grass roots football and their national league. As a result, new players are coming through now that play a style of football bang up to date and able to compete at the latter stages of a major tournament. The pool of young talent with a German passport is frightening.

 

With apologies for the simplistic footballing analogy, (I get to write about football that way!) I think seeing how Germany  has enjoyed its football in the last few years, the wonderful stadiums, affordable tickets and the close relationship the clubs have with their fans has turned our heads. Our corporate football culture with its “loads ‘a money!” posturing is alienating our football fans and we can see the fun the Germans are having in their stadiums. Perhaps this time they will be serving humble pie to the corporate boxes at Wembley, and we can embrace the German way of doing things.

Now all that’s left to decide is who makes the better sausage. I’ll leave that one for another time!

*I say English press as the Scottish and Welsh have never had a problem with supporting Germany against the English football team!)