Wharton Research Adds to the Evolving Brand Story

23 comments on “Wharton Research Adds to the Evolving Brand Story”

1. “Now more than ever brands need to articulate their purpose and vision because shoppers want to connect with companies that align with their values.” This quote, attributed to Wharton marketing professor Americus Reed, led me to reflect on my research this past year in which I analyzed the moral conflict surrounding sweatshop labor. I aimed to answer the following question from an ethical perspective: To what extent do developed and developing countries differ in their views on sweatshops?

   Although my research did not begin with a pre-determined conclusion, I expected to find a disproportionate number of sources supporting the “common” ethical approach to sweatshop labor: To boycott and shut down the production of companies that abused human rights. This view aligns with my belief that all workers are entitled to fair wages, health care, proper working conditions, and recognition for their humanity above their manufacturing capacity. Moreover, it is a comfortable and familiar solution for someone like me, living in a first-world consumer society protected by wage laws and federal labor standards. Consequently, my discovery of the many sources supporting the continuation of sweatshop practices was an enlightening experience. The supporting authors were not the CEOs of wealthy corporations that benefited from exploitative practices; instead, a diverse group of people– consisting of economists, free-lance journalists, philosophers, and even sweatshop workers themselves– are questioning the definition of ethics as it applies to sweatshop labor and for several reasons. When these differing perspectives are placed in dialogue, many complex questions arise. Is it ethical to shut down such factories, depriving impoverished workers of a main source of income and forcing them into other unstable, equally dangerous forms of employment? Or is it ethical to allow sweatshop practices to continue, despite their long history of human rights abuses, continued mistreatment of workers, and contribution to the leading social issues today?

   I realize that as a student growing up in the United States of America, an economically robust nation making great advancements in human rights, it is easy to identify with a company whose values reflect the goal of immediately ending sweatshop practices, whether it be in their manufacturing lines or others; however, as a learner, thinker, and individual striving to make an impact in the business world, I need to recognize the bigger picture. The argument is not that reforming sweatshops is unnecessary or unattainable. Instead, activism concerning this issue must invite as many differing perspectives as possible because social issues are rarely one-sided; as I learned from my research, the most meaningful conclusions, or potential solutions, come from deep reflections prompted by well-articulated arguments unique in nature. I believe that the future of the business world, concerning workers’ rights and safety, includes a deeper analysis of a brand’s DNA—namely, how is this brand addressing global concerns and incorporating the voices of diverse individuals impacted by its message or purpose?

   Reply

   • Hey Ina,
     I completely agree with your message: we need to shift to a deeper understanding of our problems rather than simplifying them. This is an issue especially prevalent in marketing.
     Many years ago, I saw something and couldn’t believe my eyes. Millions of people watched with hushed whispers as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kissed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Peace in the Middle East had finally been solved. The word “Unhate” was next to the photo, as many world leaders with opposing views started to kiss each other. But if you looked closer, you could see a company named “Benetton”. Their job: selling sweaters. Next: Kendall Jenner solves racism with a can of Pepsi. Now obviously, the ad was met with a lot of controversy, with many journalists criticizing it. You can’t simplify complex tensions over many years between Israel and Palestine with a badly photoshopped picture of their leaders kissing. Now, obviously Benneton made a lot of mistakes during their ad, but they can all be boiled down to the same theme:oversimplification. You can’t simplify hundreds of years of complex racial tensions to a problem that sweaters can solve, no matter how much you wish you could.
     Our world and society has oversimplified too much, taking complex concepts, and turning them into something they’re not. See, it is easy for us to find a, well, easy answer. Solutions to complex problems are hard to find, and humans want to work less, right? We can deny that the earth rotates because “we don’t feel it spinning”. The answer’s obviously a little more complicated than that. Now you might think oversimplification can’t cause a little more than annoying problems and embarrassing ad campaigns.. Yet, solutions like building a wall to stop a complex solution like illegal immigration prove that this trend is a dangerous one. The world is not black-and-white. There is no simple fix. So when professor Americus Reed says,”Now more than ever brands need to articulate their purpose and vision because shoppers want to connect with companies that align with their values.”, I have to disagree. You can’t express a simple solution with limited tv times and a couple of promotional images. Values are a lot more complex than you might think. Obviously, I am a fan of peace, but you can’t expect me to buy your sweaters because you believe you have ended tensions in the Middle East. So, with the introduction of another advertising strategy urging companies to stand with vague messages like diversity, I can’t fully endorse them. These are complex issues, and they don’t get solved easily.
     I, obviously, can’t offer a simple solution. Ina brings up a good point on another example of an oversimplification: sweatshops are bad. It’s easy to say this because I’m in an air conditioned room with an expensive computer. But, again, the issue is more complex when you look into it. Business marketing needs to be more complex, and invite other perspectives. The brand needs to address how they are helping, deeper than the surface. I do agree, they need a good message, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a simple one.

     Reply

2. I found this article on the evolving brand story fascinating due to the profound impact of the pandemic on consumer behavior. As mentioned by Dr. Reed, post-pandemic, many brands have prioritized their brand identity because customers value brands based on what they stand for. I think that this shift in consumer behavior has two underlying reasons: excess of free time and influence of social media.
   Over the pandemic, many people were isolated at home with lots of extra free time to contemplate what their beliefs. I was constantly bored and reformed my own identity. Many people came out of quarantine a different person with a different identity, different personality, and different values. With shifts in customers’ own identities, they have started to reconsider the identities of brands to base their purchases on.
   Furthermore, the rising influence of social media causes brands’ identities and reputations to be amplified. Brands such as Shein that promote fast fashion, use child labor, and increase waste, are facing intense backlash from influencers on social media who do not align with the brand’s unethical practices. There is more polarization between brands; customers would rather pay more for a brand they share values with and trust.
   For companies, their brand image has become increasingly important as customers value what brands stand for. Coming out of the pandemic, many brands will build their brand identity by tackling social issues, like Levi’s with controlling gun violence by prohibiting guns in their stores while pushing for additional legislation. On top of that, we can expect brands to do their corporate social responsibility to aid their communities. Companies need to consider “Why do I exist? How am I making the planet better?” states Dr. Reed. Customers are more willing to give to brands that give back to their communities. Thanks to social media, we as customers have more power than ever, which we must leverage to keep brands in check to improve our society. Important brands will shape the social and economic development of mankind, not merely make a profit for its shareholders.

   Reply

   • Dear Zimeng Z,

     Your attitude toward the future of branding is very hopeful and thought-provoking. You rightly note, as Dr. Reed mentioned, that, post-pandemic, many brands have prioritized brand identity because customers now also assess brands based on what they stand for. You attribute this shift in consumer behavior to two underlying reasons: an excess of free time and the influence of social media. While I agree that increased free time and the impact of social media play some role, I want to provide a different viewpoint on the reasons for this change.

     Though an excess of free time is one of the reasons for this significant shift, I disagree with your argument that boredom is the key emotion at play. I believe, instead, it is loneliness – a longing for community interactions arising from pandemic isolation – that has caused consumers to reevaluate businesses and their impacts. In May 2023, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared loneliness a public health epidemic. According to a recent poll by the American Psychiatric Association, by early 2024, 30 percent of adults reported feeling lonely at least once per week over the past year, and 10 percent felt lonely every day. Specifically, among younger adults (18-34), the statistic jumped to 30 percent feeling lonely every day or several times per week. Rather than having nothing better to do than evaluate businesses’ ethical standards, consumers have begun relying on businesses to provide meaning systems, as Dr. Reed describes them, so that they can cope. You bring up an interesting point about the correlation between boredom and identity changes, with which I completely agree: boredom makes us seek out novel, time-consuming activities as ways of entertaining ourselves, and, in the process, we slowly start to identify with the activities themselves. The issue of loneliness, however, requires meaningful solutions that provide deeper outlooks on life, and the predicament businesses face now stems from a yearning for these types of solutions.

     Rather than simply speaking to evolving customer preferences, then, the struggles brands face in an increasingly conscientious world beg a new question: did pre-pandemic branding merely provide a distraction from customers’s’ discomfort with being alone? Although this question is daunting, I appreciate your scientific attitude in stating that people have emerged from quarantine “different,” implying that the change is not necessarily for the better or worse.

     Your observation is also supported by the body of psychological studies investigating this phenomenon, which shows mixed results as to whether the pandemic had a net positive or negative impact on people’s mental health. For example, a study by Emily Willroth and her colleagues at Washington University indicates that, since 2020, people have simultaneously become more conscientious and less neurotic. Conversely, other studies, such as research from the Florida State University College of Medicine, found negative impacts on the mental health of young adults: according to this research, the pandemic has made them moodier, more prone to stress, less cooperative and trusting, and less restrained and responsible. In light of these conflicting findings, I do agree with your broad conclusion that “With shifts in customers’ own identities, they have started to reconsider the identities of brands to base their purchases on.” However, the broad changes to mental health reflected in these studies suggest a psychological component beyond boredom. Luckily, there is a way to test my assertion that that loneliness specifically is the cause of these changes to consumer identity:if the current customer focus on ethics, responsibility, and accountability wanes as the rate and quality of socialization continues rising to meet pre-pandemic levels, it would suggest a temporary transformation in customer values consistent with poor mental health, rather than a permanent shift in identity more consistent with – as you argue – deep introspection due to boredom.

     While I also agree that social media has shifted consumer behavior, often resulting in the reputation of a product being more closely tied to brand ethics than to utility or value, this phenomenon is not limited to the post-pandemic world. Advertising and influencers have been shaping consumer behavior through social media since well before the pandemic; what is increasingly changing is the extent to which advertising firms have control over their products’ branding, as the rise of social media has forced advertisers to both acknowledge and contend with the opinions of influencers. As a result, to an extent, I agree with you when you state, “Thanks to social media, we as customers have more power than ever, which we must leverage to keep brands in check to improve our society.” Raising awareness, like Levi Strauss did with gun control policies, is a wonderful use of technology. However, other companies like Shein have found ways to repeatedly exploit social media platforms by rebranding themselves to draw the public eye from criticisms voiced by influencers – diluting this “customer power” in the process. Instagram, for example, does not tolerate support for child labor, let alone the practice itself, something for which Shien is known. Nevertheless, by flooding the platform with posts branding itself as cancer-aware, inclusive of plus-size models, and supportive of issues facing minorities, Shein encouraged influencers to begin new social media discourse about those positive values. In turn, these posts changed the narrative, leading many customers to once again identify Shien as an “inclusive” or “responsible” company despite its continued use of child labor. This practice of redirecting customer attention has allowed Shein and other corporations engaging in fundamentally inhumane practices to maintain their appeal to consumers who value sustainability and ethics alongside product quality.

     Due to this new landscape, I also agree that many companies and product lines will rebrand to center social issues such as inclusivity of minorities, human rights laws, and sustainable use of resources. I also predict, though, that this type of consumer focus will lead other firms to simply propagandize, presenting a new ethos that appeals to ethics-minded consumers and influencers in order to distract from actions directly at odds with those stated ethics. This outlook points to the inherent limitations of ethics-based consumer pressures when it comes to creating wide-scale societal change: while demand can influence many firms to reshape their networks from within, only strict economic policies and new legislation can effectively tackle the existential questions the world faces today, which you acknowledge when mentioning that, ultimately, Levi Strauss’s goal was to pressure Congress to pass further gun restriction legislation.

     Thank you for writing a thoughtful response that made me think, question, and explore!

     Reply

   • Hello Zimeng, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the evolving brand story and its impacts post-pandemic. After reviewing the article and the comment, I believe some additional aspects are worth considering to provide a more comprehensive view of companies’ values. Your valuable insights led me to ponder if these companies are sincere with their actions.

     First, I would like to say your points resonated with me, especially the one about Levi’s and gun violence. Seeing a company practice what they preach was terrific, especially when it isn’t a big marketing ploy. However, I still have my doubts about the honesty and integrity of this company and others. Are they campaigning for these causes for the sake of the people or the company’s profits? Are we being lied to for the attention, or are they telling the truth? These are the questions that came to my mind after reading your comment.

     When I thought about this, the first thing that popped into my mind was Pride Month. Last month, countless companies from all different sectors changed their profile pictures for the month of June, ostensibly to show support for LGBTQ+ rights. After June, all the companies change back to their default profiles. I find this interesting because, in this day and age, changing the company profile picture to a pride flag during that month seems like a social norm. However, I can’t help but wonder: are they truly expressing support for the LGBTQ+ community, or just looking to avoid backlash?

     Looking into the matter further, I found that multiple companies, such as H&M, Pepsi, and even Nike, have all had commercials rescinded because of backlash. All companies fear backlash, as you pointed out. In 2017, Pepsi aired a commercial featuring Kendall Jenner handing a pepsi can to the police amidst a BLM protest. The ad immediately sparked outrage on social media, with people arguing that it undermined the severity of police brutality and racism. News outlets and social media users everywhere knew about the incident. Quickly after, they pulled the ad from circulation and issued an apology. It seemed as if they stood by public opinion instead of their views on the situation. So here is my question to the reader: how can we tell what they actually believe in?

     Thank you again, Zimeng for initiating my dive into this rabbit hole!

     Reply

   • Zimeng, I have to say, I firmly agree with you on the effects of the pandemic and, perhaps subsequently, the shift in the influence of social media. You bring up especially crucial points about what kinds of brands the customers of today trust.

     I noticed you emphasized the role of social media, and how it both helps and criticizes many brands. You’re right to point out that social media has given us consumers a proximity to brands that has never existed before, and that we ought to use this power to make sure brands actually adhere to our values. And yet, I can’t help but be a little worried about this power.

     On one hand, your example of Shein (and the backlash that it’s faced) really goes to show social media as an information superhighway; people informed by influencers protest in comment sections (not to say they shouldn’t), forcing the brand to reevaluate itself. On the other hand, this relationship is a two way street. Brands can use this superhighway, using internet slang and trending tiktok formats to build a facade. They’ll be able to know what values and talking points customers are interested in and say they adhere to these values, when maybe they really don’t.

     How do we know whether brands are being truthful? In this image-obsessed age, what would a “truthful brand” even look like? Can we ever truly trust the promises a brand makes? If we have this newfound power to keep brands in check, then we ought to know how best to use it—and maybe that starts with the questions you’ve prompted us to ask.

     Reply

3. In today’s vastly competitive marketplace, companies make use of creativity to effectively advertise their brand to the public. While analyzing this article, I was able to learn from provided examples on how companies do just that. By using different approaches based on their target audiences, companies align their brand with people’s values, take advantage of social media, and use diverse representation to ensure successful advertising.

   To begin with, I completely agree and believe that brands’ values play a key role in the decision making of their customers. As explained by Dr. Reed, “Brands need to articulate their purpose and vision because shoppers want to connect with companies that align with their values” (Drake). This statement explains a very important part of a company’s advertising strategy. This advertising strategy can be seen by many companies including Levi Strauss & Co and creates a wave of support from customers that agree with their opinions. An example of this in the real world is Levi’s stance on gun violence. This controversial social issue can spark conflicts between people and influence their decisions. This type of advertising approach has personally influenced me as I tend to purchase products that align with my values. After analyzing this approach, I believe that this strategy can prove to be very effective.

   To continue, I believe that social media is what allows companies to expand their reach of customers. As explained by Professor Reed, “Social media has changed the branding landscape, requiring companies to find their customers on different platforms and even co reate with them” (Drake). This explanation by Professor Reed states that social media has forever changed how companies advertise their products and services. By using social media as a direct connection to customers, companies take advantage of famous celebrities to promote their products. This method can be seen with soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo who has over six hundred and thirty million followers on Instagram. This allows companies to create an extended reach of millions of people by partnering with celebrities to raise awareness of their products. This strategy has led me to purchase products that were advertised by famous celebrities which demonstrates its effectiveness in the real world.

   Thirdly, I agree that diverse representation helps companies advertise their products to different audiences. Professor Jiang and two co-authors from Washington University, “Examined the impact of racial minority representation on advertising effectiveness in their paper . . . . . And found that as minority representation depicted ads increased from 15% to 25% the advertising elasticity went up 14%” (Drake). This study by Professor Jiang provides evidence that diverse representation leads to an increase in demand and sales in products. This advertising strategy has proved effective as this type of advertisement is not as common and is in accordance with many people’s values. Furthermore, this strategy allows people to feel included and represented. This strategy has influenced me to purchase products from companies whose representatives are part of my culture and have similar values.

   To wrap up, companies use many different methods to evolve their brand story such as aligning with people’s values, taking advantage of social media, and using diverse representation. Creative advertising influences people to purchase products because they are in accordance with their values and because they are aware of what the company provides through social media. Diverse representation enables companies to reach different audiences and inform people about what they provide. To finish off, companies use different approaches to advertise their products and this article provides a clear explanation of strategies that work and allow companies to reach their goals.

   Reply

4. I found the segment regarding the “Cristiano Ronaldo Effect” fascinating. It offers valuable insight into the evolving dynamics of social media strategies. Before reading the article, I’ve always thought that the more followers an influencer had, the better it was for the brand. However, the research shows that while mega-influencers like Cristiano Ronaldo reach a larger audience, their engagement rates do not increase proportionately. This underscores a critical challenge for brands: the balance between reach and engagement. While mega-influencers can broadcast a brand’s message to a vast number of people, micro-influencers often offer higher engagement rates and a more authentic connection with their followers. This authenticity arises from the personal and often niche-focused relationships that micro-influencers build with their audience, making their endorsements seem more trustworthy and relatable.
   The findings suggest a need for brands to evolve from a transactional to a relational marketing approach. Transactional marketing focuses on short-term interactions and immediate sales boosts, which mega-influencers are well-suited to deliver due to their broad reach and high visibility. However, this approach often lacks the depth needed to build long-term customer relationships. On the other hand, micro-influencers can drive significant engagement through consistent, genuine interactions with their followers. These interactions foster a sense of community and trust, cultivating deeper relationships.
   Furthermore, relational marketing can lead to higher lifetime customer value. When brands invest in building long-term relationships, they not only retain customers longer but also increase the average spend per customer over time. This is because loyal customers are more likely to explore a brand’s full range of products and services, participate in loyalty programs, and respond positively to personalized marketing efforts.

   Reply

5. Victoria Fang Gao’s metaphor likening brand engagement to opening a captivating book highlights the importance of narrative in forging enduring consumer connections. Americus Reed’s analysis on brand DNA emphasizes the imperative for brands to articulate purpose and align with societal values, resonating with today’s socially conscious consumers. Meanwhile, the research by Professors Dew and Iyengar on influencer marketing introduces the innovative concept of Follower Elasticity of Impressions (FEI), revealing nuanced insights into the effectiveness of mega-versus micro-influencers. This challenges traditional notions in influencer strategy, advocating for a more strategic approach that prioritizes engagement over reach alone. Furthermore, Professor Zhenling Jiang’s study on inclusivity in advertising underscores the dual benefits of diversity, showing that inclusive campaigns not only promote equity but also drive sales across diverse demographic groups. Together, these findings illuminate critical pathways for brands to foster meaningful connections and drive sustainable growth in an increasingly complex marketplace.

   Reply

6. Competition is rising exponentially and the market is not what it was a few decades ago, so companies need to start implementing more creative and personalized branding and marketing techniques to maximize their potential in the market. Since most companies lie in the ‘monopolistic competition’ market structure branding is crucial to differentiate themselves from competing firms. In the article above, the power of influencers is fascinating as the play a major role (both positive and negative) in the purchasing decision of the consumer. The Cristiano Ronaldo effect for instance plays a significant role in the branding as the quality and utility of the commodity for first time buyers is not the primary reason for purchasing. In world where technology plays a pivotal role in professional activities and the rising growth of social media creates a new opportunity for branding and marketing and reaching a targeted audience.
   Brands need to engage in new trends like sustainability to acquire new customers. Customers nowadays make decisions largely depending on the reputation and general perception of the brand so companies need to engage in activities the boost their self image and promote social welfare.

   Reply

7. Marketing in today’s society is significantly influenced by the brand identity, compelling companies, organizations, and businesses to clearly define their societal role. This contrasts with former branding strategies where the quality of services or goods determined a brand’s future. The article under discussion “Wharton Research Adds to the Evolving Brand Story,” with Diana Drake, utilizes insights from Wharton’s eminent business professors. Americus Reed, a Wharton Marketing professor, argues that brand identity goes beyond logos and colors. He emphasizes the impact of “new media” especially the social media and its personalities as a key player in branding especially in light of the branding strategies.” Wharton professors Dew and Iyengar’s research examines the influence of follower popularity on branding, introducing the “Follower Elasticity of Impressions” as the effectiveness index. Additionally, a study conducted by Prof. Jiang of Wharton highlights that diverse advertising enhances the effectiveness of advertisements, increasing societal appeal and, consequently, sales. Thus, branding’s nature is changing in the modern conditions of the marketing environment, necessitating a new approach that transcends subjective criteria such as “success.” Turning to Wharton professors’ concepts of authenticity and transparency is crucial for building a successful brand. Ethical behavior in business has become the key factor for consumers especially when choosing brands and companies to associate with. This also applies to influencer marketing, where authenticity and genuine communication are more effective.

   As the digital space continues to shape consumer behavior, brands must adapt and find innovative ways to connect with their audience. This could involve exploiting immersive technologies such as augmented reality or interactive content to create memorable brand experiences. By embracing these fresh perspectives, businesses can elevate their brand identity beyond surface-level aesthetics and forge meaningful connections with their target market. Ultimately, the landscape of marketing and branding is undergoing a significant shift in today’s society. Companies can no longer rely solely on the quality of their goods or services to determine their success. Instead, brand identity is now influenced by a company’s role in society and its transparent and authentic communication with consumers. The influence of social media personalities and follower popularity, as well as the use of diverse advertising strategies, are now critical components of effective branding. By adapting to these evolving trends and embracing new perspectives, companies can elevate their brand identity and effectively engage with their target audience in the today’s multifaceted marketing environment.

   Reply

   • While I found this article diving deeper into the story of evolving brands insightful to read, I believe it should explore more about one major component that, in the modern world, is starting to have a great impact on consumers and their self-awareness.

     “Consumers are in this state of heightened self-awareness about what’s really important to them, so we’re seeing a lot of brands really lean into the notion of a meaning system–” This quote articulated by Dr. Americus Reed, a respected marketing professor at Wharton, made me sympathize with an admiring quote I read last year by Lisa Gansky, where she says, “A brand is a voice and a product is a souvenir.” Brands often lean into what is trending, therefore using A-list celebrities and influencers as a tool to promote their products and reach a significant number of consumers, but they should recognize that they can also be the voice of positive impact and change.

     However, another component that is reshaping brands and industries globally is sustainability. Sustainability in today’s market can result in a fundamental shift in consumer values. I recognize the importance of global issues such as gender equality, inclusivity, and food security as a rising black female entrepreneur, but I also recognize that I can make a difference to our number one source affecting the planet, unsustainability. Deeply reflecting on what I learned in my first class of economics last year, when my teacher taught us that humans have unlimited wants but there are limited resources in the world. I began to reflect on the brands I buy from and reflect on my own consumer values. What attracted me to purchasing from brands in the past was whether they were inclusive and high in demand, but now a crucial component is also researching if their brand identity includes sustainability. When I looked at the tags inside my clothing, what often appeared were bold labels. “MADE IN BANGLADESH” not only appeared inside my clothing but also in my Youtube recommendations. https://youtu.be/LWvOlZ4hPU0?si=JF6BZGPAdP5EDqql
     The poignant documentary touched me as I viewed children my age making products for renowned brands in harsh conditions.

     As companies are constantly worried about their branding identity, they should recognize the crucial role sustainability plays in reaching their consumers. Brands actively being transparent with their consumers and incorporating sustainable practices often lead to building loyal, strong customers that align with the value of being sustainable beyond the product. When sustainability is incorporated into a brand’s identity, it should go beyond the use of eco-friendly materials and reduce the company’s carbon footprint. Sustainability should also be incorporated into the ethos of the company as well as its fundamental operations. Many consumers, including myself, are more concerned today about the environmental impact of our purchases. Not only is it a long term benefit for brands that practice sustainability that they would create trust with the consumer, but it also creates employees who have the vision of creating a positive impact.

     “I think the biggest message is to not make the mistake of thinking the brand is just simply the tagline, the logo, the colors on the website,” added Dr. Reed. “The brand is a true asset, and if you invest in the brand, and if you create a very deep, well-articulated, clear, and richly understood meaning system, in addition to the external markers — you’re on the right path.”

     I found this article compelling to read and loved the highlights of brand identity aligning with consumer values. It deeply prompted me to reflect on my own consumer values and how sustainability could also be a significant factor that should be taken into consideration when brands are shaping their identity in the modern world.

     Reply

8. I would first like to thank Dianna Drake and Dr. Reed for enlightening us with this message.

   The modern-day emphasis on marketing and brand establishment is considered a focal point for business models. The statement “Consumers are in this state of heightened self-awareness about what’s really important to them” is profoundly true – consumers are focusing equally on the social alignment and the products sold.

   However, I would like to note a possible malice with this movement that I do not believe many commenters have considered. A shift in focus towards pleasing consumer beliefs can often have mixed messaging that appears shallow and ill-conceived. For example, Levi Strauss’ CEO Charles V. Bergh made his stance on gun violence clear – he is merely listening to consumers’ and employees’ concerns and comes from an honest place.

   On the contrary, Dove is a clear-cut example of marketing in poor taste. In an attempt to cater to their audience that strives towards rigid beauty standards, they poorly shifted their inclusive messaging to showcasing an African American woman changing into a Caucasian woman: suggesting that this was the ideal outcome (2017). The abrupt shift in brand image, coupled with the inability to ‘read the room’ and failing to connect with the public and consumer demographic, became a major hit to the public image of Dove.

   In the same light, brand inclusivity can also turn into an issue. Forced inclusion of race can have the appearance of being in disingenuous and attempting to meet societal expectations. While intended to make everyone feel included, it can have the polar opposite effect. For example, in a school football league, a requirement of one girl on-pitch to ensure everyone gets an opportunity. While in good intent, it may appear demeaning and forced. Though a childish example, there are many such globally, yet difficult to point out due to the individualistic nature of this viewpoint (everyone sees it differently).

   The statement ‘your genuine effort to attract diverse customers will pay off’ should have ‘genuine’ in big, bold letters. Forced inclusivity and branding cannot compare to a genuine response. One must understand the purpose of the brand rather than chase after consumer’s ever-changing beliefs. Consistency and genuineness become the most crucial points.

   Reply

   • Hey Sanjay,

     While your concerns about mixed messaging and the risk of appearing shallow are valid, I believe the broader benefits and positive impacts of genuine, well-executed brand strategies far outweigh these risks. Here is why.

     Firstly, Levi Strauss has long been associated with strong social values, and their position on this issue aligns with their brand identity. It’s not just about listening to consumers but also about standing for something meaningful, which can enhance brand loyalty. In a world where consumers are increasingly looking for brands that align with their values, companies that take clear stances on important issues can build stronger and more authentic connections with their audience, being able to successfully retain clients.

     Ryan Dew and Raghuram Iyengar’s finding that while mega-influencers have broad reach, they often lack the deep connection with followers that micro-influencers can provide, points to that importance of authenticity and genuine connection over sheer reach and visibility, reinforcing the idea that brands must be true to their identity and values to resonate with their audience.

     Moving on to the concern about forced inclusion appearing disingenuous, I think consumers are able to distinguish between superficial tokenism and genuine inclusivity. For instance, Nike’s advertising has successfully embraced diversity and inclusion by featuring athletes from various backgrounds and advocating for social justice issues. Their campaigns, such as those featuring Colin Kaepernick, have sparked important conversations and resonated with a wide audience, reinforcing their brand’s commitment to equality and social change.

     Another example is Ben & Jerry’s. The ice cream brand has long been known for its social activism, addressing issues like climate change, racial justice, and LGBTQ+ rights. Their consistent and genuine approach to these causes has not only set them apart but has also cultivated a loyal customer base that shares their values. This demonstrates that when brands are authentic in their efforts, they can successfully align with consumer beliefs without appearing forced or insincere.

     Lastly, Patagonia has built its identity around environmental sustainability and social responsibility. Their commitment to these principles is evident in their business practices, from using recycled materials to donating a portion of their profits to environmental causes. By staying true to their mission, I feel that Patagonia has attracted a dedicated following and distinguished itself in a crowded market.

     Ultimately, while there are certainly risks associated with brand marketing and inclusivity efforts, I think the key lies in, first of all, marketing expertise, but also in authenticity and consistency. Brands that genuinely embrace their values and communicate them effectively can build deeper, more meaningful connections with consumers.

     Reply

     • Hello Beatriz,

       Nike, Ben & Jerry’s, and Patagonia are excellent examples of brands that have successfully embraced social values and inclusivity. Nike’s campaigns, such as those featuring Colin Kaepernick, have sparked significant conversations and demonstrated a genuine commitment to social justice. Ben & Jerry’s long-standing activism and Patagonia’s dedication to environmental sustainability further illustrate how authentic efforts can build a loyal customer base.

       However, at the end of the day, I think most brands are just looking to please their audience. Sanjay brings up good examples of brands appearing disingenuous when trying to seem inclusive. For instance, some brands might adopt inclusive marketing strategies not out of genuine concern, but as a means to capitalize on current social trends and increase their market share. This can result in a lack of authenticity, where the brand’s actions do not align with its proclaimed values.

       Furthermore, I doubt that a brand’s “values” actually make a big difference. For example, during his tenure, Travis Kalanick (uber) made several controversial statements and faced allegations of fostering a toxic workplace culture. Despite these issues, Uber has grown into a global giant in the ride-sharing industry. Another example is when Dennis Wilson (lululemon), made several controversial statements saying that some women’s bodies “don’t work.” However, lululemon still remains successful. This makes me question the actual influence of a brand’s “values” on consumers.

       Reply

9. One of the most insightful aspects of Drake’s discussion is the recognition that a brand identity is not static but a fluid concept that just adapt to external changes and internal growth. In today’s fast-faced environment, brands are constantly interacting with a plethora of cultural, technological, and economic shifts, where companies must continuously refine and sometimes redefine their brand narratives to align with current trends.

   For instance, the evolution of Apple for a niche computer manufacturer to a global technology leader illustrates how a brand can successfully expand its narrative to encompass a broader vision and appeal. Apple’s transformation highlights the importance of having a flexible brand strategy that allows for growth and adaption while maintaining core brand values. The adaptability is crucial and allows apple to stay recent and dominate new markets.

   Drake also underscores the vital role of research in shaping and evolving brand stories. By relying on data-driven insights, companies can make informed decisions that resonate with their target audiences. This is particularly important in an age where consumer preferences and behaviors are in constant flux due to technological advancements and cultural shifts.

   Furthermore, Drake also underscores the challenge of maintaining brand consistency among constant change in the world. While evolution may be essential, brands must also keep a coherent identity that consumers can recognize and trust. This balance is crucial. While too much change can dilute a brand equity, too little can also lead to stagnation. Brands that are able to find balance offers a clearer vision and values that serve as a stable foundation. They are able to innovate and adapt their messaging without losing their original essence, which is key to ensure a brand’s principles and long-term objectives.

   I found this article engaging as it offers several key elements that resonate deeply with current challenges and opportunities in brand management.

   Reply

   • Hi Erin,

     You made an excellent point that Apple has successfully adapted and transformed to continue growing, utilizing a flexible strategy to stay at the top of the game. But to dive more deeply into what makes up Apple’s brand, it’s worth asking “What is branding?”. On one hand, advertisements (ads) are messages to consumers about the perception of products and companies; however, on a deeper level, branding is multi-faceted. It means a lot of characteristics: the quality of the product, differentiation, value, history, and cult culture, all in combination mixed to create a brand’s identity.

     Without a doubt, even Iconic brands send the “wrong” message with their ads. Similar to guessing the consumer’s taste, an ad could be a hit or a miss with consumers. Just earlier this year Apple’s controversial “Crush” ad depicted a massive hydraulic press crushing various objects — a record player, piano, guitar, TV set, cameras, lens, paints, books, and toys into the ultrathin iPad Pro. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntjkwIXWtrc) Although Apple was continuing its attempt to make the iPad a multifunctional device, pushing it to become more like a laptop than a tablet, this ad left a sour taste in consumers’ mouths, especially amidst concerns about technology and artificial intelligence depriving humanity of their livelihood. Consumers were outraged about the iPad’s depiction as a tool crushing human creativity. Apple completely missed the mark with the ad, misunderstanding the market that they were broadcasting to. Too stuck in their own mind, they were disconnected from what consumers were feeling and wanted.

     Has this ad hurt Apple’s branding in any way? Absolutely, for any company, bad ads lose consumer loyalty and trust. However, despite the bad ads, Apple has adjusted quickly, removing the ad, and apologized for airing it. Apple’s image has not been entirely tarnished, a brand is a collective of all the offerings from the company. When you ask anybody what they think of Apple, they will still think of the expensive, sleek, and high-quality products, the iconic iPhones, iPads, Macbooks, etc. This image is what makes Apple one of the most valuable brands in the world at almost $500 billion (per Brand Finance Global 500). Considering Apple’s current market cap of around $3 trillion, the brand value accounts for 16% of Apple’s market cap. Brand value is based on the brand’s strength, revenue, and royalties earned. A simple ad can cause displeasure among consumers and investors but the overall value of a brand isn’t entirely based on just ads. While ads are one of the many ways companies can connect with the consumer, the image that each company creates for itself is built upon many more factors. Resonating with what Erin stated, the consistency and the feeling that consumers get when they think of a company is what makes a brand valuable.

     Reply

10. First, I want to say what fascinates me most about brands is their ability to create and convey a unique identity that can resonate deeply with consumers on an emotional level. Brands are not just about products; they’re about the stories they tell and the values they represent. This storytelling aspect is very powerful in shaping consumer perceptions and loyalty. When you look at brands like Levis, for example, it aligns closely with serious social issues because consumers increasingly expect companies to take a stand on important societal matters. By doing so, Levis not only strengthens its brand identity but also builds trust and loyalty among consumers who share those values. Such alignment has now become one of the necessities in the crowded marketplace environment, to differentiate and make their brand more memorable and impactful.

    For me personally, I also believe in and am a supporter of brands that can clearly communicate a purpose that aligns with my concerns. For instance, I have this strong concern about how our future climate is going to be and how our environment will end up after all the climate change and no restrictions just like all the other teenagers at my age. So brands like Patagonia resonate with me because of their commitment to environmental sustainability and ethical manufacturing practices. They even have a separate ‘Activism’ page on their official website where customers can actively choose to volunteer, join the event, and help the organization. This also made me think of how this type of active engagement that the brands can bring with their customers that they initially gathered by common beliefs and interests can further strengthen their feeling of community and actually leave an impact around them.

    However, I also understand that it’s important to tread carefully in the realm of inclusive branding. Forced or disingenuous attempts at inclusivity can backfire, leading to consumer skepticism and damaging the brand’s image. One good example that I can think of is a Pepsi ad featuring Kendall Jenner in 2017. The ad depicted Jenner easing tensions at a protest by offering a police officer a Pepsi. While they tried to Pepsi ad featuring Kendall Jenner in 2017 is another case where the attempt at inclusivity and social messaging fell flat. The ad depicted Jenner easing tensions at a protest by offering a police officer a Pepsi. While they were trying to target millennials by riding on the wave of political activism at that time, such as the BLM movement, they were rather backlashed by the criticism that it has trivialized serious social justice movements and was for being insensitive and out of touch.

    What I realized from this example was that in the end, the perception of authenticity is the most critical aspect of brand inclusivity. Consumers nowadays can easily detect when inclusivity is merely a marketing ploy rather than a core value of the brand. This often leads to accusations of virtue signaling, where brands are seen as leveraging social issues for profit rather than genuinely supporting them. Brands must therefore ensure that their inclusive messaging aligns with their overall brand values and actions. Consistency in values and actions, combined with a sincere commitment to inclusivity, will ultimately yield the best results both socially and economically.

    Reply

11. With all due respect, I disagree with Dr. Reed. He claims that companies ought to have a meaning or message behind their brand in order to better attract consumers; perhaps this is true to a certain extent, but this advice is not applicable to all establishments.

    For instance, YEEZY is a clothing brand founded by Kanye West, who is currently facing backlash for his anti-semitic remarks. Despite West’s outlandish comments, YEEZY sales remain through the roof. As a casual, self-proclaimed fashionista, I can attest that Mr. West’s products are quite popular in today’s market. Everytime I load up adidas CONFIRMED, the application used to buy most YEEZY merchandise, the price for a pair of slides or Foam RNNRs is always crossed out and replaced with a “SOLD OUT.” While one may argue that sales are simply high because of Kanye’s loyal fanbase, I say that his goods are enticing because of the high quality materials and unique touches of creativity. Demand is high because Kanye only releases the best of the best.

    Personally, I own a bunch of his brainchilds, but one of my wardrobe essentials is West’s black, brandless hoodie. I bought this for a multitude of reasons, and none of them have to do with Kanye’s name. The hoodie doesn’t have his branding anywhere—not even the neck label. Of note, the hoodie is made of 100% cotton as opposed to the typical fast fashion polyester that other corporate franchises, like H&M and PacSun, rely on. Aside from the material quality, the hoodie was a whopping twenty dollars! West’s marketing strategy is similar to AriZona’s: instead of spending money on advertising, Kanye and AriZona let the price tag do the talking. And, most of all, I love the hoodie’s boxy silhouette. The oversized baggy fit allows me to move freely yet still properly warms me during chilly autumn days. It is without a doubt my favorite piece of attire to wear because, like most other consumers, I buy products for their characteristics, not for the brand’s identity or message.

    Another noteworthy counter-example is Lululemon. The founder of lululemon, Dennis J. “Chip” Wilson, is immensely vocal about his fatphobia and xenophobia. He callously claims that “some women’s bodies just actually don’t work” and that “It’s funny to watch [Japanese people]… try to say… [lululemon].” One might think that such blatant, bigoted comments would have a chilling effect on lululemon’s popularity—evidently, the company continues to spread like wildfire both in real life and over social media. Yet again, the brand’s identity or message does not determine the company’s success.

    However, I give credit where credit is due. Reed’s discussion about the “Cristiano Ronaldo Effect” was interesting and refreshing. I love how the effect incentivises businesses to maximize their “bang for the buck” ratio, which in turn uplifts smaller influencers and prevents celebrities from monopolizing their fame. After all, as Americans, who would be opposed to more opportunities and increased social mobility?

    Then again, Ronaldo’s impact on both soccer (football) and the economy is profound. Still, we all can agree that Messi is still the greatest of all time.

    ¡Vamos, vamos, Argentina!

    Reply

    • Hello David,
      I found your bold counterargument to the importance of branding fascinating. The article emphasizes the role of brand story in the success of a brand since customers are more likely to purchase from brands that align with their values. However, you disputed the article’s claim with exemplary brands like YEEZY and Lululemon, which have founders that have made outrageous remarks. The viewpoints of a company’s founder have an enormous impact on the brand’ story that is becoming increasingly important to customers.

      The founder of Lululemon, Dennis Wilson, has said that “some women’s bodies just actually don’t work” and that “it’s funny to watch [Japanese people] … try to say… [lululemon].” Despite these incredibly rude remarks, Lululemon has a line of plus-size clothing, showing their support for all sorts of bodies. Additionally, they have come out with Asian-fit leggings that fit to Asian body shapes by featuring a wider calf area. Contrary to Dennis’s derogatory remarks, the brand has created products specifically for plus-size and Asian customers. The true intentions of brands are hard to decipher, so brands may create a half-hearted story to appeal to more customers. It’s difficult to determine if Lululemon’s executives truly believe in inclusivity, as their brand initiatives don’t align with their comments.

      Lululemon may be promoting inclusion solely to spur sales and gain public support. In the article, Professor Jiang mentions that “ads including diverse people didn’t just increase sales among minority borrowers. They had a positive effect among white borrowers, as well.” In the modern shopping landscape, companies need to be inclusive to boost their sales among the whole population. Since minority representation can boost sales among the whole population, companies benefit financially from supporting minorities.

      Companies are all racing to build their brand story as customers increasingly value what brands stand for. However, it’s difficult to decipher the authenticity of brand stories. Companies like Lululemon, where their founder’s remarks and the company’s actions contradict, make it hard for the customer to understand the brand’s story. Perhaps the brand genuinely cares about representing minorities. Perhaps the brand is simply pretending to value inclusivity to boost their sales.

      Overall, I believe that branding is extremely important for the success of companies. The success of Lululemon is partially attributed to their brand. Even though its founder has made out-of-hand remarks, the brand has apologized with its actions of inclusivity. Still, the question remains: In a time where brands are flocking to be diverse, equitable, and inclusive, which brands genuinely care about minority groups and which brands are just putting on a show?

      Reply

    • Hey David,

      Thanks for sharing a really interesting counterargument! I commend you for approaching the business of branding from a different perspective shaped by your own experiences. As a consumer of Kanye West’s work myself, I wholeheartedly agree with your stance regarding the appeal of his products. Given the choice between the high-quality, black minimalistic hoodie you praised and another commodity from fast fashion, I would immediately choose the hoodie. Your mention of Kanye’s controversial statements prompted me to question the extent to which negative brand image affects our purchasing decisions.

      Yes, at times we may value an item’s characteristics more than any associated identity, but at what point do identity and message grow too prominent to ignore? I’m not so worried about the positive values that a brand stands for, but rather the hostile messages they may perpetrate. Take Kanye again, for instance. He’s made several hateful remarks over the past few years, and as you noted, has faced backlash for it. If we look at the data and general public opinion, his merchandise sales are still going strong. It’s worth noting that nothing in his inventory displays outright signs of aggression: they don’t publicize hateful slogans, for instance. They’re all just stylish, comfortable pieces of clothing. In this case, the public has chosen to look past Kanye himself in favor of the characteristics of his brand.

      Another figure that comes to mind when discussing the power of image branding is Virgil Abloh, founder of cult streetwear label Off-White. The Off-White trademark was essentially built upon the support of Virgil’s celebrity associates, such as singer Rihanna, who helped propel it to the peak of the streetwear scene. Although his products are clearly high-quality and boast distinctive artistic originality, the brand’s immense growth has mainly been accelerated through celebrity endorsement. Off-White has continued to build its fame through collaborations with other industry giants like Nike and Levi, leveraging its identity to secure partnerships with even more labels. However, Virgil has also made dubious comments and has shown support for questionable ideals and people. As a brand heavily reliant on endorsement, how would Off-White fare if its biggest advocates renounced it because of Virgil’s statements?

      As of 2024, Kanye and Virgil aren’t figureheads of hate; they’re simply considered as more outspoken and opinionated. It’s easy enough to say that we distance ourselves from their opinions and purchase their creations simply because we admire their creativity. But this leads me to ask myself, to what extent do products and companies have to be associated with harmful ideologies for me to renounce them? I’m not sure if an antagonistic remark by a single figure is grounds for me to reject a line of clothing that I love, but will I wait until a brand design or item becomes completely embroidered with hate before I abandon it? And let’s consider a scenario when a creator uses the profits from their products to fund a malicious cause. Under those circumstances, the customer base – you and I included – would be forced to seriously consider our willingness to buy those products. At the end of the day, it takes meticulous examination of the negative identities surrounding a brand to make a final decision.

      Reply

    • Hey David,

      I agree with your point about Dr. Reed’s perspective on brand meaning and consumer attraction. It’s undeniable that having a compelling brand message can resonate deeply with certain consumers. As you mentioned with YEEZY and Lululemon, despite the controversies surrounding founders Kanye West and Chip Wilson, both brands have managed to maintain strong market positions. This provides a fascinating counterpoint, illustrating how a brand’s appeal can sometimes withstand the negative impacts of its founders’ controversies.

      YEEZY’s success can largely be attributed to its commitment to high-quality materials and unique innovative designs. As you pointed out, the popularity of their products on platforms like Adidas CONFIRMED highlights the strong demand driven by product excellence rather than brand messaging alone. Consumers are clearly drawn to the unique aesthetics and superior quality that YEEZY offers, rather than that of Kanye West’s controversial persona.

      Likewise, Lululemon’s continued growth underscores the aesthetics of their functional activewear, which meets the needs of a health-conscious consumer base who cares about fashion. Despite Chip Wilson’s controversial statements, such as his fatphobic and xenophobic remarks, the brand’s ability to deliver on quality and performance has sustained, if not increased, its popularity. For instance, Wilson’s comments about the origins of his brand’s name and his offensive views could have been detrimental. Yet, these viral clips of his interviews on platforms like TikTok, Twitter (X), and Instagram, while sparking an outrage of criticisms, also seem to have drawn a peculiar form of attention (finding Mr. Wilson’s bluntness amusing/funny) that hasn’t significantly damaged Lululemon’s market position. This dichotomy shows that the majority of consumers might separate the product from the person behind it, especially when the product itself meets or exceeds their expectations.

      Expanding on your points, it’s worth noting how these examples highlight a broader trend in consumer behavior: the ability to distinguish the brand’s product from its representatives. This separation suggests that the intrinsic value and quality of a product can sometimes outweigh the negative publicity associated with its creator. It also brings up the interesting dynamic of social media’s role in brand perception. While platforms can amplify controversies, they also provide a stage for brand loyalists to vocalize their support, sometimes neutralizing the negative impact.

      In the end, your insights about YEEZY and Lululemon show that a brand’s true power lies in its products. Even when the face of these brands faces controversies, high-quality and appealing products can keep customers coming back. It’s a reminder that in the modern world of brands, substance often triumphs over scandal.

      Reply

12. Living in New York City means I’m constantly surrounded by living, breathing stories. This includes the “pigeon whisperer lady” summoning each pigeon by name she assigned them in Riverside Park, the stoic roller skater wearing balloon-pants while balancing bowling pins on his head, and the dashing makeup artist with a Groucho Marx mustache who once did Frank Sinatra’s wife’s makeup. The heart of New York thumps with diverse lives, their carriers’ stories pumping the blood that nourishes its body of soaring, glinting skyscrapers above the rumbling, dark subways below. Being in New York affords opportunities like nowhere else. Currently, I’m participating in an entrepreneurship program with other students from a variety of places and backgrounds, which takes place at City College, the third most diverse school in the country.^1 Each student has a story replete with deep roots far from the cobbled walls of that school. And, as we know, stories are what matter. They keep cultures going. They also keep a business going. As Stanford marketing professor Dr. Jennifer Aaker even suggests, stories are remembered up to 22 times more often than facts alone.^2
    I came across this Wharton article addressing just that. Dr. Reed’s insights stayed with me. As Dr. Reed mentioned, post-pandemic, consumers have become increasingly concerned with how the companies they interact with impact the world and whether those companies are making it a better place. Businesses see an opportunity to communicate this through their brand story. These ideas simmered in my brain at a recent session of my entrepreneurship program when a group of panelists came to speak. Their stories of creating startups and nonprofits that address the needs of their communities sparked many thoughts in me. One panelist, Ms. Judi, founded a nonprofit that addresses food deserts and the lack of access to healthy foods in Harlem and the Bronx by creating farmers’ markets and community gardens for those communities. When I asked her how she obtains funding and permits for her nonprofit, her response forever changed my view on the stories we hear and read about all the products around us.
    “I’m still figuring that out,” she chuckled. “Politicians who could promote us, increasing our legitimacy, only want to help if it boosts a certain image they want to maintain. When I fundraise and reach out to potential donors, they usually want me to beg, grovel, and say: ‘the poor children of Harlem are starving and need your help’. But that’s not the only way to tell our story, and that’s not the image I’m going to promote about the community.”
    This situation reminded me that, just as businesses solving any problem must account for new issues that are created from their solution, they must also assess whether telling their brand story gives rise to branding barriers for other businesses addressing the same problem, where only certain narratives for addressing that specific issue can be told. The problem nonprofits, or any business with a social goal to improve the world, face, in particular, is that they’re expected to have “sob stories”, which, while effective, aren’t necessarily the authentic stories that they should be sharing. In Ms. Judi’s case, donors were looking for a sad story about poor children who needed to beg for help, whereas she was showcasing the potential food independence and empowerment of Harlem’s and the Bronx’s communities through her work.
    What Ms. Judi told me was a Eureka moment in changing my view on the role of stories in branding: It’s not just about having a brand story that promotes and showcases a business’ strides in diversity, sustainability, and overall social change. It’s about ensuring that those stories can be told in true and diverse ways, about the actual diverse perspectives within the community affected.
    In studying the place of diversity in marketing, I applaud Dr. Zhenling Jiang and her colleagues’ research, which proves that diversity in marketing is very impactful. I would add to their findings and caution that, when telling a brand story, companies should ensure that the diversity and social good in their marketing campaigns are not stale and ingenuine, but, rather, bring a variety of voices to the table. After all, if one were to step into a candy store filled only with M&Ms, how boring would that be? I am excited to see that same store popping with the bright, colorful rainbow of Sour Patch Kids, caramels, Milky Way bars, licorice, Skittles, and everything in between.

    1. “America’s Most Diverse Colleges.” Forbes, https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/americas-most-diverse-colleges#:~:text=Six%20out%20of%20the%20top,of%20New%20York%20University%2C%20No, 15 Dec. 2010. Accessed 1 July 2024.
    2. Aaker, Jennifer. “Harnessing the Power of Stories.” Stanford.edu, https://womensleadership.stanford.edu/node/796/harnessing-power-stories. Accessed 2 July 2024.

    Reply