Loyalty in the Age of Tinder. Part 3.
The basics: This is not a love story, although it could be. It’s not meant to provoke even the slightest sentimental spark in you, dear reader. It’s just an uncouth, cold-blooded diagnostic on what being loyal to a brand in the age of Tinder actually looks like. See full texts here (Part 1) and here (Part 2)
I’ll kick the last article of the Loyalty in the Age of Tinder series off with the chorus of a song that, to me, captures the essence of the current brand-consumer engagement dialog. If you know it, while reading, do me a favor and sing along. It’ll at least ease up the pain…
If I’m to fall
Would you be there to applaud
Or would you hide behind them all?
’Cause if I am to go
In my heart you’d grow
And that’s where you belong
In the first two articles we’ve tried to tackle the “swipe-mindet” that gave new meanings to the acquisition, conversation and path to purchase strategies from both brand and consumer perspective. That leaves us with the post-purchase and long-term engagement part. To cover that we’re bringing in the big boys.
Above, you have the stake of the whole game beautifully brought into words and sound by Oasis: One the one side you have the brands, mostly concerned about not falling, but, in the case that occurs, having some consumers crying their hearts out over the loss. On the other you have the consumers, terrified by the idea of investing “heart feelings” and being cheated on. The equation is as simple as that and even, to a certain extent, timeless.
The importance of being Sapiosexual.
Now, back to the “Age of Tinder”. It is said that the most relevant changes that the digital revolution brought to mankind was the way we understand to fall in love. Mainly because it seems we tend to get way more attracted by intelligence, triggered though digital conversations that happen in meeting apps for instance, than by the looks. The buzzword for that is Sapiosexual.
Sapiosexual = One who finds intelligence the most sexually attractive feature; behavior of becoming attracted to or aroused by intelligence and its use. (you can take a test and find out if you are one here)
So if we come to appreciate the brain more than the butts-pardon my french that means one won’t expect that consumers can be engaged just by the beauty or the image of a brand. Right? They need to find comfort in truthful-sounding, meaningful, understated, intelligent “words”! To my mind, that’s the reason most engagement strategies fail. One spends too much time in having a just great content but no clever story behind. So upgrade the rates of your copywriters, start telling a story, be consequent, emotional and wise but most importantly be brilliantly simple.
The fact of the matter.
I think the main conclusion that one can find is that, in the Age of Tinder, we’re all concerned of “running outta time”. We’re all so concerned of not missing out the next big thing that we loose focus on things that deep inside matter.
From a brand loyalty perspective, that means consumer expectations are high and their patience extremely low. That makes it pretty hard for any strategy to work. Brands must settle on getting more matches, start multiple conversation threads, convert more chats into dates and convince the consumer to stay over for breakfast. If that is achieved it doesn’t mean they won, it just means the he/she is more loyal to you then he/she is to others.
and I’m just getting started!
It’s a match. Let’s chat about it. Dan C.M.