A Polished Brand is Not (Necessarily) A Vibe
Pt i and ii: The heuristics of online content
Note: Everything discussed is a SUBJECTIVE observation. This is a discussion on the emotional, psychological, and/or behaviour response to online content. Lastly, any references to brands lean more toward sub-scale companies.
For Context: Competition for our attention has never been higher. In this blog, I wanted to cover the following:
The why, the how, and the impact of this (pt i)
How we’ve adapted to this phenomenon (pt ii)
And explain why different individuals and groups can react differently to online content (pt ii)
Part i. Justifying why vibes matter by explaining the relevance of content in consumer anything
The broad thesis is that capturing and maintaining attention is getting harder to do, but still worth pursuing through effective content. Although the topic is about Gen Z and younger millennials, this is only due to a lacking universal term to describe digitally native individuals who participate in online culture (that aren’t necessarily there on the very online to chronically online spectrum). I’m also assuming that Gen Z online filtering strategies will get adopted both up- and down-stream over time.
If you hear the phrase “that’s very Gen Z”…chances are, they’re talking about vibes. Amazingly, the response, “it’s for the vibe”, to questions such as Why did you choose that? or to live there? or do that? feels perfectly valid AND sometimes an entirely comprehensive explanation. Regardless of what you want to call it, it is the sub-communication of energy or gut-response, and the new; it’s not what you said but how you said it. Possibly even sitting upstream of the Overton window as a System 1 phenomenon.
It’s really hard to explain the importance of Vibes to anyone who doesn’t care or get it (because you sound f***ing dumb)
Let’s start with some basic maths. The US has a rough population of 332M, Gen Z is about ~69M, and the bottom third of millennials (~24M), together make up ~28% of the US population, which may roughly translate to ~45-55% of online consumption (no idea if this is right, but the point stands). Obviously, when purchasing power comes into play, the relevant metrics drastically shrink. Then again, more digitally native teens/adults are continually gaining market share, so why not grow share of wallet, which in turn makes internet culture more and more relevant.
This post is all about explaining Vibes, its importance, and its implications. As of today, the ability to connect with Gen Z still appears fairly binary. There may not be a “THESE ADS SUCK” moment (google it), but most of what we see kinda sucks.
Part of the issue is that explaining vibes is almost like the difficulty of explaining social cues or settings to an adult for them to tell you you’re an idiot (asymmetrical downside).
The main reasons why brands suck at social really comes down to the social media manager and their boss’ relationship, and the social media manager like not willing to, and the boss not willing to like understand the five layers of nuances that go into the inside joke or why they’re talking like that or whatever. It’s way too much to explain.
Top of funnel, the goal is attention, and if you want your audience to pay attention, you kind of got to make some ‘bad content’"
@courtlynnjohnson - Why brands suck at social media PT 2 [1]. Also, PT 1 [2] is worth watching for the sentiment even though it’s probably terrible blanket advice if you don’t understand the point. And to avoid referencing her again [3,4,5,6], her content is pretty much 75% of this blog.
Part of the paradox is that so much of what has worked for so long isn’t translating to younger buyers. And as paradigms go, the two struggle to co-exist, meaning resistance to change and likely a misallocation of resources between what seasoned professionals want and what the audience wants. Don’t get me wrong, I think these guys are good at what they do, it just might not align with digitally native audiences. The attempt to create content and ride the wave of (un)paid social, typically just fails to connect with Gen Z.
It’s not whether or not they look like ads, but whether they’re enjoyable to watch
I doubt the experiment has been run, but I imagine if you tested the speed to recognize ads and accuracy on a newsfeed, the time difference may be minute yet highly statistically significant across generations.
Despite the innovation of mixing algorithmically recommended content from creators you don’t follow, which creates unfamiliarity, ads still look like ads; seeing “sponsored”, “ad” or a giant button prompting you to download, learn more, or buy now, etc is almost subconsciously recognized in the common places.
To contradict the sub-heading, if it looks like an ad it’s probably getting skipped over. This is what has made influencer marketing attractive, as you are more-or-less getting a semi-known quantity. Ads that provide continuity with the intended viewed content can make the consumer experience considerably more tolerable (if not enjoyable):
Brett Cooper weaves the transition from her monologue into the ad read at unsuspecting intervals
Girlandadoodle creates partnered content that could pass as a regular video
Nicole is probably the best person I’ve followed recently.
Bobbi Althoff stays in character, which in her case appears to also significantly impact the script. Or a grown-up George Michael (Bluth) pitching skin cream [7,8] or the combination [9].
Alternatively, Super Bowl ads in general are a thing. Or my favourite [10], which has a lot of characteristics that make successful content, but is presented at a much slower pace, and the narrator’s voice is a little more millennial than Gen Z
Ads seem to definitely work, but the content is getting less effective
Brands have historically represented trust, trust that there would be consistency with the expected quality, and trust that the enterprise is legitimate (which you’d think would be even more important in digital commerce). Celebrity and influencer partnerships have been complimentary of the ad model by increasing reach along with a transference of accrued sentiment.
Ads offer inorganic distribution to purchase visibility, but brands are increasingly struggling to buy and maintain attention. More competition means rising costs on the demand side, assuming attention can even be bought if it hasn’t been earnt. Nonetheless, forced familiarity is an incredibly powerful lever; think of the classic seven touchpoints required before consumer purchases.
Most website traffic has been designed to optimize engagement for ads, which will continue to dominate as the default revenue model online. It’s no surprise Alphabet and Meta are insanely valuable and I guess even Uber may even be seeing an uplift from this too…Either way, this blog isn’t about ads or tech, it’s about content.
A Growing Emphasis on Distribution in B2C
Marketing is NOT a substitution for product excellence and viable business economics
I’d say vibes are everything BUT to contradict myself, this is only part of the packaging and isn’t a substitute for substance. It’s not about product vs marketing but rather combining both product excellence and superior marketing and distribution.
In startups, there’s often a mismatch of skill sets, which may exist amongst the pillars of product, operations, marketing, and obtaining capital. A key theme of this piece is the impact and fluidity of needs measured across milestones, and that the need to adapt has been amplified due to high competition and limited attention. It’s easy to over-index on a product everyone is excited by, but a great product experience should theoretically be table stakes.
Similarly, there are very few business models that work without the need for retention and repeat customers, or with apps, at least a weekly usage pattern (minimum). In its absence, the pipeline of new customers needs to be extensive, or prices need to be high and fairly inelastic to drive large enough TAMs for viability.
Why is this relevant? Everyone is a consumer, but what largely differentiates the B2C model is a willingness to pay and the decision-making process. Consumer-facing businesses range from CPG, consumer products, services, consumer tech (mainly apps), or even PLG SaaS (to an extent). And although perception can positively influence the product experience, given enough time, consumers end up voting with their attention/wallets.
Falling barriers to entry have inadvertently rebranded amateurs to citizens
Technology enabled entry for online representation, commerce, and products. The democratizing nature of these technologies has significantly raised the standard of hobbyists that I dare say can rival some experts; for instance citizen journalists, photographers, data scientists, etc. As technology improves, the barriers to entry come down but the expected competency has also risen (look at Sora…incredible). Simultaneously, the combination of Apple’s iPhone and App Store not only led to an exponential growth in demand, it also shifted the supply curve well past what audiences have time to consume.
Eugene Wei’s essay [11] is still immensely insightful 5 years later, but even he underestimated how widely adopted TikTok would become, citing the effort to create content and a willingness to risk being cringe as growth inhibitors. Creator tools and distribution platforms [12,13] have become so ubiquitous, the technical (and possibly even mental) strain for content creation has considerably declined. With the comparison to YouTube vs. TikTok, the latter has a lower barrier to entry for both the creator and viewer [14]; and that’s before you bring in how game-changing CapCut has been to video editing on mobile.
In areas where the product doesn’t have inherent technical complexity or a natural moat (think 7 Powers), there has been a shift towards prioritizing distribution as the moat. Hence the winners of digital media and shapers of online discourse have become the influencers and platforms, with power diffusing away from the 4th Estate to the (not so) general population.
Putting the horse before the cart (for good reason)
We’ve been desensitized to constantly being sold to. Everyone is always selling and it’s often too obvious. But for the first time (in mass), you have established distribution channels (successful creators), looking for a product/company to leverage their personal brand. Traditionally, this looked more like endorsements, affiliate codes, or ads, but the creator economy has emerged by helping align the long-term incentives with skin in the game.
I’m skeptical that individual creators are the future of B2C. That’s not to say that they’re not not the future, but the market should eventually equalize. As brands catch on to the power of content marketing such as Dunkin Donuts or Jake from State Farm. Or even some personal favourites, Redpoint and Lox Club who are killing it on content; it’s just entertaining and builds an interesting parasocial dynamic. With that being said, my guess is that we’ll start seeing more multi-platform and character campaigns with lots of back-and-forth and developed story arcs that shift the focus from achieving virality to emotional attachment.
Nonetheless, the unlock of TikTok virality (yes there is debate if this is actually a good thing), and the power of UCG paired with a subscription model, especially for sub-scale brands are incredible, with plenty of stories of rocket ship growth with low CACs and even profitable initial transactions.
Every consumer package goods or every consumer services business ultimately needs to be a content business, and if you don’t naturally have content creation in your blood you have to go buy a content business or you’re going to die.
Creating a good product is hard, distribution is harder…B2C only works if you can find a very low-cost scalable distribution channel…and what we’re seeing is the base of doing that is creating content.
So knowing that content is so important, how do you cut through the noise and connect to consumers independent of distribution (even though theoretically these could/should go hand-in-hand)?…VIBES.
Types of audiences, expectations, and value
The type of audience and its associated implications are fascinating. Effectively, there are some logistical considerations, but in reality, the focus is on breadth vs. depth, and simultaneously how those decisions will impact growth and the ability to monetize.
Depth = audience vs. fans (likely deeper parasocial relationship) vs. community
Breadth = general vs. niche content vs. audience capture vs. risk of conflict
Expectations = content quality, type & length, post frequency, perceived conduct
Obviously, it depends on what the goals are, industry opportunities, and how much time / resources can be spent cultivating engagement and loyalty.
Greg Isenberg talks about his ACP funnel [17], finding an Audience, building a community, and creating a product that solves a real need for that community. Outside of brand, community is a strong moat for non-obvious- and un-differentiated products, and helps limit the choices for consumers after a round of social proof.
An audience doesn’t equal community…Is there Togetherness? are there Rituals? is there member Identity? is there Belonging? and do people Engage with each other? So if you have those five things then you have a community
Greg Isenberg’s content has undoubtedly been one of the most influential sources of inspiration for this piece. The TRIBE framework is broken down here [18,19].
Moreover, not all attention has the same monetizable value, or yields the same influence from a cultural POV, and sometimes there is even a direct tradeoff. In that same vein that not all consumers are created equal, this also applies to views.
Not all views are created equal, and that’s been true for a very long time across a lot of platforms, content, audiences. But more than ever now, not all views are created equal because of short-form feeds, because of places like X [twitter] where you have impressions and you have you know fast-moving consumer behavior.
Collin and Samir 24:27- 27:15 [20]. Highlighting the importance of memorability, focus, and building relationships to be more valuable than surface-level attention.
To optimize staying on the platform longer, YouTube is the prime example of this, but even Twitter and TikTok are apparently trying to push more long-form content. This is also a bit ironic as YouTube (along with Apple Podcasts and maybe Audible) also popularized the playback speed functionality (I guess having endless libraries of content has made the tradeoff for pace worth it).
The Influence of Tech Platforms on Culture
Adoption of new technologies and trends
Consumers don’t really care that much about how something does what it does (i.e. tech on the backend is irrelevant), as it should just work. Ryan Holiday’s Trust Me I’m Lying came out in 2012. But no one really cared outside that maybe it was an interesting read, and it wouldn’t be for another 7-8 yrs where to the topic of dark / negative engagement landed into mainstream discourse particularly fueled by the Social Dilemma; the same problem different medium.
Whereas, the most fascinating thing about the rapid rate of adoption for ChatGPT isn’t that it was the fastest-growing app to get to 100M users, but it did that without the characteristic of being a social app; come for the tool and just stay I guess.
The start of online self-expression evolved to personal brand curation and influencers
Back in the MSN messenger days, the app’s main function was chat but also included displaying statuses and songs. Fast forward, you then have Myspace, a personal page with even more self-expression, which was eventually replaced by Facebook. This is where things get super interesting. Facebook’s features, which many have been the foundation of modern social media, include the Like button, People You May Know suggestions, timelines, tagging, and the infinite scroll newsfeed.
Even though it’s somewhat getting skipped over here, the impact of Instagram as a personal highlight reel shouldn’t be understated, shaping the subconscious motivations of an entire generation (millennials) with its status-seeking/signaling culture, explore page, and popularizing non-celebrity influencers, as well as being a fast follower of stories and reels.
The consumer internet has been more or less built to optimize for screen time and engagement (…and harvesting context-rich data) to best monetize platforms. This helps explain why platform UX often declines once users are effectively locked in, as they squeeze out more monetization; IMO there’s a really interesting discussion between entitlement / expectations, privacy, and user experience. Either way, all of this has led to a phenomenon in which algorithms and social graphs have had an outsized influence on perception, whether it be through IG’s explore page, suggested content in newsfeeds, YouTube recommendations, or music and podcast suggestions.
I really don’t want to talk about LinkedIn as a distribution channel (especially as it’s becoming more and more of a thing), but as the MoZ guys say, LinkedIn is your Twitter if you have less than 10k followers…(yep that’s me, but this post is all about making content digestible too, which this is not).
The pendulum swings: managing online identity(s) creates anxiety
The anxiety of aesthetic perfection required for IG posts (despite integrating native editing tools i.e. filters), allowed for the idea that disappearing content wasn’t just more fun (to some), but it enabled (possibly encouraged) sharing less polished and in some cases more private content. There’s an interesting line between unpolished and candid, but Snapchat made it easier for users to worry less about managing their own digital representations to even include features such as screenshot notifications, or mass AND selective sharing.
Maybe this is overlooking it, but stories (especially if you post like 20, 50, 100 times a day) typically offer something a little more raw and an opportunity to deepen the existing relationship (even if purely digital). Maybe you could say it helps with conveying vibes and authenticity, but it could simply be either an additional touchpoint and/or a way to feed content to fans who want to consume. The popular YouTube vlogs and behind-the-scenes type content gave audiences a peripheral view of public figures (even with 2nd channels, which added even more raw-ish content).
It may be a little (or a lot of) revisionist history, but Snapchat was THE anti-Instagram and paved the way for unfiltered content. In longer forms, audiences seem to love the rants, DITL, and GRWM videos; that may confuse older generations with why individuals would so openly share non-public, even reputational damaging content. Nonetheless, it has become culturally palatable to air grievances or flaws publicly, with a wave of support from audiences that reward such vulnerability… Skipping forwards we now have TikTok.
Layers of understanding for creating and curating vibe-audience fit
Sorting through the noise
With so much content floating around, consumers naturally adopt strategies to guide their digital consumption, which is unlikely to be uninfluenced by the interactive loops of various platform algos. A few examples of conscious strategies to deal with the explosion of content options include: trusted filters, tailored feeds and/or prioritizing curators, and tastemakers. If interested in the topic, I really enjoyed Gaby Goldberg’s writing on curators [21,22]
Tastemakers = determine what is ‘good’ by taste, talent, or decree
Curators = sort through the noise of the internet
Commentators = prioritize ‘hot takes’ or education that can channel (or go against) the mood of audience consensus
I on the other hand don’t have too much to say on this topic outside of an ongoing desire to build my bookmarking app idea. The only thing that crosses my mind is the interplay between platforms wanting to empower everyday users to post content vs. a shift away from social, whether it be consuming hours of reels or YouTube content. AND the simultaneous trend that mobile has usurped the primary screen, with platforms encroaching on the role of traditional TV.
The flood of Gen AI will likely create opportunities for tastemaker judgment on both the creation and curation side. As with everything else, curating a vibe will probably just have to become a thing (like an aesthetic or staying ‘on-brand’ before that) if you want to target young consumers. I think this might be overplayed but the consensus is that Gen Z seems to care about their personal values and those of the brands they appear to support (so pick wisely).
The role of understanding and output
I like to observe creators and brands, to speculate on the process that led to the creative ideation, development, and sign-off / posting. Whilst simultaneously predicting success or trying to correlate themes that are associated with well-received content and their audiences.
Factors required for commercial success can vary in levels of understanding of the audience, trends, and monetization strategy, to also include influence and/or talent, which can operate entirely independently of each other.
Part ii. A response to information overload: All roads lead to vibes (for Gen Z)
Vibe-Audience Fit and Gen Z Motivation
The word has bled into the mainstream vernacular to the extent it’s become a catch-all term. In reality, it’s quite an intuitive label for a category defined by tacit knowledge, which by definition makes it difficult to explain.
The goal is to create vulnerability with a sympathetic audience. Picking a vibe(s) that is representative of the brand / creator gives the audience a choice. Vibes are naturally polarizing (to an extent), but aren’t (necessarily) a forcing function of polarization.
A developed heuristic to information overload
The interactive intent of Web 2.0 was a success; time and attention have become the scarce resource. Therefore, the main idea put forward here, is simply that the increased relative weighting of vibes on snap judgment (in Gen Z) is a psychological adaptation to shortening attention spans and content overload. Assessing ‘vibes’ is a less cognitively straining process to judge content, creators, and brands.
I haven’t looked for the studies, so again pure speculation…BUT the assumption is that when you engage multiple senses the audience can absorb / process more information below a threshold that requires deliberate focus than if you engaged a single sense (e.g. just reading, or listening).
In the culture of hyper-competition, generating attention (and maintaining it) from your targeted audience continues to be top of mind for commercial success; pending there are appropriate avenues to monetize. Similarly, attention needs to be maintained over periods of time for sustainability such as for subscriptions and DAU/MAU etc.
Overproduction, incongruity, and inauthenticity are the biggest vibe killers
It’s sometimes hard to articulate, but the innate sense that something has been overproduced is often felt and can come off as emotionally unattached. It’s not even overproduction, like that definitely is a vibe killer, but the major issue is a conflation between polished and professionalism.
Given the choice between polished content that misses the vibe, and vice versa, the choice should be the latter. Content can be raw and phenomenal or it can also be perfect and even aesthetic yet stale. Sometimes the issue with professionals is simply the curse of knowledge. If I were to speculate, it could be due to existing emotional attachments or professional judgments. Does it look like it was built in ppt, Canva, or Adobe? or does it violate design principles everyone should know? These associations that influence perception may incidentally poison the well.
I’d also put forward the argument that part of why young millennials left (and a lot Gen Z never joined) Facebook was that it found traction with Gen X and Boomers. Embedded in Snap’s design and experience is not only UX inconvenience, it also pushes content that older generations aren’t supposed to ‘get’, Sarah Frier. Most of the native content is neither aesthetic nor professional despite the wide array of filters (please take that statement with a grain of salt).
Cultural phenomenon, sharing, and signaling
So what should you do instead?
For starters ensure alignment between expectations and balancing content vs. spam in a platform native way. Despite the thought leaders that say the audience doesn’t matter, often brands have an audience with expectations and may have legitimate constraints to re-invent themselves (we can’t all be like Abercrombie). But understanding their universe of options, and delivering engaging content that appropriately meets expectations (e.g. not-clickbait), provide downstream opportunities to monetize the captured attention…or you can just pay an influencer to do it for you.
In terms of culture, there are many ways to segment, and not all cultures mix and match well. So what do people like? Well, it seems that people like what they think other people like. But more specifically, we model the same desires as our peers and social circles due to some form relatableness and the competition dynamics (although there are always exceptions to the rule). Similarly, given the lack of negative (engagement) signals on most social platforms (YouTube might be the only one with a dislike button), unless getting ratioed counts, appeasing the algo may come at the expense of social/brand status…or it might work out great.
Memefication: the emergence of a new linguistic/communication tool
Things get more interesting with appreciation. Context via digestible snippets like visuals, sounds, and text, or education is the key to this. Call it subjectivity, mood affiliation, or human nature, it’s not in vogue to simply present a viewpoint for reflection and debate. We have almost gone the inverse of straussian, with memes as evolutionary vehicles to spoon-feed emotion by (often) exaggerated characterizations. Nonetheless, you can glance at a meme and instantly gain an appreciation (of mostly dumb humour), despite the sometimes enormous amount of embedded context.
Long-form content is great, but it’s a big commitment for the creator and audience (I can’t just send 1h YouTube videos daily and expect friends to watch it), one of the brilliant things about memes (and short-form content) is they can offer an appreciated low-effort touchpoint.
Spamming is a low-status activity, but selectively curating / creating solid content not only can provide a service, but also an opportunity to signal taste (amongst other things). OR the absolute best example of this is the yearly Spotify Wrapped event.
Building out a Framework to Analyze Vibes in Content
The framework attempts to create categories of vibes as well as levers to drive affinity
When there is cool branding that you feel drawn to, you can call that vibey, but the descriptions there are even more intangible, given that you’re describing subconscious energetic affinity. Andrea and the Snaxshot do an amazing job at curating and commenting on all things CPG. However, people (and sometimes animals) actually best personify vibes that can be carried over to the brand.
The figure below does the best attempt to delineate between vibes and factors that can support the delivery and depth (appreciation); it’s not a perfect distinction but delivery focuses more on reception in the moment, and appreciation impacts context and/or post-rationalization. In the context of vibes as wrappers to augment content engagement, there is often a staple vibe that enables continuity for diversity to incorporate secondary vibe(s) whenever appropriate.
Everyone talks about authenticity as the key to vibes, and I would also emphasize familiarity and relatableness too (especially if topical or related to the current thing, but then there’s a chance you’re trading off evergreen status). However, in hindsight, these are levers for delivery and probably not vibes themselves. In a continuation of the theme that vibes are a developed heuristic (although don’t have to be), the connection as to why these three are so powerful is that there does not need to be a lot of cognitive processing to determine affinity.
Often there is enjoyment in consuming the core content, but once some form of emotional attachment has developed, it can drastically impact the perception and/or receptiveness. The goal is to climb the staircase of affinity —> delight/attachment —> signaling. (If you’re reading this on email, this is where it cuts off but there’s MORE)
Although examples have been avoided here, I wanted to touch on the power of incorporating reactions. It’s generally held that canned laughter isn’t funny, but it does make things funnier [23]. This can be explained by concepts such as giving the audience permission to laugh, social cues, and even training / guiding the audience. But this phenomenon isn’t limited to laughter.
If anyone’s ever watched a David Dobrik video [24], its staple vibes of high energy, outrageousness, and emotional resonance BUT also just 50% of it is just people reacting to things (there’s also narration and editing too). And it’s not just reacting (well it is) but you have the primary subject(s) reacting, the layered-on secondary subject(s) reacting, and then a reaction to the reactions behind the camera, sometimes even done repeatedly.
Storytelling, editing, and leveraging vibes to deepen emotional attachment
As mentioned above, storytelling, editing, music, and production quality (I’m sure there are more), would be the 5th band in the figure above. This packages the content that can further impact perception, such as creating tension to heighten the contrasting emotions felt by the viewer.
“Editing is the storytelling, editing is the artistic part”, Emma Chamberlain
There’s a tonne of “how to edit videos like Emma Chamberlain” on YouTube, but the things that stand out to me is her use of jump cuts and zooming in, which help either emphasize a point or help maintain attention without negatively impacting the flow of her monologue.
Storytelling is something I personally want to explore, in its absence everything is just taken from Charlie Houpert (with a mix of direct quotes and paraphrasing below), and no direct links as this content is all from his Patreon.
Storytelling is about creating emotional movement that not only juxtaposes contrasting emotions but subtly foreshadows them. Details are only relevant if they act in service of driving home the intended moods at different moments, otherwise, they should be cut.
Small moments of interest
Slightly larger moments of interest (emotional pushes) that create anticipation
Overall story arc: what is the point of this story
Because the takeaway is that storytelling is interesting when emotions rise and fall, I love the concept of a mood journey map that charts the emotions along the content.
Simultaneously, there’s an interesting concept where he suggests that small stakes may be more important to the audience, as emotional resonance declines when outcomes get larger (i.e. unrelatable). Without the setup, or understanding, the (supposedly) major emotional payoff at the end of a story may be entirely meaningless.
All in all, storytelling is the macro whereas vibes are like the micro. Similarly, editing selectively controls the pace or relevance, and further enhances the subconscious cues within a story that can amplify the intended message. Jules Terpak just released a great video on The power of TikTok Edits [25], which highlights the director’s control.
I don’t know if this is true, but I assume that by spoon-feeding the audience with negligible cognitive investment, this type of content can help move consumers to a state of passive consumption as well.
Once emotional attachment has been developed then the bar for attention and affinity likely drops significantly, but this is not always the case as training an audience can lead to certain expectations.
Creators can play around with low-effort strategies that complement broader content (stories), interaction (re-posting and commenting), or adding exclusivity (private groups or content), etc. But this only really matters if the brand has built a strong relationship with its audience and/or holds some form of high-status/utility signal.
The Power of Short-Form Content
Since pre-pandemic, the user base and cultural perception of TikTok has changed enormously from musical.ly to a home screen app. The novel algorithm was the feature and the opportunity for massive distribution for creators to build personal brands or popularize products. In turn, this has made it a likely red flag for any B2C brand not to be on or good at the platform.
Anatomy of TikTok Video Content
The best online content IMO is Twitter (posters) and YouTube (quality), but definitely the most addictive (outside of gaming) is short-form content. There’s shorts then there’s shorter clipped content. Sometimes it doesn’t matter, but shorts do often have a unique feel; then again it can also be a great way of drip marketing.
It’s almost like, given the time and attention constraints in short form, you’re building affinity through a content library that can display the vibes vs. an individual piece of content that capitalizes on storytelling. Look at this gum commercial [26] compared to the TikTok version [27] (no idea if the two are in any way connected).
These roughly 10-60 second videos cover TikTok videos, reels (IG), and shorts (YT), but not usually stories. There’s not really a limitation in the type of content, which can vary from education, skits, memes / references, singing in a car, reaction videos, etc. but as usual humour and surprise probably help with going viral.
I stole the concept from Henry Houpert, but unless the viewer is already ‘committed’, shorts need to get attention in the first three or so seconds. Furthermore, when it comes to shorts, creators are directing in 1-3 (maybe 5) second increments. With the general trends in edits, these help minimize cognitive strain and maintain attention:
Initial/Staple on-screen caption sets the context, sometimes this is outside of the video in the blank space
Subtitles: The changing captions can help viewers better understand the dialogue or lyrics, but really it’s to help keep attention as the screen is quickly changing
Background music: to emphasize and/or cue the intended emotion(s)
Post caption: given the location of these captions and that viewers need to seek it out, I imagine its function is to provide additional context that can be read after watching the video to help shape post-rationalization
Emotional Inertia
In the case of confirmation bias, we actually want / choose to believe the thing; whereas with emotional inertia, we fully accept the facts and still are emotionally unpersuaded.
The example [29] above encapsulates heartfeltness and empathy (vibes), which is further amplified by seeing the crowd’s reaction (delivery) paired with the caption. SPOILERS...In prep for writing this, a YouTube video popped up [30], explaining the back story of how it was all staged. It’s a great story but the power of the edit remained, and still incredibly moving to watch, even after knowing the truth.
Maximizing Monetization Opportunities
Assessing the impact of vibe audience fit on commercialization
The balance between # of purchasers/users, $$$, and sustainability of the model can meaningfully impact opportunities to convert attention. When creating content, the priority should arguably be to go after the largest TAM (eventually), even if you’re trying to beachhead a niche product. More often than not, this is to drive the greatest terminal value for your efforts, but sometimes there can be non-financial considerations or 2nd and 3rd order effects.
When looking at a content strategy, the TAM may only be a subset of the Total Addressable Audience. When attention is so valuable it becomes its own currency, creators / brands (hopefully) also have the optionality to determine how it is best utilized.
In reality, it’s not always as simple as figuring out the best complimentary vibe(s) to the core audience and putting that into content. Brands can have multiple products, diverse audiences, or a need to expand audiences to grow.
The framework here is to help assess the impact and risk that non-target audiences/ consumers aren’t negatively impacted by a change in vibe / messaging. Moreover, cannibalization of the core customer base has proven a key strategy to avoid the pitfalls of myopia and/or the innovator’s dilemma, but it should be done intentionally with the understanding there may be a large tradeoff in the short term.
Continuity of vibes should probably be front and center…
Even though offering diversified content may be interesting, vibe continuity remains important to avoid risking audience disappointment. On the extreme, this may lead to a never-meet-your-heroes type moment, or it can be as simple as fighting against audience capture. However, a common scenario appears to be when creators / brands become too focused on monetization and delve from the core content that gained the audience’s initial interest.
Collin and Samir have a great series on YouTuber merch [33], which reiterates the importance of ‘not selling out’, whilst simultaneously emphasizing that fans actually want to support the creators they have an affinity to; so ideally the revenue strategy can cultivate even greater loyalty.
Valuations tied to the brand equity of the ‘face’
Celebrity/influencer-backed brands can often face hurdles similar to traditional founder-centric SMB PE exits that require earnouts or high deal structure. Acquirers will likely diligence scenarios such as, what happens when they are no longer incentivized to keep promoting the brand? or if there is a scandal that hurts brand equity. For brands that are known to be synonymous with an individual, these are questions that may be thoughtfully evaluated when planning the company’s future.
Conversely, over the past few months/years, there has been no shortage of controversies associated with brands using celebrities as their face. One of the interesting things that I’ve noticed is that when this happens, it seems to significantly harm the brand more than it harms the individual. Several reasons could explain this, but probably an interplay between cognitive dissonance, emotional inertia, and simply different core audience bases.
Reflection:
A lot of this piece is about laying out how I’ve been thinking about content and its role in brand building and commercialization. I wanted to provide a lens to evaluate online content and explore a theory with a few different frameworks. Whether or not this theory is correct actually has little relevance to me, as the intention was to provide a useful tool / perspective for analysis.
We all have our own unique tastes and preferences, but I was mainly interested in figuring out how to coherently explain why I thought something would be considered good or bad content. I think this does that, and if anyone has any comments / thoughts / additions / criticisms, I would love to engage with more people who want to think deeply about things.
If so please get in touch with me on twitter.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Gabby Boeger for helping spark/shape the ideas here and contributing to the writing.
Well, if you read this far, thank you. I will turn this into a YouTube video at some point cause I’ve already been told by friends it’s too long for them to read…
I’m pretty sure everyone whose work directly attributed to ideas here was referenced as an example. But more broadly, the foundation of the reasoning here comes from reading Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow, Julia Galef’s The Scouts Mindset, and Rory Sutherland’s Alchemy.
Then I’d say the biggest influences here were content from Greg Isenberg, Charlie and Henry Houpert, Collin & Samir (the more I watch their content the more I realized they’ve spoken about everything above…), Moment of Zen (and Erik’s other channels), Pirate Wires, Jules Terpak, Chris Watts and various audio essays / interviews produced by NFX. This is due to a mix of direct ideas and/or style.
Then other influences, but more specific to various sections include: Eugene Wei, Luke Burgis, Rob Henderson, Courtlynn Johnson, Gaby Goldberg, Em Herrera, Andrea (from the Snaxshot), Josiah MacCartney. It’ll come up in the next post but a lot of this was also realizations from the content I was consuming (music and YouTube).
Disclaimer
What’s written here is solely my own subjective opinions (musings) and does not represent the views of my employer in any way. This is also not investment advice.