Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Brand, Communication Strategy, Conformity, Creativity, Culture, Emotion
John Dodds sent me this a few weeks ago:
LLMs reward clarity and credibility. Your brand language should be concise, benefit-led, and evidence-backed. In a world of agentic commerce in which AI mediates consumer choice, trust shifts from being a feeling about a brand to an attribute of its data.
Why he sent it to me is unknown, but he has been doing that for decades and I always appreciate it.
However the key for me in what he sent is specifically this bit:
‘Trust shifts from being a feeling about a brand to an attribute of its data’.
There’s 2 reasons for that:
The first is people are more likely to connect to a brand based on the quality of their understanding on who they are interacting and/or engaging with [ie: the data they hold on the needs/wants/desires/loves of their audience].
Second is it’s pretty much always been the case.
It’s why there’s brands people know and there’s brands people go out of their way to have in their life.
It’s also why there’s arguably been a reduction in the amount of brands that people ‘love’ – probably because instead of focusing on who they are, who they’re for and what the culture around their category is doing or care about, they’ve fallen for the lowest common denominator, paint-by-numbers, repeat-for-every-category-and-audience, self-interest, outsourced-for-profit schtick of ‘guru’s’ who have never built, worked for or created communication for brands that people adore and care deeply about.
Or said another way …
Here’s another example of someone championing ‘new’, without realizing they’re just rehashing the old. Probably because they don’t know it, understand it or know what to do with it to make it magical rather than just even more functional.
The old adage I always return to is this:
If you want people to give a shit about you, maybe start by giving a shit about them.