Out On The Edge
Sep|9|2009 Laura Savard and Mark Gallagher
“I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can’t see from the center.”—Kurt Vonnegut
Mainstream culture is derived from sub-culture through a process of influence and refinement. Over the years we have seen numerous influences of sub-culture on mainstream fashion and music, even science and technology. But as these things that used to exist only out on the fringe are brought to the mainstream, they often become sterilized and refined losing all their character and appeal and eventually collapsing under their own weight, pulling next big thing into the mainstream.
So ideas and ideals move from sub-culture to hip, to cool, to the next big thing, finally becoming mainstream. (but of course not all survive the journey)
- Sub-culture: There’s some weird stuff going on out here
- Hip: Bridging the gap and fusing cultures
- Cool: Your kids know about it, but you don’t
- Next Big Thing: Kind of self explanatory
- Mainstream: Everyone’s doing it
Through this journey from sub-culture to pop-culture, mainstream thinking gives way for the NEW to become the status quo. However, relevance eventually fades and popularity diminishes as people seek out the next big thing. No wonder so many brands fail to build long-term relationships with their audience. They confuse popularity with success and end up simply providing more of the same without the edge that brought them to popularity in the first place.
The key to maintaining your edge is to identify where you stand and swim against the current. Even the kings of mainstream like P&G, Johnson & Johnson and Unilever are influenced by emerging realities. To maintain relevancy, they have altered the message, meaning and image of many of their iconic brands to embrace changes in preference influenced by emerging cultures that originated far from the center.
Wellness, Environmentalism, Mash-Ups, Social Networking, Extreme Sports… All have driven culture and none were born out of the mainstream.
Yeah, I want to live at the edge too!
It's interesting that your graphic makes it seem like mainstream is the goal, when I would argue that sub-culture develops precisely because someone wanted to be *anti* mainstream. So there is a weird dynamic that goes on — are people being counter-culture because just to be different, or do they secretly dream of being mainstream some day?
By definition, the majority of people, and companies do strive for mainstream. Most lose their individuality as they pursue popularity rather than differentiation.
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Nice. First thing that popped into my mind was punk rock which fit this perfectly. David
Hi and thanks for the great post. I couldn't agree more. When brands try to mimic the popularity of others, they not only hasten the death of that pop culture phenomenon but they become another "me too" brand. At its heart, the real issue is authenticity. Until a brand truly defines itself (to itself) and others, it is necessarily left to copy others or serve up inconsistent messaging. And that's when popularity becomes its marketing compass. But if a brand truly interrogates who it is and articulates its core values, and then creates consistent messaging with those values as a filter, it will create success other less evolved brands will want to emulate. It's not easy but essential and its what distinguished successful brands over the long terms from those that come and go.
Thanks for the great thinking.
Simon Mainwaring
My co-worker Eric Sagalyn has a formulation similar to this but a little different. He envisions this as a cycle, where something mainstream then becomes lame, then eventually becomes subculture again.
I have to differ with David above (while thanking him and his twitter fed for taking me here). I think punk rock always stayed at the edges — with obvious commercially successful divergences. In general, what was co-opted by the mainstream wasn't punk rock anymore — it was pop that was 'punkified'. The heart of punk rock has maintained its marginal status, and even evolved in order to do so. I would give examples but I don't want to ruin it.
The interesting thing is that the "new" becomes the old and the ONLY saving grace is CONSTANT alertness, and CONSTANT interest in what one is doing with an ever-hungry dose of non-complacency running through one's veins. Look at "chipotle" seasoning which were gourmet some 10 years back and now you find it as the "hip new" special on fast food drive-throughs. Or look at McDonalds offering cappuccino (I will NOT get into arguing REAL coffee versus REAL coffee marketing, that's for another time).
But WHO would have thought 10 years ago that McD would being pounding on Starbucks' doorsteps? The list goes on. Back to my point: "Being edgy" or "close to the edge" is never the goal as The Who so perfectly covered in "We Won't Get Fooled Again."
The goal is STAYING alive! Fresh! Sentient! And interested enough to give a damn! Then, one simply remains "edgy" (aka innovative) since complacency cannot grow in soil that's fed with that stuff!
Interesting post. I would offer as a STILL consistent example of brands wanting to emulate that which is perceived as "hip and cool" the number of times we continue to see/hear Apple mentioned in presentations/client meetings/brainstorms as a "cool brand that gets it" usually accompanied by the hateful and profoundly limiting phrase "we want to be like the iPod" – The first time for me was with the R&D team of a Fortune 100 back in 2002 and the last time was with a CPG client team a couple weeks ago. Yeah, great.
That issue aside, though, I would argue that Apple does still personify your definition of "hip" and "cool" with regards to being a well-managed brand. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I also agree with David Brier's comment regarding CONSTANT alertness, and that this unrelenting focus on what customers are doing, on what they want, probably delivers more value in keeping brands relevant, meaningful, and innovative then any other effort a company can undertake.
I often ponder Seth Godin’s quote from his book Purple Cow:
“If you’re not offending some people, you’re not operating close enough to the edge. The edge is where the money is”
In a past life I was a Drum & Bass DJ. It’s a form of dance music that originated in the UK in the 90’s and has resisted all attempts by record labels to take it mainstream. The music continues to thrive as a unique underground subculture to this day. I wouldn’t say that it is “where the money is” – because it is an acquired taste, and perhaps still too close to the edge. This is where I disagree with Seth. I agree with his first sentence. But not the second. To make money I believe a brand does need to achieve some form of “crossover” (or move closer to the centre of the circle as per Mark’s illustration on this blog). But if you want to both make money and maintain relevance, you must retain the essence of what makes a thing great in the first place. It’s a fine line to tread.
[...] Posted by Lauren Proctor on September 10, 2009 Over the years we have seen numerous influences of sub-culture on mainstream fashion and music, even science and technology. But as these things that used to exist only out on the fringe are brought to the mainstream, they often become sterilized and refined losing all their character and appeal and eventually collapsing under their own weight, pulling next big thing into the mainstream. (Blackcoffee) [...]
It's seems like a catch-22, doesn't it. Mainstream brings volume and $, which can be used to fuel innovation. But it also creates a culture of conservatism and incrementalism caused by a fear of alienating those that butter one's bread.
The solution is reinvention. Easier for artists; get away and create. Much harder for large organizations, but it can be done. Let the main organization work the mainstream, with constant listening, empathizing, and nudging of value-added activities. But also, spin off a division and let them dance on the edge.
Good post with a easy to follow graphic. For me, any brand that tries to go mainstream is in danger of selling its soul. Mainstream may be where the mass money is but its also where the homogenised. easy to copy predators come in.
The skill of truly brilliant branding is moving before it gets to mainstream. As Virgin describe it 'If it ain't broke, break it'
The lure of going 'mainstream' is often followed with the phrase 'because the market is bigger' and thus provides revenue growth. From a business sense this is a nice, rational point of view – too bad its flawed From an individual perspective we generally don't want to be perceived as 'mainstream' or 'average'. (We also don't want to be too far away from a social fabric.)
The lure of going 'mainstream' is often followed with the phrase 'because the market is bigger' and thus provides revenue growth. From a business sense this is a nice, rational point of view – too bad its flawed From an individual perspective we generally don't want to be perceived as 'mainstream' or 'average'. (We also don't want to be too far away from a social fabric.)
Adding a thought: The edge is always where new brands are established because they offer a new solution to a need. It may be a unique business model, feature set, or audience (under-served.) Fixie bikes are another example of starting in sub-culture (messengers in large cities) and are now at the border of Hip and Cool.
Great post. I couldn't agree more with your well presented points. It is a dangerous journey from the fringe to the mainstream. Metallica is an interesting example of a band that started very much on the heavy metal fringe in the early 80's, and a decade later broke through to the mainstream. Ever since they have fought a battle to remain credible with their early fans and accesible to their newer fans. Not easy.
Roy Williams (pf The Wizard of Ads) told me several times that "the risk of offense is the price of clarity". In other words, if your message doesn't risk alienating someone, you probably aren't sending a clear message. Brands that understand that aren't afraid to be true to what they stand for, and remain so as their brand evolves from the subculture to the mainstream.
I think it is necessarily left to copy others or serve up inconsistent messaging. And that's when popularity becomes its marketing compass. But if a brand truly interrogates who it is and articulates its core values, and then creates consistent messaging with those values as a filter, it will create success other less evolved brands will want to emulate.
Moore's technology adoption lifecycle glosses over vertical markets, aka sub-cultural markets. After the vertical markets, the early mainstream market, high tech, focuses on a single sub-culture, IT culture. Then, in the late mainstream market, the market shifts its focus back to sub-culture as a strategic approach to cultural commoditization that is your "mainstream" market.
It's interesting that you've noticed that subculture becomes mainstream in a historical timeframe. Is it generational, or what? What processes occur? What speeds this transition up, or slows this transition down?