It wouldn’t be wrong to summarize social media trend adoption as a brand creating its own communication about a currently popular topic. The goal is clear: to gain more visibility. I’ve written about this before.
Social media is a marketing platform and it requires speed, and it’s also a tool for rapid consumption. Therefore, trends on social media rise quickly and are forgotten easily, depending on the speed of consumption.
Users who want to benefit from this trend try to get involved as soon as possible to attract the attention of the algorithm and increase their visibility and engagement. Behind this behavior is the desire to be visible and engage around the trending topic; you might want to take a look at the article titled “Losing Visibility” for more information on this.
Following and deciding to adopt trends
Taking trends out of context causes sensitive issues to become a kind of exploitative tool. We need to talk more about whether or not issues related to tragedies concerning nature and life should become a marketing topic. Today, regardless of the communication type used, brands focus not only on what the product does, but also on the emotion it will evoke in the consumer, and plan accordingly.
Therefore, the product ceases to be merely a need in the eyes of consumers; it is positioned as a feeling, a meaning even an experience.
Trends adopted quickly for the sake of visibility often don’t align with what the brand does and where it positions itself. Therefore, hastily produced content looks artificial and awkward on the brand.
Before a brand adopts a current trend, it needs to comprehensively evaluate how the trend relates to itself, how it will connect with/strengthen its target audience using this trend, the effects of participating in the trend, and the value it will add to the trend.
These are important considerations for good brand communication, but they also limit the ability to act quickly.
What shouldn’t be overlooked is that a brand “posing” within a trend that doesn’t benefit it, simply to attract attention, may work in the short term, but in the long term, it leads to a loss of trust. Sometimes, silence is seen as a better form of solidarity and a more sincere and respectful approach.
Does a brand have to embrace every trend?
I’ll answer that question right away: no.
The first reason is related to the brand’s identity and stance. The second is a kind of lack of expertise. Content creation, especially on sensitive topics like trauma, health, and politics, requires more attention and expertise.
A brand’s quick reaction to a sensitive topic and its positioning itself within the narrative can be seen as trivializing, simplifying, or even aestheticizing the issue.
Among the main reasons why trends feel out of place on brands are sudden, one-off reactions, the use of cliché content, and perhaps most importantly, disconnecting from context.
The penguin separated from the flock and the deep meaning humans seek in life
In a scene from Werner Herzog’s 2007 documentary, Encounters at the End of the World, a penguin separates from its flock and walks alone in a different direction. After being widely shared on social media as the nihilistic penguin, the scene became a trend, and brands embraced it, sharing content one after another.
The penguin’s solitary departure from the flock and its solo walk were associated with individual exhaustion, inner detachment, and modern person’s search for meaning. After all, who among us hasn’t experienced exhaustion, who doesn’t have inner turmoil, who doesn’t want to start something new in a new place…?
After seeing the brands’ penguin-themed content, the first question that came to my mind was, Did the penguin leave the flock to come to your discount supermarket, hamburger joint, or pet shop?
This real-time marketing example, while on the one hand dealing with a sudden and one-off sensitivity, raises a question that brands often neglect to ask themselves: should they truly be present within this narrative? Should a brand genuinely embrace a widespread, general narrative or should it simply pass by it?
There’s a fundamental refrain I see in productions, many of which are AI-driven: We’re with you.
Does a brand that offers a penguin coffee or chocolate, or even dresses it in a coat, do they do this for a real person in real life? Are we reducing genuine feelings to such token roles?
I think brands need to honestly make a distinction here: is there genuine sensitivity to the issue, or is it merely a kind of effort to gain visibility?
The transformation of trauma into content technically blurs the line between empathy and strategy even further. People’s emotions are reduced to more easily measurable interaction metrics. Is this really where we want to go?
Could brands be misled?
Many social media communicators argue that every trend on social media should be seen as an opportunity not to be missed. However, they don’t mention the need to question the context or even discuss ethical boundaries before exhibiting this reflex. The desire to participate in every trend under all circumstances is a flawed approach that distances brands from authenticity.
As I also report from the consumer’s perspective, more and more people are now questioning the reasons behind the messages given on social media. Furthermore, is the primary task of brands to create a bouquet of emotions, aestheticize and trivialize shared feelings, or to simply continue doing what they do?
This is the most important thing that professionals providing communication consultancy to brands should pay attention to. Transforming emotions into a consumable form simply for the sake of visibility shouldn’t be seen as a kind of storytelling opportunity. This is directly related to the pressure to produce content, and also to taking the easy way out.
Is remaining silent risky?
In this era of extremely rapid content flow, brands perceive remaining silent on any issue as a kind of risk. But just as a person doesn’t have to talk about everything, the same applies to brands; Silence is often a more respectful and powerful stance.
Sensitivity as a form of stance.
Sensitivity should be considered a stance, not a strategy for brands. If a brand is not making a genuine contribution to a trend, it shouldn’t simply adopt an issue for the sake of visibility. If it’s an adoption without contribution, it’s nothing more than adopting the trauma itself.
The intention behind the content has become more important than the content itself. Therefore, any message that doesn’t seem authentic now damages the brand’s reputation in one way or another.
This happened with the example of the penguin that strayed from the flock. The penguin probably embarked on a path where it wouldn’t survive; brands wanted it to reach a destination, but they envisioned that destination as belonging to their own brands.
We cannot turn traumas into marketing material.
Feelings like pain, sadness, hurt, and even anger are not communication tools; they are realities requiring respect, understanding and distance. For a brand to treat this as a trend is not only a communication problem but also an ethical problem.
…
In short, what I’m trying to say isn’t the big, meaningful story hidden behind a penguin leaving its group and deciding to do something on its own, or the grand marketing ideas we look for behind that departure.
My real concern is that brands have made it a habit and a natural reflex to place themselves at the center of every trend that comes their way and attracts a little attention. I think there’s an important question brand managers and brand communicators should be asking themselves right now.
If a brand has nothing to say about a topic, why does it insist on talking about it?
Images in this post is created by Imagen 4.
Resources and further link…
- Why consumers hate brand trendjacking
- Trendjacking for positive brand image
- Set, follow or skip? How brands should navigate micro-trends
- Trendjacking with design: Tap into viral moments without going off-brand
- To trend, or not to trend?
- Trendjacking Strategies by Influences : Their Impact on Engagement and…
