Hair: Feature, Attribute or Minor Annoyance?
Justin Bieber had his hair cut. Not earth shattering news, not even news (he did this about a month ago). But interesting, nevertheless because it raises some serious questions about brand versus product. Yes, it really does!
Bieber is a brand. He is a slickly created, well oiled and operated, brand that achieved enormous success globally within a very short time. What made this happen. What is it about Justin (the Beeb, to his friends) that made him the one-man money machine he has become. As brand people, we necessarily have to deconstruct him into his features, attributes and benefits (higher order benefits, too):
The Bieber brand is built on a very fragile frame (literally and figuratively).
So who says, then, that it's okay for the brand to jettison one of the most universally known and loved attributes -- the hair. It would be like Nike scrapping the swoosh (or is that swoosh™?), or General Motors ditching Pontiac (just kidding). Seriously, though, the Bieb's hair was at the root of the other features that made him wholesome: it made him look young and vulnerable; it fit the wholesome, blond boyish persona; it was uniquely his (and the seductively quirky little shake that blew the blob out of his eyes). All these attributes are swept away by the barber's apprentice, together with the rejected locks and dust-bunnies.
I would like to meet the image consultant who thought it would be a good idea to be a Delilah to Bieber's Sampson?* Even though, from a brand management point of view it was handled brilliantly (he never actually "changed his look," but rather he did something wonderful for those less fortunate (had his hair cut in aid of a charity), allowing him (them) to test the waters before making it a true-blue repositioning (Coke could have used a trick like this around the time they came up with New Coke). But it is strategically akin to jumping off the top of the Empire State Building hoping to land on the awning.
So, what do we have now? A "new improved" Justin Bieber (if the hair was an ingredient), a rebranded Justin (if the flop of blond hair was a brand attribute), a de-featured Boy Band or nothing more than Justin Bieber with short hair?
It will be interesting to watch his fortune rise or fall. Miley Cyrus, another teenage pop idol, decided at the ripe old age of 15 that her sweet, clean and virginal image was not for her, and rebranded as a much more worldly femme fatal (this is the nice way of saying sexy-beast -- see picture below. Even Billie Ray cringes at the sight). It seems her popularity decreased (but this could have been because the tween market is huge and the market for post tween-pre-adult adulteresses is smaller); but sales of her non-musical line extensions (such as the quasi-legal drug salvia) skyrocketed.
Can we expect the same from Justin? Would you buy shares in Bieber Brand Inc.?
Laurence Bernstein
* Not so subtle reference to the biblical Samson and his paramour, the lovely Delilah who, in return for (as best as this blogger recalls) financial favours, cuts Samson's hair. This is important not from a sartorial point of view, but because Samson's hair was the source of his immense strength (strength-providing-hair=feature, strength=attribute, able-to-destroy-temples=benefit, save-the-world=higher order benefit, eternal-redemption=relevant-differentiated-experience). Readers are encouraged to click here for further elucidation of the Samson story.
Extra Credit:
Those with even more time on their hands might want to contemplate whether or not Daniel Radcliffe severely impacted his (or the Harry Potter) brand by baring all in a London play (click here)