Original submission details
Original title: Re: Purpose? Yes, only if genuine
View original KEATS context ↗ (university access required).
3.3 Should a brand be a champion of a cause_
Should a brand be a champion of a cause? Does this attract your attention and/or interest? What are the brand management issues to consider?
Course task reproduced as context. The response below is Fiona’s independent academic work. KEATS source ↗ (university access required).
Explore writing on this question ↗Hi Marie,
I think there is another reason the Volkswagen scandal hurt so much.
As humans, we don’t only build relationships with people. We build them with places, songs, traditions… and sometimes with corporations. Without even noticing, we give them personalities. We decide which ones we trust, which ones make us smile and which ones feel as though they have always been part of our lives.
Think about the yellow Punch Buggy game. Children spot the little Beetle, laugh, shout “Punch Buggy!” and punch the person sitting next to them. It is only a game, yet it says something much bigger. We gave that little car a personality. It became cheeky, friendly and familiar. We stopped seeing it as metal and glass and started treating it almost like a character.
I think we do the same with many brands.
Taylor Swift is an example because she is both a person but we don't really know the person we know the corporation if we are honest. Millions of people are not only listening to her music. They are connecting with everything her brand represents and with everyone else who shares that connection. The brand simply has a human face. Boy what a cult following that has become. She aced that projected human connection.
Social identity theory suggests that people define part of themselves through the groups they belong to (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), while brand community research shows that brands can create genuine social connections between people (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001).
Perhaps that is why Dieselgate felt so different.
Volkswagen wasn’t just another company that had been caught lying. For generations it had found its way into people’s lives. It was the first car someone learned to drive. The family car that carried children on holiday. The little Beetle people waved at. The Punch Buggy that made children laugh in the back seat. Like an old family friend, it had earned something far more valuable than sales.
It had earned trust.
When the truth came out, many people weren’t simply angry about emissions. They felt betrayed. Not because a machine had failed, but because something they had welcomed into their lives had turned out not to be the friend they thought it was. The logo hadn’t changed. The cars hadn’t changed. Yet somehow, they never felt the same again.
Brand attachment research helps explain why this happens. People can form emotional bonds with brands that become woven into their memories and identity (Park et al., 2010). Once that happens, authenticity is no longer just a marketing strategy. It becomes part of the relationship people believe they have with the brand.
Perhaps that is the real cost of inauthenticity. Trust can take decades to earn, a single moment to lose and, for some brands, there is no encore.
As Taylor Swift would say:
“We are never ever getting back together.”
Thanks for sharing,
Fi
⸻
References.
- Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412-432.
- Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J. R., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 191-207.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
