Cultural Branding

In his 2004 book, Douglas Holt described a new model of branding – cultural branding – employed by the most iconic brands of our time. According to Holt, brands which utilise the cultural branding model are performers of and containers for “identity myths” (Holt, 2004, pg. 14). For Holt, an identity myth is a story embedded within a brand that allows consumers to “associate the product with category benefits, to spread the myth by word of mouth, to emote, and to gather together” (pg. 35). Identity myths don’t necessarily have anything to do with the efficacy or claims of a product. In his assessment of the Coca Cola brand, Holt points to “the irrepressible American spirit” as the core identity myth being utilised (pg. 26).

We can easily see the logic of cultural branding being employed in the brand story of the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s. Started in 1978 in Vermont, the ice cream brand’s distinctive factor was the inclusion of “chunks” in its product for a different mouthfeel from other brands. The identity of the brand, however, is one that is typified by its ties to “hippie culture” with its left-leaning activism, irreverent product names and anti-corporatist attitude.

Ben & Jerry’s retains a homemade, community feel to its brand by holding events such as their annual Free Cone Day and by allowing people to visit its headquarters in Vermont where they house a “flavour graveyard” for products that have been discontinued. Product names are fun and make references to pop culture. Notable ones include Cherry Garcia (named after Jerry Garcia of the band the Grateful Dead) which began as an anonymous fan submission. Consumers are encouraged to suggest new flavours and names to the company through its website. Its non-ice cream merchandise frequently features peace symbols and tie dye motifs, reminiscent of the hippie culture that was prevalent when the company first started in the 70s.

Most significantly contributing to its identity myth is the brand’s social and political activism. As recent as last month, Ben & Jerry’s announced that it would not be selling two scoops of the same flavour in Australian outlets until same-sex marriage was legalised in the country. The company also created a flavour commemorating Barack Obama’s presidential victory in 2008 called “Yes, Pecan!”, referencing the president’s campaign slogan “Yes, We Can!”. In 2016, the company launched a campaign titled “Democracy Is In Your Hands” with online videos showing fingers, spoons and ice cream to explain political topics like the power of big money and voting rights, and to encourage more American consumers to vote. The company also created a new ice cream flavour, Empower Mint, to tie in with this campaign.

Despite being bought by multinational giant Unilever in 2000, the brand is still able to embody a hippy ethos due to the strength of its cultural branding model. According to Holt, iconic brands with strong identity myths allow consumers to to address “identity desires and anxieties” (pg. 2). This is to say that by consuming products from specific iconic brands, customers see the brand’s values as an extension of their own and this contributes to the personal identity forming mission of the consumer. Consumers who enjoy Ben & Jerry’s may enjoy the taste of the ice cream but they also appreciate being able to buy into hippie culture and the association with social activism that comes with it.

Thanks to its emphasis on “ethical consumerism” – a concept that is up for debate depending on your political leanings – by way of donations to relevant causes, Ben & Jerry’s largely avoids the main indictments of brand culture made by Naomi Klein in her 1999 book No Logo. Klein recognises the branding model described by Holt (and practised by Ben & Jerry’s) when she describes The Body Shop’s (another brand with a strong ethical approach to its business) success: “[they made] their brand concept into a virus and sending it out into the culture via a variety of channels: cultural sponsorship, political controversy, the consumer experience and brand extensions. Direct advertising, in this context, was viewed as a rather clumsy intrusion into a much more organic approach to image building.” (pg. 39) However, Klein notes that even if the intent of brands tying up with social causes is good, the presence of the brand may overshadow or detract/delegitimise the cause on display.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *