FCUK Open Source

Stephen Newton, a regular commentor on this blog, and I have been having an email discussion about the practical applications of open source marketing, that I think is getting quite interesting. 

So I thought I'd publish the highlights and see if anyone wants to join in... 

For any non-UK readers, Burberry is an up market fashion range, chavs are like white trash and FCUK is a fashion company (French Connection.)  Here's the background.

The discussion so far...

Stephen: Burberry's lost 'ownership' of its brand in the UK as it's been taken over by chavs. Far from benefiting the company, sales have nosedived. How would open source marketing help Burberry and how can other brand owners be assured that going open source, won't lead to their brands being taken over by chavs?

Me: The idea of an open source approach is to recognise that customers are now in control and bring them into the branding process itself.  The idea behind this is that considerable energy and loyalty can be created by allowing consumers to help determine brand direction.  This would need to be done within some predefined digital structure and based around an overall campaign idea that the customers are going to find engaging.  Very hard to know what this might be without knowing more but as an example I offer this quote by Hans Peter Brondmo discussing how the advertising business could use Creative Commons

Stephen: I agree that the open source approach has a lot to offer, in the right circumstances.

We might not have started here, but hey, it's where Burberry is. I'm suggesting that much of what open source marketing promises has happened, albeit unwillingly to Burberry. That is, customers (i.e. chavs) are in control; they have considerable loyalty (it's their uniform) and they're energetic; they've determined the direction of the brand.

Now I accept this hasn't happened within a pre-defined digital structure. But I don't think that makes a difference. I'm suggesting that given the 'source code' for Burberry's advertising, the chavs would produce ads that reinforce the move downmarket. That move has proved unprofitable for Burberry, and profit's what they're there for.

On the second question. Let's say FCUK went open source. We'd get a lot more T-shirts with FCUK slogans, produced by loyal, energetic consumers. But what if they went too far? Some people already find FCUK offensive. Wouldn't open source marketing be a dangerous step? Open source means giving up the right to censor. What if the BNP, say, produced 'FCUK Jews'? It could happen...

Me: I see what you mean about the chavs.  Basically, they have taken over the brand.  And you are saying would opening the 'brand source code' make it easier and more likely to happen.  And that this could be a problem if extreme groups took control.

I think these are all fair points.  However, the experience of other open source experiments would suggest this will not happen.  When Linux was being produced, programmers didn't come and try and take over the source code and use it for mean purposes.  And the open source encyclopaedia, wikipedia, doesn't get trashed by louts.  Which I agree is quite surprising.

However, it seems that what happens online reflects what happens offline. Open source style ways of working tend to create built in guards against the crazy gang.  In the same way that no one can get away (for very long) behaving insanely in a  public place, it is difficult for anyone to go into an online space and wreak havoc for very long.  That's because the other people in the space will make it very difficult for them (on wikipedia if anyone trashes the pages other people fix them) or the website owner can just moderate them out (like the police).  So if the BNP took over the FCUK brand as you mentioned they would either get buried online or dragged out.

So, yes there maybe a small percentage of people who try and trash everything but these will be massively outnumbered by the people who want to get involved for fun or tomake a difference on a chosen issue.

Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that there is nothing stopping people doing all this to brands anyway.  The BNP could quite easily go and print FCUK Jews T-shirts.  The Chavs have come about
because they have taken the source code and mucked around with it by getting counterfeits made.  It could be argued that Burberry's problem with the Chavs is that they weren't involved enough.....

Comments

[Tim Kitchin]

James...

re Burberyy.

I think open source marketing sounds wonderful in principle. But it demands new disciplines that very few organisations are yet equipped to deal with. By all means let people play with applications. But don't let them touch the code, unless you really trust them...

To drive this point home, I'd point to, www.blackspotsneaker.org - arguably the world's first open source brand to be designed that way, from the bottom up.

Backspot-buyers become shareholders in a mutual enterprise. They are encouraged to customise their trainers. And they get a vote in the design process of future ranges - and even future brand extensions.

But this only works for organisations that start with this ethos.

Just bolting on a chaordic marketing process is not going to build shareholder value.

Burberry is a great case isn't it. You could have chosen Lacoste and Christian Dior in the 1980s, Louis Vuitton and Yves San Laurent in the 1990s, maybe.

Few brands (Hermes, Brioni, Armani, Creed spring to mind) stay aloof from this 'social creep' - Armani's case, thinking ahead and giving people an on-ramp to the brand which leaves the couture and diffusion ranges intact.

This democratisation of brands is intensified in a celebrity culture, where we share the same cult heroes, regardless of social 'class'. We all love Jude Law and Nicole Kidman don't we?

I don't think this is about counterfieting though. Many Burberry wearers are wearing the real thing. Also TAG HEUER and ROLEX and Ray Ban have suffered pervasive counterfeiting over the years and kept the brand intact.
You just have to hold your nerve. (Plus it helps if the copies are c**p.)

Nope, this is about basic branding principles.

Rule #1 (the first and last rule of modern marketing?)
You do not control your brand - your stakeholders do. Specifically, your customers, in this case.

Burberry's customers have stolen its brand. Good for them. Get used to it. It was their's in the first place.

I always return to the analogy of branding as hosting a party, or running a French Salon. Burberry's job is to decorate the room, draft the invitations, select a few intriguing guests, connect people into interesting conversations, and keep those glasses topped up.

But they cannot actually conduct a hundred conversations. They cannot govern what people will talke about of what they will discover.

see: http://stealthisbrand.blogspot.com/2003/09/good-brand-is-living-brand.html

But like all good parties, there will be gatecrashers.

Your brand is already open source. Open sourcing your marketing is like lacing people's drinks - at random. If you go for it, you'd better expect casualties.

On the other hand, you might just get laid.