Things we need more of culturally (in production, the substance itself, and consumption):
Stubbornness
Defining your values and viewing/creating through that lens
Integrity
“Toddler” logic
Specificity
Eye-contact
Hand-delivered-ness
Taste development (testing things, spitting them out)
Baby steps
Gate keeping for protection, not exclusion
Setting and working within constraints - decluttering - rather than adding or fussing - distracting
Standing by a final thesis, rather than BTS
Abrasion
NYC and other cities are the new suburbs. Soho and Noho are just outdoor malls: Levain Cookies = Mrs. Fields; L’Industrie and Lucia = Sbarro’s; Los Tacos No. 1 = Qdoba; Bonbon = the bulk candy store; Joe & The Juice = Jamba Juice; Hillstone = Cheesecake Factory; Blank Street = Starbucks; and Auntie Anne’s = Auntie Anne’s. Disney-fied: line culture = rollercoasters; It’s a Small World = the West Village and the new wave of “shoppy-shop” local specialty stores; face-in-a-hole photo sets = Crosby Street and Dumbo. Following the classic trend timeline (an edgy place becomes a “cool” cultural center which attracts an increasingly broad audience, eventually stabilizing as a safe, mass-market destination), NYC, especially Manhattan, is now a city of boys and girls in their Alo and Lulu sets, wandering the streets after workout classes or nails done before brunching on Saturday afternoons. In lieu of Mickey Mouse ears, costumed in algorithmically-filtered looks inspired by the cinematic version of the Downtown Scene. A cute simulacra of a city.
It’s ironic that this note is receiving so much attention because it highlights one of the main causes of the Disney-ification of these places. We so heavily Romanticize them, what they should be based on their pasts, the lore and myth were made of them, and we both try to revive and also judge them against. It’s both a catalyst for infantilization (becoming a cartoon like the “It’s A Small World” ride, culture smoothed of history and viscera) and stasis (so heavily watched and scrutinized, measured against its past, that it can do no right nor move forward. It doesn’t leave space for experimentation). And the fixation with something like Downtown-ness, as demonstrated by the response to this, only fuels that flame, both critiquing and perpetuating the myth. Change is inevitable and the attempts of make “SoHo” and “downtown” happen again are a bit like “fetch” in Mean Girls: no matter how many seafood towers and Odeon martinis you have, downtown will never happen in that fashion again.
We should not be approaching strategy from an ego-first approach, applauding how unique they are. Given their vast scale and imposition (in terms of attention or material/product) on the world and us - their resource drain — the role of the strategist is to challenge brands, to help them understand the duty they have, their responsibility to the world and its future. How they can best serve the world around them. To be realistic about their limitations and their unique-ness, rather than slipping into the fluff of self-flattery.
Brands, whether Aimé Leon Dore or Gucci, are modern Disney’s: their focus is aspirational storytelling reinforced through sprawling modern media structures with glorified merch lines. Fantasy first, product second.
Fashion Week (in NYC at least, less so Paris, London is non-existent it seems, and I can’t judge Milan) went from being “exclusive” (designers inviting buyers, yes, but also the influential people in their world, who they respect, revere, and earnestly wanted to include and present the collection to for their feedback and opinion), hard to break in because of a reverence barrier, to exclusive(ly) influencers, attendees are selected for the association they create within public knowledge. For their clout and reach, rather to garner their respect. While it may be an “intimate” brand dinner the attendees are selected for their willingness to publicize every element of the event. Not exclusive, rather entirely exposed.
We’re in the Sianne Ngai era of marketing and strategy, campaigns that are intentionally “weird,” “zany,” and “cute.”
There’s an immense irony of being in a time of branding (self-branding and personifying brands), a highly symbolic world, where we signal our (both aspired and desired) values, status, and self constantly through material goods and/or cultural associations, but are are void of intimacy, connectedness, and collective values. Hyper-symbolic but communicating nothing.
While yes, sometimes strategy is about reinforcing a brand's pillars, but I'd argue that strategy is an inherently risky practice, or good strategy at least. It should be critical, challenge a norm; think about what's to come and imagine/explore what form is best for an entity take in that future. Whether it ends up doubling down on the brand's current strategy or flipping it on its head, thorough strategy requires one to imagine something new or different before that decision - to stretch one's thinking and vet all possibilities before deciding what's the best approach to become stronger in the future. This is what's lacking in strategy across all industries right now, this imagination that is so crucial to rigorous strategic thinking. Everyone has become so literal (a deck for a denim brand that only references other denim brands) and reflexive ("what are others doing?"), killing any trust in imagination and ability to tone intuition.