I really like how Joël Desgrippes talks about brands when he says that “a brand is not only about its visibility and the functions of a product, but is about connecting emotionally with people in their daily lives.”
And even more so when he states that “a product or service can only be considered a brand when it sparks an emotional dialogue with the consumer.” Two statements that I sometimes have the feeling that many brands are unaware of and others, for some reason, simply seem or decide to ignore at specific times.
Desgrippes It brings to the table the need for connection and dialogue between a brand and its audience to make it part of their lives. A goal only achievable from a palpable demonstration of empathy, only feasible from the humanization of the brand. Something to which 2.0 environments have contributed, but only partially.
Empathy, a Greek word composed of the concepts “within” and “suffering, what is suffered”, reveals the feeling and ability that a person has to be involved in understanding the reality that affects another. . That is, the ability of the human being that allows us to understand and experience other people's point of view, connect and respond appropriately to the needs of others, share their feelings and understand their ideas. What we commonly know as “putting yourself in someone else's shoes.”
A concept, empathy, simple, everyday, easy to understand a priori, assimilated by everyone and all beliefs (including political and religious ones) and, basically, assumed by very few or for a short time.
A capacity that the consumer demands and that every day demands more strongly from a brand to make it their own. A quality that, more often than desired, is missed from the portfolio of attributes that should integrate the essence, soul, personality and know-how of some of the most important brands with which we “live” every day.
The consumer does not expect you to agree with him, but he does expect you to believe in him, for the brand to understand that he is the recipient of its products and services, to understand his needs, the problems he is in contact with. her, based on what she makes her decisions and, why, in the end, on many occasions, she has no choice but to replace her.
One of the great moments of truth, in which a brand truly has its great opportunity to connect, when it is really played, when the customer expects that expectation to be confirmed and definitive, a key moment in the sequence of the experience, It is the acquisition of the product or the enjoyment of the service.
It is the moment in which they come into contact with the professional who is to “sell” it to them, the one who informs them or the one who serves them, it is when the consumer looks for a valid “interlocutor” with the brand. Look for understanding, listening, identification with your motivations, interaction, information and sincerity, look for humanity, ultimately look for empathy. Having reached this point, it is the moment, above any other, in which the customer expects the brand to talk to him face to face, to understand him, to really put himself in his shoes.
And it is precisely at that moment, on which the purchase and to a large extent the emotional connection with the brand may depend, in which the entire consumption experience or contact with it is often frustrated. The coincidence that many brands show, as a constant and recurrent way, when stumbling on this same point is impressive.
I recently read a study carried out for one of the large European chains in the culture, leisure and technology sector, which showed that the consumer who, before going to their establishment to buy a certain product, especially technological, had previously informed themselves Through the Internet (forums, social networks, specialized articles...), he was much clearer about his purchase and spent more money on it. Unlike an individual with a similar sociocultural and economic profile who went to the same establishment without as much information.
The question is why successful brands decide to relax at this point. Are they not able to identify the problem or do they think that the cost of solving it is higher? Do you think it is a widespread problem in the competition and in the market? Don't you think that this is really causing you to lose customers?
There may be a bit of all this, that they are not able to carry out the necessary analysis and control of the essential points that define the sequence of the experience that a customer has in contact with your brand. But the problem may also be higher up, that the structure of your business DNA is missing a small dose of empathy towards your collaborators, employees, and environment in general.
There are brands that are empathetic with the environment (let's not go into whether it is out of conviction or not), empathetic with just causes and in need of solidarity, empathetic with certain social groups,..., but there are also those that do not believe in what is probably their only capital. , their employees, with whom they show little ability to listen and to put themselves in their shoes, in a certain way selfish, short-term, who do not believe in the selection and training of talent, who ultimately do not assume empathy as a a feature of your brand that has to be projected from within (to everyone and from all levels) and that, therefore, all of this in the end translates into great difficulties in leading a business project and a market.
When do you miss greater empathy in brands and companies? Do you think that this lack of empathy from some companies and some brands is a reflection of society? Or do you think it's the other way around?
We will talk about Empathy 2.0 another time.
Sebastian Fernandez
Managing Partner Hamilton Retail
