Vibes
Putting aside our curmudgeonly judgement that the word “vibes” has become a standard part of our vocabulary now, it’s worth—in this first newsletter of the year—exploring how much the vibes have shifted.
It’s been common, of late, to hear that the “vibes have shifted.” But have they?
In certain respects, yes; but, as James Carville once quipped, maybe “it’s the economy, stupid.”
Our prompt for this exploration is a recent interview Ana Andjelic did, where she mention said the new vibe shift is hating on the rich. From the interview:
She senses a cultural shift that will negatively impact the Kardashians’ appeal. “Culture is not willing to forgive them as it was before,” she said. “And when the culture changes, brands follow. So just wait, they’re going to start dropping them — but not immediately.” The Kardashians are, like Gucci and Balenciaga, a “zeitgeist brand,” said Andjelic — as soon as the zeitgeist changes, these brands struggle.
While backlash against the Karadashians in particular may be new, the overarching vibe is not. As we wrote two years ago, we live in a postmodern culture.
The vibe shift may occur, but it’s just a different spin on the same irreverence that we’ve had for some time.
Remember Dogecoin and GameStop?
At their heights in January 2021, we wrote:
What’s happening on Wall Street is a clear expression of our postmodernism: We’re turning stocks into memes and memes into currency.
And we’re celebrating it.
Consider: There’s little discussion about what this means about our trust in free markets, the viability of economic stability, or how a fundamental disruption of power structure alters our daily lives. The only thing anyone wants to know is: Are you in on this?
We’ve seen this at play in other arenas for years now, and that means blanding isn’t just a criticism, it’s a risky business decision. By choosing to blend in, brands are opting to ignore the most basic reaction we’re having right now: To throw the status quo into chaos.
In 2021, the “vibe” was “eff the rich.”
But the way to achieving that was by creating a new game that let everyone else get there, too. (The subsequent explosion of NFTs seems to further validate this point.)
The economy, of course, has hampered the ability to achieve the goal in that way. And, so, people—the proletariat?—are looking for new ways to be irreverent and express irony.
What’s this have to do with CPG?
As we concluded in Doge:
We’ve seen this at play in other arenas for years now, and that means blanding isn’t just a criticism, it’s a risky business decision. By choosing to blend in, brands are opting to ignore the most basic reaction we’re having right now: To throw the status quo into chaos….
Viewed through that lens, our increased inclination for embracing postmodernism and the practice of blanding run counter to each other. And that might be more dangerous now than ever before. Because, in that view, blands aren’t brands at all; they’re just products.