Thread by @NateAFischer

I am hopeful that this is the beginning of the end not just for BRC, but for their entire mode of shallow affinity marketing.

Consumers are savvier than often credited. They’ll begin demanding stronger proof of alignment/deeper congruence from brands making a tribal appeal.

https://twitter.com/aaron_renn/status/1415684460926935040

Even consumer decisions Econ 101 types mock (eg buying b/c of celebrity endorsements and expensive advertising campaigns) reflect a recognition this constitutes real skin in the game.

Likewise, voters quickly began demanding far stronger proof of alignment from politicians.

In an age of content overload, collapse in institutional trust, and growing conflict, proof of skin in the game may become the only thing people look to as a source of information meriting any sort of trust. They’ll develop quick heuristics to cut through noise to assess this.

Anything seen as fake (not as entertainment, but as an actual appeal to action) will be quickly and ruthlessly mocked, the way cowardice was among the most derided traits in many societies.

In contrast, people and companies that prove true alignment will develop deep loyalty.

The return of courage as a celebrated virtue will be closely related. There are other forms of skin in the game, but courage is quickly recognizable as intentional and costly, and thus a high-information signal of some form of commitment.

Between these growing demands for skin in the game, the sharp tribal divide in our society, and the near-universal alignment of established brands with the cultural left, there will be an enormous opportunity for companies willing to prove a deep commitment to right Americans.