#150: Connecting Brands and Culture with Cheryl Overton

- Welcome to The Crocs. Join one of the world's top communicators, Mike Fernandez, and guests, as they take you behind the scenes of the news of the day and explore the crocs of stories that are shaping business, politics, and our daily lives. - Today's guest on The Crocs of the Story is a powerhouse in the world of brand storytelling and cultural strategy, Cheryl Overton. As the founder and CEO of Cheryl Overton Communications, she's built a reputation for crafting campaigns that don't just resonate. They stick in land with a career-spanning top agencies from Ogilvy to Edelman, Gami Group, and PMK, BNC. Cheryl has shaped narratives for iconic brands, including General Motors, Target, Lancome, Lucasfilm. You name it. She's been described as a creative instigator. We'll have to come back to that in a moment, with a sharp in-state for consumer insights. She has a talent for weaving digital solutions with pop culture and much of her work centers on the persuasive power of multicultural consumers and the evolving dynamics between brands and their stakeholders. Cheryl is also a frequent contributor to news stories about brands from their strengths to their missteps. Cheryl, thanks for joining us this morning and agreeing to unpack some of this. Thank you for being with us. Oh, thanks for the invitation. It's a pleasure, Mike. And it's great to get to the crux of the story. All too often, I love to do that. Now you've really given me license, too. That's great. That's great. And through the years, I've watched it with amazement as you dealt with different things. In the intro, I use something that has been said about you in terms of creative instigator. In your mind, what does it mean to be a creative instigator in today's brand landscape? You know that that descriptor is a bit of a double-edged sword, because nobody likes an instigator just for the sake of instigating. The way I see that, and I'm taking it as a compliment, it's because one thing, even from my earliest days in the business, I certainly am blessed and feel very fortunate and grateful to have a creative mind, and I've been that way since a kid. I look at things, and I can see whether it's a funny way to do it, a more artistic way to do it, or just sort of, you know, might look at it upside down, and maybe that's the perspective. So I appreciate that about myself and that I can bring that to the work. But the truth of it is, I think, a creative instigator like myself. Really, maybe another word is, you know, truly what a creative strategist isn't does in this business. I'm not just rushing to, here's the creative handle, or here's the tactic. I'm absolutely looking at how do I use that creative idea to be provocative, to spark action, to get the consumer, or whoever the end user is, and sometimes the consumer is also an employee, or a legislator. How do I get them to really think differently about a particular communications challenge? How can I insert a brand right in somebody's, not just thought process, but decision process? So the creative instigation is not just about, "Ooh, what's the WizBang tactical, you know, saw for this?" But what is the WizBang saw for this that actually gets people not just to think, but do differently? I find that when we can do that, and I have many examples in my career of when I've participated with teams doing this, or when I've sort of birthed an idea, and then partnered and collaborated to make it come to life, where when we do that, it actually gives the brand campaign such velocity because people are carrying the message within for you. It's not just up to the brand to share the story, so maybe too much of an answer, but creative installation to me is really about the sizzle and the state. Yeah, I get it, because at the end of the day, it's got to work, right? So through the years, one of the things you've done for clients is try to match the brand with cultural relevance. How do you define cultural relevance in today's world? For me, that's really about it. It's nothing that's like for today. I think cultural relevance has always sort of been the same, but sometimes it's elusive, right? I think it's authentically putting the brand in a position where it intersects with values, with identity, and with sort of just sort of the zeitgeist. If I could say a brand that's culturally relevant is chosen, it's how we set up brands to be chosen by their intended audience. I think that the phrase we use a lot now is brand love. We're all measuring brand love with our campaigns. It's not just about reach, it's not just about frequency, it's not just about impressions. It's about do people love your brand in a way that's both tangible, like through sales or through metrics on media, but also the intangible. It's why it's irrationally, you know, the thing I can't say no to. That's what cultural relevance is to me and how I try to look at what a brand's promises and uncover the sort of aha in there that they can own in terms of, you know, what their consumers need and want. So finding that space where they align with values and what the consumer wants to be is where cultural relevance occurs for me. So talk to me a little bit more about brand love. I'm sitting there yesterday watching television while I'm doing work and I'm watching the Kansas City Chiefs and the announcers, the sports announcers are talking about whether or not there will be a Taylor Swift side. How is it that the NFL, the National Football League and Taylor Swift work? Hey, if I think that, well, I think one thing we've known about the NFL for probably a decade or more. And I would say even more, I'm not a football fan, I will admit that. And being from Philadelphia originally, that is like anathema. Oh, yeah. I'm an athlete. I mean, I'm an athlete. I'm a kid. I, you know, I'm the person at the football games where the family is there and everybody is, you know, really into it. I'm on my iPad, like reading something, so I'm not a football fan like that. I don't say this. I know that the NFL has been very demonstrative for a decade plus about wanting to attract more women, like, and be very clear about wanting to attract more women. The truth of it is women watch football, but now, you know, we don't need a pink jersey, right, to be invited into it and merge, but they've been wanting to attract and appeal to women. And so this has been nothing but a pop culture gift that Taylor and Travis became engaged because it is not just appealing to women. It is appealing to generations of women and younger women. And I think particularly with Jen Alpha and Gen Z, who are growing up in a time where the NFL isn't the, the bastion of what we all do together. I think this is a generation that grew up seeing Colin Kaepernick and his journey with the NFL. I think they've grown up seeing how so many of the players have neurological issues, how people, you know, have come through the game. So the NFL certainly a wonderful league. And if you like football, that's what you do. But we've got a whole new crop of consumers, ticket holders, viewers on TV who maybe don't think, hey, I could watch the NFL or I could watch something else because now I have 700 channels. It's not the bastion that it was, you know, 30 years ago. So they need other stuff to make it exciting. And I think you saw them do this many years ago by bringing in folks like Jay Z to sort of redesign what happens at the halftime show. They have really embraced popular culture. I think there are some players wives who take the jerseys and refashion them, like really cool, you know, and their looks or what people are covering. What other ways to intersect it with other passion points be it what goes on at the concessions. I mean, these concessions, you could just eat in all the stadiums now and taste so many different things, you know, in the fashion and the music. So an answer to your question about Taylor and Travis, of course they are taking advantage of somebody who has what is most the most multi-generational, huge audience, predominantly female audience. And using it for all its work, when she shows up at the game, I'll even admit, even I was like, oh, should I watch like what was she going to sit in the box and who she going to bring with her, you know, it's more exciting for me to know if she is an I am not a football fan. So I think that they're taking full advantage of it. It will only continue as this engagement cycle, you know, progresses. And if anything, God help him, he better continue to play well, because if something happens and he doesn't play well and she has no reason to show up, I think it will absolutely matter in terms of viewership, in terms of in-person attendance. This sort of Taylor Swift effect that they call it, we actually see the numbers. They have seen an increase since they have been dating of people viewing and of women and of younger women in particular viewing these games, weak by weak people attending. And the tailgate has become a lot more integrated from a gender perspective because of that, because people are hoping to be a part of it. So that is a really fascinating thing. They don't even need ever an official partnership with her. The halo of her is already benefiting their business. Amazing. So let's turn our attention to some brand moments that have reached some pain points, some strain. You know, this past summer, and in fact, you've been asked something akin to this several times, I know, around the American Eagle Jeans campaign that featured the actress star of the show Euphoria, Sydney Swini. And for our audience, the ad uses kind of a wordplay. Sydney Swini has great Jeans, and it's J-E-A-N-S, but it came across to some that this blonde hair, blue-eyed actress was being elevated in yet another way, and it was as if rather than J-E-A-N-S. The word was G-E-N-E-S. So talk to us, talk us through the controversy and one and then two. Is there a fix or a different approach that American Eagle should have taken? The double-entendre of the two spellings of Jeans was intentional, and their team is very vocal and front-forward about that. So I don't think it was a perception of the consumers who, there's no misunderstanding, that's exactly the wordplay that they were playing on, and there was a version of the spot that aired that they wind up taking down where she talked specifically about the blonde hair and the blue eyes, and why that was. She never, in the copy, never said, and this is the best or the desirable, but the suggestion is her Jeans, G-E-N-E-S, that gave her the blonde hair, the blue eyes from her parents, is one of the things that makes it desirable, as she was reclining in the Jeans. So I want to make it really clear, this was designed to give that effect for consumers who share that opinion, sensibility, who are fans of city, sweetie, who are fans of sexy girls and Jeans, it landed exactly as they intended to. So I think that that's one thing. I am, and maybe this is a hot take, or maybe it isn't. I'm of the opinion that this was intentional. I think that there are brands who are not out here to appeal to everybody. I think that there are brands who, in the world we're in, are very clear, this is our target, or we want more of this type of target. And if that means others erode, others don't like it, it might give us a temporary decline, or it might be controversial now, but in the end, we all have more of our desired consumer in our stores, online, et cetera. So I absolutely want to believe that a marketing team of a brand such as American ego probably wait, the pluses and the minuses, you know, testing is your friend, there's nothing we do now, before we launch something, a particularly with talent that we're going to put out all over where we haven't really tested a message or tested a concept to really sort of study and project out how will this land. And then if there are going to be some issues, do some scenario development around that, okay, here's our five scenarios, you know, everything from boycott to, you know, some online chatter, and how do I respond. So I am hopeful that they worked and workshopped all of that prior to pressing push play on this campaign. And I think they are getting exactly what they intended. There are some people who think it's the greatest campaign since sliced bread, go American ego, you guys are winning. I think that there are others who are like, you know what, it wasn't a brand that was on my radar, and it really isn't now. And I think that, you know, and I said this in a few of the media interviews, one thing that I think is really unfortunate about this is this particular pair of jeans that she was promoting was a pair of jeans with approach these would benefit a domestic violence charity for women. And that message got lost in so much of not only their campaign, but then in the retelling of it that she apparently the talent agreed to this spot and agreed to this partnership because she wanted to see the proceeds benefit this domestic violence charity. I think that that message got lost. And for me as a marketer, I mean, as somebody who sits on boards and as somebody who really would want to support a domestic violence charity, that would be the reason for me to cross the threshold to an American ego, frankly, and that got lost. So that's unfortunate. And the other thing that seems to be because I'm noticing it coming off of like the Toronto Film Festival and the Emmys last week, it seems that Sydney Swingies brand has taken the biggest hit American ego continues. They've actually since then they've announced a partnership ironically with Travis Kelsey that obviously was in the works longer than this. It's announced it toward the end of the summer, but life goes on. They're already on to the new, you know, the new campaign. Of course, it's retail. It's back to school and holiday season. They make all their money right now in the fourth quarter. So, you know, moving on, but it seems that her star has taken a little bit of a hit based on this. Now it could be based on other things, you know, as well. But this was sort of the biggest pop culture story for her, not this performance of this film. She's now promoting that they say is super transformative, not, you know, other work that she might doing, not with the last season of euphoria under film. And that to me would be problematic if I were an actor sure that the last thing people are talking about is this little jeans ad I did. So this situation has, it's unfortunate, but I think it's a sign of where we are in marketing. I think brands are deciding, even if I erode some of a mass appeal, maybe that's OK, because I'll have more of my people in my circle buying my product. And who do I want to be seen wearing my jeans? And if you have decided that some people are more desirable than others as a customer base, then job well done. Yeah, you know, in some ways it harkens one of the early brand tests that I remember that went awry with a brand was back in the 1980s with Coca-Cola and the introduction of new Coke and then having to come back and hear they're trying to reposition. And the day fast forward, we've seen a brand in Cracker Verrol where they come out, they decide they need to refresh the brand in order to market to a broader and younger demographic. And instead with sort of the political craziness that's out there, there's a backlash from the political right. And, you know, how should we look at that in relation to everything else we're seeing about brands? Gosh, I mean, who would have thought that the White House would have a POV on a logo change? You know, like, wow, I didn't think I'd ever see anything like that in my time because like in the grand scheme of life and all the things that are on the table right now, a logo change kind of doesn't seem that important, but that said. What I mentioned in our previous conversation about American ego, I think, wow, it goes double or triple for Cracker Verrol. I'm curious, obviously this decision when you are rebranding or refreshing a brand, these are not decisions that are made lightly and we know this from our years of experience. Your visual, you know, this is such equity, right, you really are thinking long and hard and strategizing and getting all of your resources together to sort of scenario plan, what would it be if we made a change? And I mean, this sort of everything from even a minute change, like if we move this over by a centimeter or whatever, like what does it mean? How does it make people feel? Do they notice it? Do they not notice it? There's a real art and science to this, which I am quite sure they made this decision before they did testing again is your friend. But they decided that, you know, the numbers are down and I mean down down the core consumer, the ones who fought really hard to get it, you know, so really loudly to get it revert. They're clearly either not dining in as often as they were or they're not making sure that it's multi generational and maybe bringing their family members in because the numbers were down. This was a business decision to try to capture more of the QSR consumer base that's out there. Entire families that dine there. People who are on the road and will stop at a cracker barrel versus a waffle house versus a Wendy's or or whatever we have to try to turn their heads and they really thought that cleaning up that logo, making it feel a little more modern was one way to do it. That was coupled with other brand enhancements or innovations, but the one that really seem to shock the sensibilities and somehow get described as anti woke. And that's the part that is kind of confusing to me that this logo shift, which to me made it cleaner and more modern because if you're trying to get younger consumers, it's not because we don't appreciate the grandfatherly like men sitting in the chair. But younger consumers kind of don't want to see a dude in a rocking chair right that's like that's not where I'm trying to die. So it felt more like a nod to modernity as opposed to wokeness, but it was received that way and frankly got all of the attention for that. So now they're back where they started and not just that they're actually worse off than they started because there is a whole population that actually will not cross the threshold of a cracker barrel because of this and because of their their reaction to it. So I hope that their core consumer based and their shareholders are happy with where they are. I'm kind of surprised at their C suite for with conviction not speaking out even about the process of what led to it or even what led to the reversal. So I think they've been more silent as a brand and as a company than I would be comfortable with as a community if they were my client, for example. I think people appreciate a little bit of information about what's going on under the hood, how we got here, why we decided to reverse and what this means for the future. I don't think they've been telling their story in a way. They've just sort of been on the back foot and letting the White House or the conservative right tell their story and those are not brand marketers. So that has been very fascinating to me to see that just reversal. There are doubles advocates among us in the communications world who says maybe the whole thing was done just to give them a cultural relevance. Well, they're never going to change the logo. The logos they got who they have. They know who their customer is. They just sort of put this up. We knew we were going to pull it back down in a minute. If anybody noticed, I'm going to believe I'm not that Jamie. It's interesting. Who's my hey crack up arrow got in the news and they had not been in the news. That's true. They had not been in the news and if you think about historically that the Coca-Cola play Sergio Zemen who was the chief marketing officer would later say that in some ways it was fortunate. Because when we introduce Coke classic and everybody was in love with people. I was a young person and I don't drink a soda like that but I remember New Coke and people being outraged. Now I grew up in a Pepsi family. So I remember my parents being like, well, we don't drink Coke any and I'm like, it's all the same. Even to me, it looked the same and it was like shut your mouth. I remember people were dumping it. We would see news story people were outraged and I'm like, well, didn't they test it? Maybe the baby marketer in the making of me was like, well, didn't they let people taste it first? And in fact, that was the story. It's the taste test which got them to New Coke. And on top of it, they refreshed the logo and everything. And somehow there was brand love for the old symbol. Well, nobody asked maybe for the old symbol to go away. Or maybe they'll take it out of the safe and bring it out now as the new new. Maybe it's Coke zero, I don't know. There you go, exactly. It's all the mini-scuse that are out there. That's right. So now one retail brand that you're familiar with is Target. And we talked a little bit about, you know, in the case of American Eagle, they saw no real hit other than they got involved in this conversation. They were going after a certain market. They were reaching that market. But after George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis, the hometown for Target. And Target in many ways, you know, even the old Dayton Hudson had been a pretty progressive company. But they really, in a very public way, got more engaged around diversity commitments. And then fast forward to early 2025, new president, President Trump releases an executive order of what he called illegal DE&I. Target and in fairness, some other companies as well, skilled back their DE&I efforts. But what happened to Target was because in some frame, they'd been so public. In terms, I think of what they originally had said, they also opened themselves to be a target as there were kind of staged boycotts, particularly amongst black shoppers. And it's interesting because historically, what you said happened to American Eagle has happened with lots of other brands in the past. They say most consumer boycotts have not had any financial impact. This has been studied by business schools yet when the company had its earnings call in May, with investors and analysts, what did Target CEO Brian Cornell actually say, but that the less than expected sales performance for the previous quarter, he cited as the DE&I boycott. How should we as marketers, advertisers, PR professionals think about this as we march into the world we're in today? So Target is a brand that, first of all, I participate in the boycott, I haven't been to Target this calendar year and I will tell you I didn't think I could do it. But I have, right? But a couple of things. So Target has been over the years both at two different agencies and at Cheryl over 10 communications, my own from Target has been a client three times in my career. It's a brand that I absolutely loved, trusted, love their taste level, love their collaborations. And what we talked about earlier around brand love, it's a brand that engender and cultivated and with credibility and authenticity earned brand love, particularly among black consumers. Target had, whenever a target opened in a community and Target had absolutely a wonderful system around not only how they hired from within the community, the schools that the portion of the proceeds of that particular store would. Public schools in that community, how they would open the stores, whether it's for after school, you know, get a snack at Starbucks, things that were on sale, Target really used not just their assortment, but their hiring practices and the store as another landmark in communities as a place for everyone to feel welcome. They have a well oil machine around doing that. They also, and I think this precedes 20 in the racial reckoning, they'd always been, but I, but certainly the volume went up then. They always been because some of the work that I did for Target very early or many years ago, had to do with some of their assortment targeting black consumers, whether it was in their personal care assortment or in their fashion lines, etc. So they always understood that there is incredible buying power and incredible cultural influence among these consumers, and I think that we need to really position multicultural marketing there. It is not about, oh, do we have a brochure and we got some black folks in there and that's really cool and that's the nice thing to do. This is not about that. This is about these are consumers who are spending and who because of their cultural influence can influence others to spend too. That's why they are a valuable business opportunity for retailers. And Target had understood that and they had found a way to align with the values of these consumers. So it never felt predatory. It always felt that they identified the brands that the consumer based loves and trusts and want to give them a platform. So what we saw during the pandemic, especially as Target leaned in to personalities like everything they did with Tabitha Brown, you know, taking a creator that everyone fell in love with during the pandemic and giving her a real universe to sell products that not only would she cook with or her aesthetic but let everybody be a part of it. So I say all this to say they're reversal around the DEI initiatives, which of course their messaging is we have been on a strategy for quite some time and we've met our goals. So they of course have communications pros who are not this is not a reversal to them. They've met those objectives. They just so happen to meet them at the same time as the new administration put out the policy around anti DEI, but they feel like we've met our marks. Now we are going to put our resources and things where we need to make some. So that is their story and they're sticking with it. I think the reason why this particular boycott is working, not just from a revenue standpoint, but frankly from an emotional standpoint is because this is a brand that had it took up heart space. And while it's face among black consumers, among many different consumers of color because you could go there and you you weren't being followed because you could go to target and you would see, you know, associates who look like you or understood what you were looking for if you didn't see it on the shelf right away, who might understand, you know, I'm looking for a particular moose for my hair when I lay it flat. Oh, the one in the blue bottle. Oh, you mean this brand, like even if you didn't know the brand, the aisles are wider. I can walk with my kids, my stroller, my car, my grandma and nobody's going bump into me. They thought about creating a welcoming place. And so that decision automatically let you know the welcome sign has been turned around. You're not welcome here. At least that's how it feels. So for those of us who are in a position to participate in the boycott and boycotts are funny things because you get it like not everybody that might be the grocery store in your commute. That might be the place where you can get fresh grocery. So nobody's asking you to starve. That might be the place where you can easily access on foot or via public transport or it might be just convenient because you're doing so many things. So not everybody can participate in the boycott. If you can, I'm glad that that they're seeing the power of the people that where we spend our dollars, it actually matters and it matters to your shareholders. And you have to really think twice to do it. I know that I've seen them working double and triple time with creators to have people come back in. And they are doing a ton of, you know, unboxings and things like that just to show that, you know, black creators are still shopping at Target. Maybe are you paying them, you know, like that's not the same. And there's some discussions in the black community of do you go fill your basket, you know, online and then not do it like the kind of game, the basket game, the algorithm to show them like this is intentional. I think they have the message that it's intentional and as a communications professional, I think that they are very good at coming up with the language and these are explanations for doing it. At this point, they have to really, I think, stay clearly, where do they stand? They may, they may not use the phrases, anti woke or anti-dei. I don't think that anybody, a company with their history is not going to go on record and say we're anti-dei, of course not. But I do think it's something I've even asked, I was at a conference, minority supplier development conference and I did ask, Target was there, they're always there. And I did ask, how does this impact their supplier diversity strategy? Is that still important? Would that be hurtful to be designated in their vendor system as a black woman owned business? Like, tell me the truth, if you're looking to do so. There are certain things they can't talk about on the record, but it really does give you pause. So I think as marketers and as brand communicators, I think we would need to really guide and counsel our clients to how do we navigate and help consumers navigate their way back, if you will. One thing I'm noticing, Target is about to announce a collaboration, a fashion collaboration with a black designer or black fashion influencer, her name is Kalana Barfield, they've done collabs with her in the past. For the past two years, she's been working with them on her own sort of imprint that exclusively will be offered through Target at launch and then later, I'm sure through her own e-commerce channels. And she just wrote an article at first person essay in New York Magazine about the catch 22 of this. She's a black woman, she's been working for two years. Target has been very good to her. They had collaborations in the past, the team has been so supportive. And over the course of the two years that it takes to bring a line to market, all of this has happened. Now, her core consumer is boycotting Target. But as a designer and as a business owner, how does she navigate this? Her core consumer won't shop where it's available. And she is partnering with a brand that here to four had been a good partner. So it's something that I think we'll watch with great interest. I thought her essay was well done. It led us into her mindset. And then I have seen some chatter among potential consumers of her line. Maybe we buy we buy this. But then we don't, you know, we don't have the other things for this, right? So I think people are trying to navigate the way. You know, there's boycotting everybody saying, you know, we should be canceling Disney plus in Hulu, you know, because of everything with Jimmy Fallon. You know, yeah, you know, why not? Like if that's the only thing I can do, you know, I will give people to listen. Why the heck not? You know, I've seen, I've seen the Lion King. Well, you know, but it is interesting because, you know, through the ages, there have not been a lot of effective boycotts, sands, you know, you look at some truly political efforts like the United Farm Worker. I grew up in a world where I can remember seeing signs. Don't buy California grapes. Don't buy California wine. And imagine. I know. But it helped their cause and so on. But for most, most boycotts have historically been ineffective. So let's change gears a little bit. Talk about a little bit different audience. You and I were recently at an event in New York, where you were talking about brands just like we are. And I believe where you thought marketers were missing the boat. And you went on to talk about consumers over the age of 50. That would be me. And I would love for you to talk a bit more about what companies might better do to reach that demographic, my demographic. Sure. Sure. Well, first of all, thanks. Thanks for hearing that part of my, I'm part of the demographic too. Part of the, they call it the silver economy. And one of the things that I've noticed just as somebody who, throughout my career at whatever age decade I happen to be in, I have really focused on, even if I wasn't calling it that, I have really focused on how can we be as representative and as inclusive as possible. And one of the things I've noticed since joining the 50 set or 50 plus step for myself is this is, it's like beyond a renaissance. I've never been more capable. I've never felt more energetic. I don't think my ideas have been as sharp or as, you know, everything is popping on all fronts. And finally, I'm here. And I could make the decisions. And I have the money to spend. And I have the influence because, you know, those of us in our 50s, we're influencing three generations, at least if we're fortunate enough to have our parents still with us. We're actually influencing four generations. And that's means in the workplace and communities. And in social circles, online and off, that's a lot of power and influence to wheel. We've got the spending power and we've got the lived experience to know how to wield it. Yet it seems to me when I just, even if I put on my consumer hat, which I know is an occupational hazard doing what we do for a living is hard to look at any piece of marketing material and be like, you know. Find that when I turned 50, everything, it didn't reflect the way I feel on the inside. It didn't reflect always the way even things that they're talking about being active. It's always like, you know, ladies eating these boring salads or like, you know, the prescribing information or somebody who's like sitting in the chair while everybody standing up. It felt just a little tired, a little dated and not reflective of what modern maturity really looks and feels like. And so as I started to talk to folks in the industry and outside of the industry, frankly, who study longevity, who are really speak about like where is power and influence coming from. I decided, you know what, instead of sort of complaining or being that loud voice in the room when I'm in like brand planning with a client or something, let me build a better mouse trap. And so my firm created a strategic planning toolkit. We call it grown GRWN. And it really is to help brands engage and build better messaging and better creative platforms to reach the 50 plus consumer. Now, the reason why you would do this, of course, you know, just like I was speaking earlier about, well, why would you do this with consumers of color? Well, of course it's the right thing to do, but that's not really why. The reason why you do this to folks 50 plus is we control $15 trillion worth of spending. Like, you're real, you're already here, right? Do you want us to be here on your side or do you want us not on your side? So that's one thing. But in terms of categories, because I'm a big, I'm a big, you know, I like creative things, but I also like data, I'm a capricorn show me the numbers. So I did some research. And so my firm every quarter, we do a cultural pulse of 100 consumers across age break. So, but they are all adults, 18 plus. And we just always do a few questions just to get a cultural pulse. And sometimes we use that to inform our thinking, to inform a creative approach. In the case of grown, we did it to talk about how do people and how do people perceive the 50 plus consumer and marketing, what brands are doing it well, what brands are doing it wrong. And we ask a special set of questions to people who are 50 plus. What if folks getting wrong in that folks, I mean brands. And I put the findings were pretty interesting. First of all, getting wrong. Oh, God, a that they think that there is a technology gap. I think this stereotype that I see there's sort of a funny meme out there about Gen Z saying that, you know, we don't we don't know how to edit a PDF. Well, okay. And okay, but there isn't there's a technology adoption myth out there that people 50 plus we were not tech savvy. We don't use the devices. We don't understand how the different GPT's and things work. And people over 50 said, well, that's not true. People over 50 say that they absolute like they can't get through the day without technology, your car is the computer, right, like the dashboard of your car. So you're using technology very authentically and organically every day. They are leaning into machine learning and things like that. They may not be every gadget. They may not be the ones who are wearing metaglasses and things like that. That might not be what they choose, but they're not afraid of technology. And they actually 19% of the folks we surveyed, which by I get it, but it's almost 20% almost a fifth said they will consider themselves tech savvy. So that is one myth. There is another myth that people under 50 might think that they're not vibrant sexy social people. And I use the word sexy on purpose because that was a word that came back in the free responses like a lot of marketing images in this country. I think this is not the same in other countries, the UK in particular. It's almost like people 50 plus are neutered. They don't have a social life outside of their children or grandchildren that they don't have sex that they don't want to be vibrant and seen and socially desirable. People 50 plus in our survey said nothing could be further from the true. And in fact, we feel powerful. We feel active. We feel stylish and we want people to recognize that you're actually everything that you're inspired by, whether it's 90s fashion, music samples is the stuff. That was our stuff. So they feel that they want to really get credit, if you will, for being the arbiters of the style that's considered great now. I think one thing that I thought was very surprising. And in fact, I put a pitch together for South by Southwest on this. It doesn't wait until you're 50 for this sort of invisibility cultural invisibility to start. We asked and started to hear as early as 37 and I talked about this last week at the event. People said that they start to feel invisible like in their late 30s. That's scary to me that an environment visible just, you know, maybe you're not the go to in the workplace. Maybe they're not greeting you when you first enter a retail space, you know, whereas 10 years prior, oh, may I help you or what do you think? People start to feel invisible as they approach their 40s. So of course, think about it. If that starts to happen pre 40s, by the time you're 50, am I even here in a public space or in a workplace, that's pretty dangerous. But I guess the other side of that is, well, we have an opportunity to stop that ball from rolling down the hill. We can maybe stop that. So these are just some of the data points that that grown found, but really more importantly, wanting to really underscore for brands that as you're looking at it and I get it. Everybody wants, you know, a Gen Z, this or a millennial, this, all of these are important segments. But did you know that this segment is also important? Did you know that this segment actually is influencing those other segments. And so it's really interesting. Some segments that are frankly getting it right, which is very interesting. Luxury segments are now you understand that they understand where the bridge is not understand where the money is. Yeah, they understand what a money is. And so they're getting it right. I think what they're doing interestingly is showing using some of the things we see in the sort of creator using social media featuring older creators or mature creators who are 50 plus. I sat through a presentation at Tik Tok and they said the fastest growing kind of most prolific segment is actually 50 plus creators, whether they're cooking, whether they're doing fashion, whether they're doing travel. There is a credibility and lived experience on how you do this stuff that is appealing to all audiences, not just their audience. So I think it's an exciting time to be 50 plus. I think it's an exciting time for brands that are brave enough to really embrace them and find out what is it about our brand that could not just enhance their lives because their lives, many of them are so enhanced. But to tap into their knowledge and their ingenuity to reverberate our messages. So that's one of the fun things about creating grown and seeing it grow as we as we get clients to also take on that strategy. What's fascinating is the conversation today really seemingly has shifted as we're talking about how to brands not only navigates space, but how do they evolve for the future? What advice do you give to chief marketing officers and other communicators who want a future proof of their brands? Listen to your consumer, listen to your employees, listen to your stakeholders. Really, I think listening is critical to this process, right? I think you cannot chase trends. You have to, you have to create new standards and factors and benchmarks for yourself. We're in a place where media, there are platforms that we're using, right? But media is no longer the gatekeeper of what people think or believe. People are already forming their opinions. I think that the flip side of that is that some of these opinions could be misinformed. Some of these opinions could be influenced by artificial intelligence that may or may not be reflective of of of the reality that a brand wants because who's who's populating it. So I think we've got to take all of that into consideration, but a brand has to be very clear who they are, what they stand for and be willing to use their own real estate to tell that story consistently and persistently. This is why things like sub stacks, this is why things like newsletters and email marketing are making a comeback because I don't need an editor or frankly, I don't want a filter between it because that filter, if it's AI and it could be wrong, it might not be. It could, right? So I think people are going back to and one of the things brands have to do. I never would counsel a client will don't be on social media. Of course not be on all of the channels, but also cultivate and care and feed for your own channel too because at the end of the day, it took to get sold. The Instagram goes down and we've all seen this and now that we see how fewer of these owners of these platforms are all participating in what could be if not an erosion of free speech, the chipping away, what do you want consumers to know about you. And so I think that that's important for brands to keep them on as well. They have to own their own real estate, tell their own story and really with bravery and consistency, be willing to keep that going. One last question on the future. What's next for Cheryl over to and Cheryl over to the communications. Oh gosh, hopefully continued growth continued work with brands that really want to tell interesting unique stories and that believe in inclusion. That's one thing. I'm very excited because I am launching hard launching. Let's call it this is a hard launch because we've already launched. But one of the things I've learned through not just working with brands, but working with the executives behind those brands is that there is a real need for sort of this take on personal branding. So I've created something that I called the spice method. Maybe I could come back and talk to you. SPIC is an acronym. And this is how you get to the heart of your personal brand story and then how do you present it to the world. I think that the future is we will be less tied. Obviously our professional CV is important. But the workplace is ever changing. Who you work for is less important than what you stand for. Because that is the thing that might carry you into your next job, whether you are a creator, a founder and entrepreneur or somebody who works inside your personal brand is more important now than ever. And with workplaces. The dynamics shifting every day. We see about reductions on staffs. We see about people moving. Now, you know, you see on LinkedIn X this company is now a thing. It used to be, you know, you didn't say if you were no longer working at a company. Now it's X Google X meta, you know, like it's a, it's a place of pride. But your personal brand and people being able to understand who you are and see based on your strategy how you might add value as a board member as an employee as an advisor is important. And so the spice method is something I've come up with to help people get to the heart of that. And I'm thrilled. I'll be hard launching that. I've been doing workshops and speaking to groups about that this year. But I'm hard launching it next quarter and I'm super excited. That sounds exciting. And you've given our audience a lot to think about. Many thanks for being our guest on the crux of the strike. Thanks Mike. I appreciate the chance to come here, get to the crux of the story. And you're going to listen to me. I can't wait to go back and listen to some past episodes as well. Well, thank you Cheryl. And many thanks to all of you who are listening. This podcast is brought to you from the Kennedy greenhouse studio at the University of South Carolina School of Journalism and Mass Communication. We look forward to being with you next time when we'll explore yet another crux of the school. Thanks for listening to the crux, a production of the school of journalism and mass communications and association with the Kennedy greenhouse studio at the University of South Carolina. You can find our episodes on SoundCloud, iTunes and Spotify or by visiting our website, thecroxpodcast.org. [Music]