The New York Times: “Except for maybe that final celebratory phase, home brewing seems to be a solitary endeavor. But at Bitter & Esters, a home-brew shop in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, hopeful brewers discuss all parts of the process with like-minded beer aficionados, from the minutiae (and there is quite a lot of detail) to the merrymaking when an especially good batch is turned out.”
“I know there’s a picture of a guy brewing by himself,” said John LaPolla, an owner of Bitter & Esters, on a recent evening. “But it’s really not like that. It’s a community.”
Although Bitter & Esters is not a tavern and does not have a license to actually sell beer, “we can give tastes educationally,” Mr. LaPolla said. And they educate, liberally. The shop offers about 10 classes a month, with options for beginners through advanced brewers. Those classes, Mr. LaPolla happily admits, are “brilliant marketing.” “We make our own customer,” he said.”
At some point, while few were looking, the cassette tape crossed the great divide from a commodity to an experience. Steve Stepp, president of cassette-maker National Audio Co., attributes this to “stubbornness and stupidity.” Anyone who ever owned cassette technology knows it as unbelievable junk that jams, breaks and otherwise frustrates the task for which it is intended.
It many ways, it’s not unlike vinyl, which has also made an unlikely return. Warping, hissing, popping, skipping. Who doesn’t love that? Both comebacks are a function of the rise of CDs, then MP3s and now streaming, and the relative nothingness of the experience. As Bob Dylan once said of the CD: “There’s no stature to it.” Would love his thoughts on Spotify. (I, for one, love it.)
Some claim that these old analog media have a “warmth” that digital does not. Okay, but at least a bit of that warmth is that of nostalgia and, with cassettes, the warm hand of making and sharing mix tapes. It’s also about the importance of “things” as a part of the experience, and vice-versa. If that’s true for the cassette, then it can be true for just about every commodity.
We buy experiences as much as things, and today, it seems, even more so. Those trees we acquired over the holidays: Were they “things” or experiences? How many old iPod boxes do you have squirreled away in your closet? It’s all in the unboxing. With the rise of cassettes, a surge in pencil sales is sure to follow. Artisanally sharpened, of course. A mountain of things are just aching for an experiential rewind.
Without question, a brand’s advertising and its visual identity are part of the brand promise and experience, or at least can be dressed up to appear so. However, it is critical to distinguish between brand experiences and the brand experience.
Brand experiences can be fun moments for the customer. This might be an event of some kind, often referred to as “experiential.” As brands move away from traditional advertising, they move toward “happenings,” increasingly involving social media. It’s a remarkable video or clever tweet that goes viral.
These types of transient experiences constitute much, if not most, of what drives marketing today. It is all very cool, and can make even the dullest brand seem hip, but it still comes down mostly on the side of making promises as opposed to keeping them. It’s the 21st century version of a 30-second television commercial. Don Draper is alive and well, and living on YouTube.
Here’s the thing: Of what value is a momentary, fun, marketing-infused experience, if the day-in, day-out experience with the product or service falls short? It’s limited, at best. At worst, it can be fatal, given that nothing exposes a bad experience faster than good advertising.
While serendipity often involves accidents, it is not accidental, or passive, writes Pagan Kennedy, author of Inventology, in The New York Times. The term itself was coined in 1754 by Horace Walpole, and was based on “a Persian fairy tale about three princes from the Isle of Serendip who possess superpowers of observation.”
In other words, “serendipity … is something people do … That’s why we need to develop a new, interdisciplinary field — call it serendipity studies — that can help us create a taxonomy of discoveries in the chemistry lab, the newsroom, the forest, the classroom, the particle accelerator and the hospital.”