If you Google "James Frey", you get the image results up first, with him sitting on Oprah's couch getting publicly taken apart by the Queen of TV (or the Queen of the Free World, depending on your opinion). The 5th Google link takes you to the Smoking Gun website and its page entitled "A Million Little Lies" - the expose that revealed James Frey as "the man who conned Oprah". If James Frey was a brand, which I suppose you could argue he is, one might assume he was still in a hole.
I haven't read A Million Little Pieces, his 2005 memoir/novel, but the controversy around that book was so acute, I already had a negative opinion of him as a fabricator and liar. My desire to question that judgment made me pick up his new book "Bright Shiny Morning", on the way back from a trip a couple of weeks ago. It's a fabulous read.
The narrative tells the stories of people in modern LA following their dreams, with the city itself as the central character. Anyone who lives in LA, or spends any time there should read this book. As I became more engrossed, I realized that there was another layer of story with this book - that of the writer himself. I was reframing my opinion of him, the book was a redemption of James Frey in my mind.
It got me thinking about brand forgiveness. How much are we prepared to tolerate from our closest brands before we give them up? In a lot of cases, not much at all. I'd love to see a chart that had the worlds top brands given a "forgiveness rating". Who'd be top?
The Dozen is an eclectic take on innovation, branding, media, strategy and research, brought to you by the creative minds at Egg Strategy.
Comments
Interesting idea... I guess we'd probably "forgive" brands according to the same criteria we use with people: are they sorry? do they own up to the problem? are they trying to change? It makes me think of how the Ritz Carlton and Nordstrom have built incredibly loyal followings by strategically embracing and empowering the notion of "service recovery." At the Ritz, they used to (and might still) give every employee $1000 worth of credit that they could use at any moment to optimize a guest's experience (i.e. dry cleaning is late? o.k., it's on the house). And the Nordstrom stories are almost legendary. Makes sense that in an age of corporate responsibility, that means owning up to mishaps and problems. And, to your point, might even engender more loyalty in the process!
Wonderful book - I agree. As was A million little pieces. Having read both I can honestly say that Oprah's and smoking gun's issues were mostly their own and had little to do with the true value of the book as a work of literature. I think this brings up an equally interesting question - about opinion formation and influence in the instant access, distilled down world:
In this "attention economy crisis", where media fragmentation often lets proxies like a google SEO link create opinion for us - how do we give brands (or authors) a fair shake? And given that google now commands something like 70% of all searches, are we truly searching or more likely being lead down a prescribed path? What are the acceptable proxies for experience? In this age of hyper individualization and co-authorship, brands must strive more than ever to create available, easy access, relevant experiences. These experiences should either allow folks to make their own decisions by approximating the full brand experience (a Frey reading excerpt via podcast or on You Tube?) or give them access to credible influencers that can offer alternate views (like Amazon with their reputation system). Short of that, it seems obvious that ill equipped brands will suffer the vulnerabilities of having opinion formed by folks that simply find themselves at the top of the page on Google. It doesn’t seem fair!
just a thought...
Well, you have to remember, that fall and redemption are embedded in the lexicon of American culture.
The only thing we love in America more than tearing down icons that we once worshiped, is forgiving them when they contritely apologize, rehab, and put out a comeback effort. The same thing is true for Apple, Levis and Coca-cola as it is for Britney Spears, Robert Downey Jr. and Drew Barrymore.
What a country!
whereas in Britain, we like tearing them down and leaving them in the gutter.
Or quietly supporting their habit and 'tisking' when they continue to dig after hitting rock-bottom (i.e. Winehouse, Doherty)
One thing we're seeing more of lately is that people are less interested in truth (or "truthiness") than they are in whether or not something is accurately framed. For example, it's easier to "quietly support" Pete Doherty as long as he stays a miscreant; if he attempted to clean up, he'd be rebelling against his frame, and we can't cotton to that.
So when Frey was accused of fabricating his memoir, it had less to do with whether or not he was a liar (or a bad writer) than it did with two other points:
* What does this mean for the frame "memoir"?
* What does this mean for Oprah's trustworthiness?
In theory, Oprah would have been better off endorsing the work of a legitimately murderous (and repentant) felon than of a lying memoirist, because her frame as a trusted cultural purveyor was threatened. Go figure.
Forgiveness? It all happens in time, but the sinner rarely has control of when.
Add new comment