Discussion about this post

User's avatar
The Brand Lab 360's avatar

The barbell framing is sharp but there's a third thing hiding inside it that I think gets missed. The brands dying in the middle aren't just picking the wrong channels. They're operating on the wrong feedback loop. Middle marketing (TV, print, billboards) gives you metrics that describe what you spent. The two extremes you're describing give you metrics that describe what actually happened. A sampling event at Coachella that gets filmed tells you in 48 hours whether people genuinely reacted to your product. An LLM surfacing your brand in a response tells you whether your content is actually relevant enough to be cited. Both extremes give you real signal. The middle gives you a media buyer's PowerPoint and a brand lift study that nobody can connect to a single sale.

The part I'd add from the brand side is that the barbell also applies to how you allocate capital, not just marketing. The brands I study that collapsed were almost always over-indexed on fixed costs that served the middle (big retail footprints, national broker networks, trade spend committed 18 months out) while the brands that survived were running light on fixed costs and heavy on the two extremes you're describing. The barbell isn't just a marketing framework. It's a capital allocation framework. The brands that die in the middle aren't just marketing wrong. They're structured wrong

Jeanine Longo's avatar

We prepped for this a long time go and priced our units appropriately to make allowance for the inflated operating costs architectured by the finance bros and bras. You are not wrong tho www.obeehavenaturals.com

5 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?