“Watch your Cool!”
The determinants of Coolness for professional hairstyling products
A study at L’Oréal Professionnel Pays-Bas
D.C. de Wildt
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
November 2004
Preface
What is Cool exactly? Are my company’s brands perceived as Cool? And can we improve our brand’s Coolness and how? These are a number of questions that corporations that market or aspire to market Cool brands may ask themselves.
Watch your Cool! presents a marketing study on Coolness. This study provides insight in the determinants of Coolness for professional hairstyling products and proposes a number of recommendations to improve the Coolness of the brands to the initiator of this research: L’Oréal Professionnel Pays-Bas.
Over the past few years Coolness has evolved from an issue of young people, into a subject for businesses as businesses discovered its money-making
potential: apart from the fact that young people have more money to spend older people also aspire a more youthful lifestyle.
For L’Oréal Professionnel Coolness can be a way to expand its market share and maintain its position as a market leader in a highly competitive market where the market shares of the top 3 companies are very close to one another.
Not only is there a potential to recruit new customers and to expand the range of existing customers, we also see that professional hairstyling brands that are perceived as Cool, are experiencing growth that is larger than the total market.
This indicates that there is a growing demand for Cool hairstyling products in this market.
These Cool brands each have a market share of approximately 3%. This may seem trivial, but in this market every percent counts. Apart from that the yearly net turnover in the professional hairstyling market is about €30,900,000; which means that 1% growth of market share (in net turnover) still represents
€309,000.
Cool is an interesting phenomenon to examine as it is very well known but on the other hand complex to describe and determine in a scientific study as Cool is based on perception.
The fairly complex process of discovering the underlying determinants of this phenomenon was supported by discussions with and feedback from various people at the University of Groningen, the University of Leiden, my colleagues at L’Oréal Professionnel and my family and friends.
My special thanks go out to Thijs Broekhuizen and Martin Boon, Harald Woltering, Gabriel Langeveld, Piet and Annehilde de Wildt, William and Coby de Vreede, Mr. F.A.J. Birrer and all participants for their contribution to this study.
Finally, I hope that this study offers new information, ideas and inspiration for the marketing of Cool products and of course, pleasure in reading.
Daniëlle de Wildt
Amsterdam, November 1
st2004
Management summary
The objective of this study is to examine the determinants of Coolness for a professional hairstyling brand in support of L’Oréal Professionnel’s (further referred to as LP) marketing team.
Coolness is an important issue in the multi-million Euro cosmetics industry. As the LP styling ranges (tecni.art and a-head) are not perceived by its customers as Cool brands, the company is highly interested in the determinants of Coolness for professional hairstyling products.
The central research question is therefore:
“What are the determinants of Coolness for a professional hairstyling brand?” It is divided into three research questions:
1. What is the definition of Cool and what are the determinants and elements for Coolness in general?
2. Which professional hairstyling brands are Cool and what aspects make them Cool?
3. How can L’Oréal Professionnel improve their hairstyling brands’ Coolness?
The expression “Cool” is mostly used in teen language, which changes quite rapidly over time. As a result ‘ Cool’ may not always be a Cool word; ‘Fad’, ‘Hype’
and ‘Trend(y)’ are not exact synonyms for Cool. Cool can be defined as a psychological stance or attitude and can reveal itself as an attribute of objects, which is realised via people’s attitude towards them.
The research discusses three methods to determine Coolness
Coolhunting or the instinctive model; the theoretical method and the empirical method
The first two methods have many flaws. The empirical method, based on several theories and concepts, is the basis for the cognitive model, based on elements that the literature indicates as possible determinants of Coolness. This conceptual model is tested for its applicability to the market of professional styling products.
In chapter 4 the conceptual model is adapted to the market for professional styling brands; this includes an analysis of the market. The various professional hairstyling brands are discussed; Sebastian (Xtah), Tigi and Fudge are
considered to be the three coolest brands.
This fact is supported by the customer analysis and forms the basis for individual interviews with hairdressers. The participants in this research were asked to sort statements on their relevance to Cool professional styling products. This sorting task resulted in 4 factors that represent the various categories of subjectivity that exist within this research population.
From the scores of these factors implications can be drawn for the conceptual model which resulted in a number of changes; for instance, for authenticity element the size of a company is not relevant. Also aspects (effortlessness) were deleted and others (exclusive image and exclusive distribution) were added to the conceptual model. Finally, the elements were placed in hierarchical order, i.e.
primary and secondary determinants.
This research shows that Coolness is a phenomenon that is hard to grasp, mainly due to its mutability, also Cool always moves on. These aforementioned
characteristics make that turning abstract determinants like authenticity and aesthetic elements into practical recommendations still requires the knowledge or feeling for Coolness. Determinants like exclusive distribution are not influenced
Deleted: ;
greatly by the mutability of Cool. The primary determinants of Coolness for professional styling products are: Authenticity, confidence, relating to consumers, exclusive distribution, and aesthetic elements.
The fact that LP distributes to the professional channel as well as the consumer channel makes it difficult to make LP’s styling brands Cool. Ideally the brand should be as independent as Sebastian that is now acquired by Wella. For LP this would be very expensive and unrealistic. Another solution would be to emphasise on the sub-brand (a-head) instead of the LP brand.
The selective or exclusive distribution of the brand is very important;
hairdressers feel that hairstyling products that are available in all kinds of salons cannot be Cool brands. It is recommendable for LP to be selective in distributing the new a-head after the relaunch and should not be distributed to wholesalers.
The quality of brands is also an important element to authenticity. LP is mainly perceived as a colouration brand. It is recommendable to put more focus on the styling brands, through LP’s ambassadors for instance.
Obtain a distinctive image is very important in relation to aesthetic elements, confidence and authenticity. This element points out that brands should never copy an existing Cool brand. One way to obtain a distinctive look for the
packaging and marketing means is hiring an artist to make an original design or writing out a design contest.
Because hairdressers associate Cool hairstyling brands with fashion trends and being a trendsetter, the marketing team of a-head should consider making a season’s collection that features the hairstyling products.
Relating to consumers’ indicates that a Cool professional styling brand should have products with many styling possibilities. The a-head range should therefore be reviewed closely on technical and creative aspects; the range should also comply with the trends by adding new products to the range and removing unpopular ones.
There are also secondary determinants of Coolness; relating to opinion leaders, exclusive image and wit.
Relating to opinion leaders; opinion leaders well-known hairdressers whose opinion is relevant to the majority of the hairdressers. LP needs new people amongst the current ambassadors: passionate about the styling brands and breathe the a-head image.
An above average price is not very necessary for a brand to be perceived as Cool; the advice to the marketing team is to keep the price on the same level, or just slightly higher than it is now.
Wit can contribute to the Coolness of a brand, it is an element of the total image;
it should be in line with the rest of the design and character of the brand.
For LP it is especially important to look at the distribution issues; the sentiment
among hairdressers that a company distributes to both professional channel and
the consumer channel cannot market a Cool professional styling brand, is
important. To be able to asses the success of marketing an ‘independent’ brand
within the range of products, it is recommendable to do further research on this
topic amongst the target audience.
Table of contents
Chapter 1 Problem description and research questions _______________ 5 1.1 Introduction _______________________________________________ 5 1.2 Problem description L’Oréal Professionnel ________________________ 6 1.3 Problem definition ___________________________________________ 6 1.4 Specification of research questions______________________________ 6 1.5 Chapter overview ___________________________________________ 7 Chapter 2 Literature review: definition of Cool and the determinants and elements of Coolness in general _________________________________ 8 2.1 Introduction _________________________________________________ 8 2.1.1 Historical background of Cool ____________________________ 8 2.1.2 The word Cool and definition of Cool _______________________ 9 2.1.3 Impact of Cool on business _____________________________ 14 2.2 Methods to define Coolness __________________________________ 15
2.2.1 Coolhunting _________________________________________ 15 2.2.2 The theoretical method ________________________________ 20 2.2.3 The empirical method _________________________________ 23 2.4 Conceptual model __________________________________________ 30
2.4.1 Description of the conceptual model ______________________ 30 2.4.2 Conceptual model ____________________________________ 31 2.5 Conclusion________________________________________________ 32 Chapter 3 Methodology__________________________________________ 33 3.1 Introduction ______________________________________________ 33 3.1.1 Problem definition ____________________________________ 33 3.1.2 Brief description of the research questions _________________ 33 3.2 Research design ___________________________________________ 34
3.2.1 Research method_____________________________________ 34
3.3 Research population ________________________________________ 35
3.4 Data collection ____________________________________________ 35
3.4.1 Semi-structured interviews _____________________________ 35
3.4.2 Individual interviews with sorting task ____________________ 36
Chapter 4 What professional styling brands are Cool and what _______ 39
aspects make them Cool? ________________________________________ 39
4.1 Introduction ______________________________________________ 39
4.2 Description of the professional styling market ____________________ 39
4.3 Description of relevant brands ________________________________ 40
4.4 Customer analysis – the hair salons ____________________________ 45
4.4.1 Hairdressers’ perceptions of Cool professional styling brands___ 45
4.4.2 Results of the individual interviews with the sorting task ______ 47
4.5 Conceptual model for professional styling brand __________________ 52
4.6 Conclusion________________________________________________ 52
Chapter 5 Conclusions and recommendations ______________________ 54
5.1 Introduction ______________________________________________ 54
5.2 What is the definition of Cool and what are the determinants and
elements for Coolness in general? __________________________________ 54 5.3 Which professional hairstyling brands are Cool and what aspects make them Cool? ____________________________________________________ 55 5.4 How can L’Oréal Professionnel improve their hairstyling brands’
Coolness? ________________________________________________ 56 5.5 To conclude _______________________________________________ 58 Chapter 6 Reflection ____________________________________________ 60 6.1 In retrospect; was this research method the most appropriate method? 60 6.2 How would another research method have influenced the results? ____ 60 Bibliography ___________________________________________________ 62 Appendix __________________________________________________ 63 Chapter 1 Problem description and research questions
1.1 Introduction
“Cool” is something most of us have wanted to be since the first day of school. It was all about having the right toys, having the right clothes and the right friends.
But Cool is not just something for kids. Being Cool is more and more important to older and senior consumers; European consumers increasingly purchase products that reflect their aspiration to lead a “Cool” lifestyle (Bone, 2003). A research in 2003 by Datamonitor revealed that 66% of the British consumers “feel it is important to feel Cool in the way they live their lifestyle and are seeking lifestyle- supporting products”. This is especially true when it comes to alcoholic beverage purchases and personal care. Personal care is the core business of the initiator of this research: L’Oréal Professionnel (further referred to as LP). The marketing team of LP is interested in the determinants, which make professional styling brands Cool, and has therefore initiated this research.
Apart from the importance of Coolness in general, the phenomenon is especially relevant for LP due to certain characteristics of the market for professional styling products:
The company manufactures products for professional use only. These products are exclusively distributed to salons and wholesalers in professional hair-care products, so the direct customers of LP are mostly hairdressers.
The business of hairdressing is characterised by people who are creative and interested in fashion and style. When choosing a certain styling product most of them (especially the ones who have trendy, hip salons) are interested in product characteristics such as its image and its feel rather than its price. This is probably related to the fact that styling products are highly visible in most salons; the products are often displayed behind the counter and / or in a specially designed presentation unit (which is sometimes supplied by the supplier of these
products). In addition to the products themselves, hairdressers may display communication means concerning this particular brand in the salon, like posters, banners, stickers and (trend) books. The choice of hairstyling brand can be a very important aspect of the total look or image of a salon.
A second characteristic of the business of hairdressing is that the large
competition among salons is fierce. There are not many restrictions for starting
one’s own business; and the investment that has to be made is relatively small.
At this moment the ability of a salon to distinguish itself from the competition is one of the main ways to define its profitability (Rabobank, 2004). The choice of styling brand is one of the possibilities of a salon to distinguish itself.
A third and certainly relevant characteristic is that the large corporations in the professional styling market sell products that are more or less comparable. Every significant player has an extensive line of quality styling products. Mainly
because new product launches are copied fast by the competition, the product ranges do not vary much. It is not possible to influence the market with intricate technical specifications, such as for hair-colour products
1, as the application of these products is the same for each brand.
This means that professional styling brands need to differentiate in another way by, for instance, creating a certain image for a styling brand, through attractive packaging, fragrance, etc. Some brands have differentiated themselves from the others by being the “Cool” brand
2.
1.2 Problem description L’Oréal Professionnel
LP’s styling line is tecni.art, this line includes a trend range: a-head. For reasons (still) unknown to the company these styling products are not perceived by the hairdressers as the Coolest brand in the market.
The objective of this research is to reveal the determinants of Coolness for professional styling brands in the Dutch market.
LP is constantly improving its brands at all levels. This results in frequent brand relaunches. It is expected that the findings and the conclusions from this research will be valuable information for the marketers at LP.
1.3 Problem definition
The research objective and central research question are discussed in the following order:
- Description of the research objective - Description of the central research question - Description of the three research questions Research objective:
“To examine the determinants of Coolness for a professional hairstyling brand in support of L’Oréal Professionnel’s marketing team.”
Central research question:
“What are the determinants of Coolness for a professional hairstyling brand?”
1.4 Specification of research questions
The central research question is divided into three research questions:
Research question 1:
What is the definition of Cool and what are the determinants and elements for Coolness in general?
Research question 2:
Which professional hairstyling brands are Cool and what aspects make them Cool?
1 For the professional hair-colour products every company has different directions for use (different colour code systems) which makes it difficult for the hairdresser to use more hair-colour brands at a time and to switch regularly between these brands.
2 An example of such a brand is Bed Head by Tigi
Research question 3:
How can L’Oréal Professionnel improve their hairstyling brands’ Coolness?
1.5 Chapter overview
In this paragraph the contents of the chapters is described:
Chapter 2 reviews the literature and provides an answer to the first research question.
The first part of this chapter the phenomenon Cool(ness) is explained; for instance the background of the phenomenon Cool and its definition.
In the second part of the chapter the various theories about Coolness are reviewed. Interesting parties such as cultural anthropologists, business
strategists and marketers, have taken a great interest in Cool, because it can be very profitable to be able to determine what is Cool. According to some authors Coolness can establish itself in marketing as a key brand indicator (Charles, 2002).
The literature on “Coolness” is characterised by a number of different opinions and comments on each other’s methods to define Cool. The differences and the similarities between them are discussed to be able to characterise determinants of Coolness (in general) and to design a conceptual model based on the
professional styling brands market.
Chapter 3 discusses the methodology of the research. This includes the method of data collection.
In chapter 4 the second research question is addressed: “Which professional styling brands are Cool and which aspects make them Cool?”.
To answer this question information an analysis will be made of the LP, the market in which it operates, the corporation’s relevant competitors and the consumers. At the end of this chapter the conceptual model will be adjusted to make it applicable to professional styling products.
In this final chapter 5 the determinants from the conceptual model will be translated into specific recommendations for marketers at LP to improve the
‘Coolness’ of their styling products.
Chapter 2 Literature review: definition of Cool and the determinants
and elements of Coolness in general 2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature that is used to develop a conceptual model of the determinants of Coolness for brands.
In the first part of this chapter the concepts Cool and Coolness are defined; the background of this phenomenon, the meaning of the term and the implications of Cool for every day life and in particular for business.
In the second part the various theories about Coolness are discussed. The literature on “Coolness” is characterised by a lot of different opinions and comments on each other’s methods to define Cool. This chapter discusses the differences and the similarities between them in order to find determinants of Coolness in general and to develop a conceptual model.
The next step is to adapt the conceptual model to professional styling products.
This is the subject of the second sub-question.
2.1.1 Historical background of Cool
On first sight Cool would appear as something that emerged in the USA. And, indeed, Cool as it is known today has been greatly influenced by the American culture, through its music, brands and fashion (Levi’s blue jeans for example) (e.g. Stearns, 1994; Southgate, 2003).
But Cool can be traced further back in history. Ideas and attitudes that have similarities with Cool, have appeared through out history in different countries.
There is evidence that the `personality traits´ related to Cool (which will be further discussed in paragraph 2.1.2.2) were highly valued in some societies, like
‘the cultivation of effortlessness’ called ‘sprezzatura’ in Renaissance Italy (Pountain and Robbins, 2000). Southgate (2003) even claims that Cool has strong parallels with the virtues described in the ‘Nichomachean Ethics’ by Aristotle.
African roots
Contemporary Cool appears to have its roots in the African culture. Historian Robert Farris Thompson (1979, 1984) suggests that ‘Itutu’, which was the central concept of ancient animist religions in West Africa, can be translated as Cool. ‘Itutu’ contained meanings of conciliation and gentleness of character, the ability to diffuse fights, and of generosity and grace. It was also partly identified with physical beauty. Ritually `Itutu´ also associated with blue, but it is very speculative to say that ‘the Blues’ can be traced to that ritual colour. Pountain and Robbins (2000) state that ‘Itutu’ and similar attitudes, have probably been exported to Europe and America through the slave trade, and evolved into the modern day Cool, over the past decades where it has had an influence on countercultures.
Southgate (2003) provides a foundation for the African background as he claims that Cool is a particular Afro-American phenomenon. He quotes Marlene Kim Connor (‘What is Cool? Understanding Black Manhood in America’). Conner states that Cool “is the silent and knowing rejection of racist oppression, a self-dignified expression of masculinity developed by black men”. This African Cool, changed and adopted by American slaves, influenced, or even helped emerge, Blues and Jazz.
The word Cool itself originates from the Jazz. The saxophonist Lester Young is
believed to be the person who introduced the term in the Jazz scene. Around the Second World War the term Cool fought its way into a place in the modern day vocabulary.
Evolution of Cool through the ‘50s
According to Southgate (2003) Cool changed in the ’50s when America became more prosperous. Then it also became an attitude for white ‘lifestyle outsiders’, as is evidenced in role models as James Dean, Elvis and Marlon Brando. Elvis for instance was the first singer, who proved that looks, image and attitude were more important than musical talents in becoming a world-wide star. Apart from that he was the first Caucasian male who could sing like an Afro-American.
Since the ‘50s, Cool has metamorphosed from an attitude of minorities into a mainstream phenomenon. In the ’60s the Hippie counter-culture was Cool, and Cool was strongly associated with anti-establishment and rebellion. In the years between the ‘70s and ‘90s it looked as if Cool had disappeared, but it still existed although implicitly. The punks, for instance, rejected the terms ‘Cool’ and ‘hip’, as a reaction against the Hippie-movement. But their attitude towards life can be defined as Cool, and their rejection of the term Cool is an example of the
mutability of the external traits of the attitude over time.
Cool over the last decades
Over the last decades Cool has lost its rebellious, counter-culture edge. Cool CEOs, like Richard Branson and Bill Gates, claim that they are anti-
establishment. These people were anti-establishment when they founded their corporations, but over time these corporations have become highly accepted by society and sometimes even have a large impact on the world economy.
In the year 2004 Cool is the favoured language in advertising, media,
entertainment and fashion. It has become a prevailing generation ideology for 18-35 year olds and older. This fact is underlined by authors like Howard Beadle
3and results from various studies, like “Coolness in consumer packaged goods” by Datamonitor in 2003. This study found that “66% of the British consumers consider it to be important to feel Cool in the way they live their lifestyle and are seeking lifestyle-supporting products”.
Another finding of the study was that “it is a misconception that Coolness is about making products appealing to youths, being Cool is also increasingly important to older and senior consumers”. Although Cool is not limited to young people; it has a strong relation with this age group. Cool brands for instance feature young people in their advertisements or endorse events that appeal to a young audience.
2.1.2 The word Cool and definition of Cool
In the following paragraphs the definition and the description of Cool are discussed.
2.1.2.1 The word
The word Cool is part of the vocabulary in different languages. But what is its meaning? Dictionaries provide the following definitions:
The Oxford English Dictionary:
“To loose the heat of excitement or passion, to become less zealous or ardent.
Not affected by passion or emotion, deliberate, calm”.
3In: Barnes, R. et al (2003), CoolBrandLeaders, an insight into Britain’s Coolest brands 2003
The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang, Green (1998):
“Cool: Late nineteenth century+: good or fine or pleasing: twentieth century:
calm, self-possessed, aware and sophisticated; 1940+: fashionable, chic or with it”.
In most cases the exclamation ‘Cool!’ should be seen in terms of the definition of the Dictionary of Slang (1998) ‘fashionable, chic or with it’. The expression “Cool”
is mostly used in teen language and by people who like to associate themselves with the teen culture. This language changes (quite rapidly) over time, adopting and rejecting words. As a result ‘Cool’ may not always be a Cool word, because the Cool kids are using a synonym for it.
Cool appears to have a number of synonyms. In relation to this the words ‘Hip’,
‘Fad’ and ‘Trends’ / `Trendy` will be discussed.
Pountain and Robbins (2000) argue that Cool is broader and historically longer- lived than the term Hip. They support this argument with a fragment of the essay
‘The White Negro’ (Mailer, 1957), which is probably the most insightful study of hip. In this essay Cool was identified as an attribute of the Hipster. So someone who is Hip is Cool, but Cool is not necessarily Hip.
Another distinction is that Hip is strongly associated with Fads, Hypes and Trends. Maenhoudt (2002) has made a distinction between Fads, Hypes and Trends. Fads and Hypes usually arise among teenagers and are limited to this group; they get a lot of media attention and have a short life span. Trends, on the other hand, are developments over a longer period of time, and are expected to influence large groups of people (contrary to Fads and Hypes). Maenhoudt (2002) states that so-called Coolhunters can detect trends. These Coolhunters detect what is Cool among consumers, and focus on new developments. As a result, the word Trendy or Trend does not cover Cool in all its richness. Apart from being reserved for new trends, existing products and actual people can also be Cool; it can be an element of someone’s or something’s identity. A research among British consumers by Rogers (2003) revealed that 70% of the
respondents feels that certain brands can be considered Cool, regardless of how Cool they are, or how long these brands exist.
Cool has a similarity with Trends when it comes to the amount of people they influence. Cool products do not necessarily need to be niche products
(Ebenkamp, 1999). In the research by Rogers (2003), 61% of the respondents indicated that Cool brands are often mainstream brands.
2.1.2.2 Definition of Cool
Both definitions in the previous paragraph illustrate elements of the word Cool, but do not provide an all-embracing description of the phenomenon. For the present research a better, more comprehensive definition of Cool is needed; a definition that provides marketers with insights to differentiate their brands.
Such a description is found in the definition of Pountain and Robbins (2000), which encompasses the various elements of the phenomenon. According to them Cool is a psychological stance or attitude which people can recognise when they see it, from its effects on human behaviour and (cultural) artefacts (like music, movies and so forth).
Although artefacts cannot, as such, demonstrate a certain attitude, artefacts can
be perceived as Cool. This opinion is also found in other articles (Southgate,
2003; Datamonitor News, 2003). In other words, the term `Cool´ as defined in
this thesis refers to a phenomenon, an attitude.
One of the characteristics of Cool is that it is mutable. The reason for this mutability is that Cool is dependent on people’s perception. What people think varies geographically, within groups and in time, so it is also subjective. That what is Cool for someone does not necessarily have to be Cool to the next person.
In chapter 4 an insight in the market, which has been studied, and a description will be given of what is Cool for a particular target audience within that distinct market.
Another element of Cool is that, even though Cool is mutable and changes along with hairstyles, fashion and words, the underlying concerns of Cool are always the same; to maintain respect and pursue one’s pleasure by observing the right codes of appearance and behaviour (Pountain and Robbins, 2000). This relates to the fact that, although the “Cool” attitude (of people and objects) may not always be called Cool in the current vocabulary, it still exists. In the historical background of Cool, (paragraph 2.3), this is illustrated in the passage on the Punk counter-culture. These people rejected the word Cool, which was associated with their predecessors (the Hippies), but in fact their lifestyles have the major characteristics of Cool.
Based on the definition of Pountain and Robbins and for the purpose of this study, Cool is divided in two types:
1. An attitude of people.
‘Attitude’ is defined here as posture of the body appropriate to, or expressive of, an emotion, an action etc. This can be perceived for example, through the looks and the behaviour of someone.
2. An attribute of objects
An attribute of objects that is realised via people’s attitude towards them.
This perception can be influenced by certain characteristics of the object.
In this sense ‘attitude’ is a manner, disposition, feeling, position etc.
towards an object.
In the following section both types will be discussed to show their relation with regard to Coolness.
Attitude of people
Cool can be an attitude of people. The meaning of this attitude is different for different groups of people. For instance, for most people Cool is about belonging to a group or being accepted and at the same time expressing someone’s personal identity.
On the other hand, for ‘style leaders’ it is predominantly about being different, setting themselves apart from the mainstream. This illustrates an important characteristic of Coolness, its subjectivity.
Both variations of the Cool attitude may lead to original fashion styles etcetera;
in the first situation as a result of a group’s creativity and in the latter from the creativity and originality of the individual.
Clothes and haircuts have always been important signifiers of Cool for people, looks are one of the most powerful ways to show that you are part of a particular group and to distinct yourself from other people. But Cool is definitely not limited to fashion (see paragraph 2.1.3).
Apart from not being limited to fashion, Cool is not limited to teenagers.
According to some authors people up to their sixties aspire to Cool lifestyles (Datamonitor Report, 2003; Klein, 2000).
Personality traits
Pountain and Robbins (2000) have determined the personality traits of Cool.
They claim that the Cool attitude is always recognisable as a combination of three core personality traits; narcissism, ironic detachment and hedonism. This means that Cool contains:
- elements from an exaggerated admiration for oneself, which gives rise to the feeling that the world evolves around you;
- a strategy for concealing one’s feelings by suggesting the opposite;
- a focus on adventurous, worldly, orgiastic pleasures (Pountain and Robbins, 2000).
Although one might not initially link these traits to Cool, these authors have succeeded in finding elements that describe the essence of Cool. Look at Cool counter cultures for instance (hippies, hiphop etc.); these people’s looks are very distinct and they appear to be in their own world, doing what they want to do (smoke marihuana, “chillin with the homies”). These counter cultures also support the claim of Pountain and Robbins (2000) that Cool often contains an element of rebellion.
Attribute of objects
Cool can reveal itself as an attribute of objects too, which is realised via people’s attitude towards them (Pountain and Robbins, 2000; Southgate, 2003). The personality traits described above also apply to objects; although in the clinical sense brands and products cannot have personality traits, people can ascribe these traits to an object.
In terms of this research the focus will be on objects at the brand level, as the research objective is to examine the determinants of Coolness of a professional styling brand.
A brand can be defined as a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a
combination of them which is intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors (Kotler, 1980). Brands may have a meaning to consumers in a material and an immaterial sense (Riezebos, 1996).
A strong brand should have a rich, clear brand identity. It requires a set of associations the brand strategist seeks to create or maintain (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).
The brand identity (including personality, symbols and brand essence, the value proposition, and the brand position) is a vision of how a brand should be
perceived by its target audience (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). The core identity is usually has two to four dimensions that compactly summarize the brand vision. To provide more focus the brand essence is formulated; a single thought that captures the soul of the brand. Along with brand image it is the most important aspect of a brand (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).
These authors divide Brand identity into three levels: Brand Essence, Core Identity and Extended Identity. The first level is the Brand Essence, the second layer is the Core Identity and finally the outer layer is the Extended Identity. The Extended Identity can be divided into four which are presented in table 1.
Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) see Cool as part of the brand’s personality, in
other words: The brand as Person. For example, they describe Virgin Atlantic Airways as a person who “flaunts the rules; has a sense of (outrageous) humour;
is an underdog, willing to attack the establishment; is competent, always does a good job”.
The categories mentioned in the table do not show that certain elements may be interrelated, but several authors argue that in fact there are relationships between these elements. Birch
4(2003) states that a Cool brand (Brand Personality) has a good quality (Brand Quality); Campbell
5(2003) presents another relationship: a Cool brand understands what is important to the target audience (Customer / Brand relationship).
Table 1: Aspect of the ‘extended brand identity’
Brand as Product 1. Product scope
2. Product attributes 3. Quality / Value 4. Uses
5. Users
6. Country of origin Brand as Organisation 1. Organisation attributes
2. Local vs. global Brand as Person 1. Brand’s personality
2. Customer / Brand relationship Brand as Symbol 1. Visual image and metaphors
2. Brand heritage Source: Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000)
A strategic brand analysis helps the manager to understand the customer, the competitors and the brand itself. The scope of this research is limited to specific elements of the brand identity: an analysis of the customers, the competitors and the organisation in relation to Coolness.
Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) support qualitative research for customer analysis as it intends to determine why customers behave in a certain way.
The competitor analysis examines current and potential competitors to ensure that the strategy will differentiate the brand and that communication programs will set themselves apart in an effective way. The self-analysis identifies whether the brand has the resources, the capability and the will to deliver. Ultimately, a successful brand strategy needs to capture the soul of the brand, and this soul is the organisation. The methods will be discussed in depth in the chapter three.
Summarising some conclusions of Cool, these conclusions are subdivided in general topics and marketing related topics:
General topics:
• Contemporary Cool appears to have its roots in the African culture
• The word Cool itself originates in Jazz
• Cool is part of the vocabulary in different languages;
• The expression “Cool” is mostly used in teen language which changes quite rapidly over time, adopting and rejecting words. As a result ‘ Cool’ may not always be a Cool word;
• Nevertheless, Cool is no longer for teens, people up to their sixty’s aspire to Cool lifestyles (Datamonitor Report, 2003; Klein, 2000)
4In: Barnes, R. et al (2003), CoolBrandLeaders, an insight into Britain’s Coolest brands 2003
5In: Barnes, R. et al (2003), CoolBrandLeaders, an insight into Britain’s Coolest brands 2003
• ‘Fad’, ‘Hype’ and ‘Trend(y)’ are not exact synonyms for Cool. Fads and hypes are limited in lifetime and to small customer groups. Apart from being reserved for new trends, existing products and real people can also be Cool;
it can be an element of someone’s or something’s identity.
• Pountain and Robbins (2000) argue that Cool is broader and historically longer-lived than the term hip;
• For most people Cool is about belonging to a group or being accepted and at the same time expressing someone’s personal identity;
• For ‘style leaders’ Cool is mostly about being different, setting oneself apart from the masses;
• Cool is subjective;
• Cool is mutable, what people see as Cool varies in time, in regions and between groups of people, but the underlying determinants of Cool are always the same, to maintain respect and pursue one’s pleasure by observing the right codes of appearance and behaviour (Pountain and Robbins, 2000);
• The Cool attitude is always recognisable as a combination of three core personality traits; narcissism, ironic detachment and hedonism (Pountain and Robbins, 2000)
• Cool often contains an element of rebellion (Pountain and Robbins, 2000);
• People as well as objects can be Cool;
• For people Cool is an attitude
• Cool can reveal itself as an attribute of objects, which is realised via people’s attitude towards them (Pountain and Robbins, 2000; Southgate, 2003);
Marketing-related topics:
• Cool can be seen as part of the brand’s personality (The brand as Person) (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000)
2.1.3 Impact of Cool on business
This section discusses the impact that the phenomenon Cool has on businesses.
Cool has become increasingly relevant over the past years. We have already discussed the transition of Cool from counter culture attitude to the favoured language in advertising, media, entertainment and fashion. Cool is not reserved for children and teens in schoolyards; it also concerns the higher management of various businesses.
Martin Hayward, chairman of strategic marketing consultancy of the Henley Centre says that pushes towards Cool are undoubtedly related to demographic changes in society. “It used to be very easy to predict what somebody’s lifestyle would be like, looking at their demography. But what happened over the past few decades is that people are not acting their own age, not acting their gender and not acting their class. Marketers recognise that they have to target across much more difficult attitudinal lines instead of age”. Cool can be seen as an
increasingly important attitude of people towards life. This statement is
supported by the Datamonitor Report (2003) that revealed that two out of three consumers in the UK “feel it is important to feel Cool in the way they live their lifestyle and are seeking lifestyle-supporting products”.
‘Cool is the anvil on which many brands are made or broken’ (Southgate, 2003).
Grossman (2003) states that for corporations, Cool is an invisible, intangible substance that can make a particular brand of an otherwise interchangeable product fantastically valuable.
The following example illustrates the relevance of Coolness in business: in March
1999 the Levi Strauss Company, at the time one of the largest clothing company
in the world, announced that it would have to close down half of its plants in the USA and lay off 6000 workers. The reason was that the sales of Levi’s blue jeans had diminished drastically, because they were no longer perceived as Cool by the target audience (Pountain and Robbins, 2000).
Cool also has the ‘power’ to influence property prices. For instance, loft-living started as a sign of resistance against urban redevelopment plans, but is now
‘hot’ and rather expensive (Pountain and Robbins, 2000).
Although this issue does not emerge from the literature on Cool corporations, one may argue that many corporations will not directly benefit from a Cool image. The Datamonitor Report (2003) shows that the Cool factor mainly has an importance to consumers when purchasing personal care articles and alcoholic beverages
6.
This fact and the characteristics of the market for professional styling products, indicate that being perceived as a Cool brand should be advantageous to LP.
An important reason why a Cool qualification is critical to brands is that over half the potential customers are willing to pay more for a brand because of its being considered to be Cool. This was the outcome of a recent research by NFO WorldGroup (2003). On top of that, a Cool qualification may also be an effective way to differentiate a brand from its competitors.
In 2002 the Superbrands Organisation created a Cool judging panel that determines each year, which are the UK’s Coolest brands. They identify these brands and provide their case studies in the book Cool Brandleaders. “Cool BrandLeaders are brands that have become extremely desirable among many style leaders and influencers. They have a magic around them, signifying that users have an exceptional sense of taste and style” explains Marcel Knobil
7(2003), chairperson of the Cool BrandLeaders Judging panel. According to Knobil (2003), these Cool BrandLeaders are inspirational thinkers, show audacious creativity, produce authentic products, radical designs, and original
advertisements, stunning media communication and consistently fly in the face of convention. The Cool BrandLeaders publication features 60 brands, and each brand had its own way of becoming Cool (being perceived as Cool). This book illustrates the problem about Coolness; it is rather easy to determine when a brand has reached the Cool status, but the road to achieve this status, is hard to find.
2.2 Methods to define Coolness
In the following paragraphs three methods are presented, each one of these methods is used defining Coolness:
1. Coolhunting (instinctive method) 2. The theoretical method
3. The empirical method 2.2.1 Coolhunting The method
In the ‘90s many brands were experiencing a crisis, but the demand for teenage- products was still reasonable. Consequently, corporations came to realise that the teenage-market i.e. the market for Cool products could be very profitable.
6 The focus of this research is on professional styling products, these products are being used in salons and sold to the salons´ customers. Therefore LP also refers to these products as ‘retail’
products.
7In: Barnes, R. et al (2003), CoolBrandLeaders, an insight into Britain’s Coolest brands 2003
Around this time a number of people detected that there was a demand from corporations for people who could tell them what would be the trends in future and what is Cool. Irma Zandl is said to be the first so-called trend watcher, a person who figures out what is Cool and sells the information. Since then the business has grown and every country has a number of rather well-known trend watchers or Coolhunters.
The Coolhunting method has become very popular due to the fact that these people managed to predict important trends and successfully determine what is Cool. For instance, Coolhunters predicted the return of the Converse One Star, which was a classic old school sneaker in the ‘70s.
Large companies were and still are working with Coolhunting agencies, for example: Nokia, The Gap, The North Face, Reebok, Adidas, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nike, Virgin Mobile USA, Dreamworks and Unilever.
In the USA DeeDee Gordon is quite well-known for her work as a Coolhunter (co- founder of Look-Look and initiator of the L-report). There are a number of articles that discuss her and her methods. In the Netherlands we have for instance, Carl Rohde and Lidewij Edelkoort.
Although it appears to be a uniform business and that Coolhunters all provide the same services to corporations, the trend watching / Coolhunting business is rather heterogeneous.
In the Netherlands for example most people prefer to be referred to as cultural – sociological researcher, or anything else but Coolhunter.
The essence of this trend watching or Coolhunting is that ‘reporters’ (usually people aged 14 to 30) set out on the streets to detect which products, places, people etc. are Cool at a certain moment. They record their findings by making videotapes or pictures and report back to the agency, where the various bits of information are gathered and presented in a report for their client corporations.
Some Coolhunters work alone. They detect trends themselves and talk to as many Cool people as possible to test new products.
Both types of Coolhunters rely on the fact that the Coolhunters (the ones in the office analysing the data as well as the ‘spies’ on the streets) just know when something is Cool when they see it and therefore need to be Cool. As Gladwell (1997) states “It doesn’t work to hire a Coolhunter who is not Cool, because it takes one Cool person to know one”.
Conversely, there are researchers who are not Cool themselves, but carry out their ‘Coolhunt’ from a sociological point of view. Carl Rohde is one of these researchers. He claims that he does not need to be Cool himself, because his predictions on future trends are more fundamental than those of his colleagues.
As a cultural – sociological researcher he focuses on understanding generations and deriving mentality trends from them. Although, he may have a scientific background, his information gathering method appears to be similar to that of other Coolhunters. He also uses street reporters to find ‘Cool places, Cool people, Cool products and Cool mentalities’ (see Rohde, 2004).
To the clientele of the Coolhunters: the corporations, the Coolhunters’
information forms important input to the design department to develop new, Cool products and for the marketers who want to market their products as the “Next Cool thing”.
Trickle-down theory
How varied the Coolhunters’ / Trend watchers’ methods may be or appear to be,
there is one universal theory in the business: the ‘Trickle-down theory’. This is
mentioned implicitly or explicitly by most researchers in the field of Coolhunting (e.g. Rohde, 2004; Gladwell, 1997; Rasmussen, 1998).
Gladwell (1997) points out that this theory is based on sociological studies in
‘Diffusion Research’. It divides the population into Innovators, Early Adopters, Late Adopters, the Early masses, the Late masses, and finally the Laggards.
The trickle-down theory assumes that Cool people (according to Gordon and Lee 2001, this is about 20% of the US population (3% innovators, 17% trend setters) start doing something – eating typical food, buying a certain brand of sneakers etc.– and this behaviour will automatically become an indication for the
behaviour of other groups that are larger (and per definition Un-Cool). In turn, the Cool people will move on, to find something new, because as soon as the un- Cool mass adopts something it is no longer Cool.
Rules of Coolhunting
The article by Malcolm Gladwell (1997) on the Coolhunt has had a serious influence on the ‘myth around the Coolhunter’. His article is mentioned by a number of authors. The initial purpose of the article was to write a Coolhunt manual, but Gladwell concluded that it would turn out to be unreadable because of the many footnotes.
Based on his observations from the Coolhunt Gladwell (1997) constructed three rules of Cool supporting the need for Coolhunters:
1. The quicker the chase, the quicker the flight.
The act of discovering what is Cool, causes the Cool to move on which explains the triumphant circularity of Coolhunting: because we have Coolhunters, Cool changes quickly, and because Cool changes quickly, we need Coolhunters.
2. Cool cannot be manufactured, only observed.
A company can accelerate the transition from the innovator to the early adopter and on to the early majority. But it cannot just manufacture Cool out of thin air.
3. You have to be one to know one, so Cool can only be observed by those who are Cool themselves.
These three rules combined create a closed loop, according to this loop it is not possible to be Cool unless you are already Cool and the phenomenon of Cool can never be fully explained to someone who is not Cool. Besides that, if the un-Cool people would manage to do something that is Cool, it would unfortunately no longer be Cool.
Evaluating the Coolhunting method
Coolhunting has become popular due to a number of reasons:
- The main reason for its success is that Coolhunting has proved to be rather successful in predicting future trends, like the comeback of the Converse One star.
- It provides corporations, which do not have access to first hand information themselves, an insight into the lives of consumers (mostly teenagers) who are interested in Cool products. These insights are important contributions to the development advertising campaigns, products etc.
It will not be surprising that, even though Coolhunters have proved to be
successful in a number of cases, Coolhunting raises a lot of eyebrows and that
there is a vast amount of critique on the method. The critique that is found in the
literature can be divided into four main issues:
1. Coolhunting is not aimed at average people;
2. Coolhunters are limited to discovering new trends, and Cool is not necessarily reserved to new things;
3. The lifecycles of trends will eventually go too fast due to Coolhunting;
4. Coolhunting is limited to identifying Cool things that already exist instead of creating Cool products etc.
1. Coolhunting is not aimed at average people:
Coolhunting is not aimed at average people, or as Southgate (2003) says “It is about extraordinary people, saying extraordinary things”. Coolhunters adhere to the trickle-down theory, so for them these extraordinary people form a segment of the population who will lead to the trends of tomorrow, but Duyvestijn and Van Steensel (2003) are not convinced that this theory still applies to our modern day-society. In their research among Dutch teens, they found no proof that teens copy the behaviour of trend-setters without any ado. They also discovered that advertisements aimed at trend-setters were sometimes incomprehensible for the ‘average’ person.
This trickle-down theory, also presents an interesting contradiction: if un-Cool people cannot recognise something that is Cool, as Gladwell (1997) claims in his three rules, how can they eventually adopt the behaviour of the Cool people? Not everybody has a Coolhunter at hand to lead them through the stores. Southgate (2003) assumes that there may be some universal and shared desires and goals that the Cool and the un-Cool people share.
2. Coolhunters are limited to discovering new trends, and Cool is not necessarily reserved to new things:
This second point of critique refers to another point that Southgate (2003) brings forward; that Coolhunters are interested in discovering new trends, but Cool is not necessarily about new things. Southgate (2003) points out that the information offered by Coolhunters does not reflect Coolness in all facets, it mainly concentrates on the part that is related to trends.
3. The lifecycles of trends will eventually go too fast due to Coolhunting:
The third point deals with the pace of the chase, or “The quicker the chase, the quicker the flight” as Gladwell (1997) referred to it. According to him the cycle of
“discovering Cool, which causes Cool to move on” goes faster and faster, and therefore we need the help of the Coolhunters.
A number of authors believe that there will come an end to this increasingly faster cycle, and that Coolhunters will eventually kill the very thing they study (e.g. Klein, 2000; Southgate, 2003). These authors predict that lifecycles of trends will eventually go too fast for the Coolhunters and their clients. During the time required for Coolhunters to analyse the information from the streets, to send the information to the companies and for the companies to get the right products into production, the entire trend might have already passed. In other words, the risk of Coolhunters and companies of running after the facts increases.
According to Williams
8(2003) the time between a trend’s inception, adoption and disposal is now already too quick, which makes all talk of `Opinion Leader foresight’ (Coolhunters) utterly redundant. Even Irma Zandl, who is believed to be the first Coolhunter, says that the days of the Alpha-consumers (trend- setters) are numbered (Grossman, 2003).
8In: Barnes, R. et al (2003), CoolBrandLeaders, an insight into Britain’s Coolest brands 2003
