Storytellers are well aware that a story is only as good as its villain. Nobody wants to watch a movie where the hero faces no obstacle. That’s why finding a tough and terrifying villain is so crucial in making a story work (and sell). Today, although the coronavirus causing COVID-19 is undoubtedly a very serious matter, some experts in the scientific community say the panic surrounding it is not warranted. The fact is, the media all over the world are seizing on the opportunity of portraying this virus as the perfect enemy of us all. The consequence: a lot of people are scared as they have never been before. With the threat increasing, many switch to their instinct of individual survival and may start behaving irrationally (for instance, by panic buying). The symbolism of this unfolding conflict is very powerful, but it’s somewhat concealed. Here are some keys to decode it and put it in plain view.

A most unnerving enemy

SARS-CoV-2, the so-called coronavirus, is dangerous and it’s a killer. Many epidemiologists and political leaders warn that, if left unchecked, it could kill millions. Besides, it’s characterized by a series of traits that make it particularly frightening. It’s alien. It’s very contagious. It’s stealthy because it’s invisible. When magnified, with its ‘corona’ (crown) it appears at the same time beautiful and horrific. Its fatality rate (the percentage of the dead on the infected) is much lower than Ebola’s but much higher than the common flu’s. One may be infected without showing symptoms, meaning it may be anywhere, close to you. It’s cruel as it kills by preventing one from breathing. Currently, there’s no real defense against it. It’s different from all other viruses, so it’s basically unknown. As such, it’s unpredictable and ominous.

This description explains why the coronavirus is so distressing to many people. Yet the portrait may be somewhat misleading. So far, the number of deaths associated with this virus is just a fraction of that of malaria or rotavirus, or even AIDS (which has wiped out a total of 32 million people and is still killing over 700 thousand each year). As for cancer, according to the WHO it accounted for an estimated 9,6 million deaths in 2018. So, why isn’t people’s attention turned to those other medical conditions?

For several psychologists, the main reason is the fear of the unknown. People are less worried with diseases that have been around for a long time and whose cause is familiar – for instance, most people know that malaria, yellow fever, and dengue fever are caused by mosquitos. Instead, they are deeply concerned by coronavirus because scientists understand so little about it and its origin is controversial (a bat? a lab? a conspiracy?). A further reason for anxiety is the disturbing uncertainty it has injected into our lives, ravaging the economy and putting millions of jobs on the line.

Also, in a growing number of countries the virus has totally disrupted daily routines, as social distancing means no meetings, no events, no schooling, no restaurants, no pubs, no gym, no cinema – in short, no public life at all, which adds to the impression that coronavirus must be worse than any other disease. All these elements converge in making the crisis quite difficult to handle in terms of mental health and emotional challenges. 

The war has started

Anyway, despite being unprepared (as we have no weapons), we have already started this battle. Doctors and nurses on the front line say they “feel at war”, and the sentence has been picked up first by politicians and then by everyone else. Some may interpret it literally. In the US many rifle shops have now the longest queues, with people flocking to buy guns and ammunition: clearly it’s not about shooting the virus but – irrationally – trying to prepare for the unknown, one way or another.

The world over, scientific laboratories are at work in search of vaccines and treatments. Not by chance, in many countries the restrictions to the freedom of movement are now enforced by the army. The many sudden and tragic deaths due to the virus aggravate this feeling. In Bergamo, a northern Italian town close to Milan, the number of dead is so high that there’s no way to cremate all corpses locally, therefore somber military truck convoys carry the coffins elsewhere, in the surrounding regions. Strong symbols such as national flags and anthems are being shared to support social values and appeal to a sense of unity.

On the other side of the front, the coronavirus is alone – but symbolically no less powerful. Its strength is provided by its Darwinian, unique drive to expand by multiplying as much as possible. A sort of obsession, which however cannot be labeled this way as a virus in not a living entity. In a way, the condition of this coronavirus might be seen as pitiful. It’s tiny. It’s simply, as scientists say, ‘on the edge of life’ (like all viruses), meaning that it’s unable to survive on its own and compelled to enter other organisms in order to exist. It’s probably soon bound to be defeated by a vaccine and possibly eradicated from Earth like its cousin SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS). But this end cannot be taken for granted, and for many months from now (some say at least eighteen) SARS-CoV-2 is threatening to wreak havoc all over the place.

The role of brands

So, the fight is underway and no one can escape it. We all have to decide which side we are on. It may seem that nobody will side with the virus but this is not necessarily true. All those who behave irresponsibly and, when infected, avoid quarantine, are acting in support of corona. But what about the role of brands? What is their position in this context and in this story? That’s a delicate question. Obviously brands, as important social players, should be on the side of mankind and provide all possible help to overcome this crisis.

Realistically, some of them will benefit and some will face very difficult times, depending on what industry they are in. Many companies operating online will thrive, while providing much needed goods and services at the same time. Other companies, like those related to travel and tourism, are already suffering. All brands, in any case, should take good care of their customers and their employees, protecting them from the health and economic implications that are impacting our societies.

Are brands doing all that they can? Not always. One meaningful example: I greatly appreciate the behavior of some outstanding newspapers that have decided to offer free access to their websites on the global coronavirus crisis. Instead, I am quite surprised to see other news websites that attract readers with alarming titles but reserve the information on the crisis to their paying subscribers – even when it’s about something vital for anyone to know. From a symbolic point of view, these brands are not on the side of the virus; but they are not really on the side of people, either. It’s an ambiguous position that should be corrected, the sooner the better. In this unsettling war, panic may be unwarranted but brands should definitely not try to make a profit from it.

Today the shop around the corner, the hairdresser, the physiotherapist or the little, nice restaurant are in dire straits. Most of these activities are being shut down, and require the solidarity of all. The biggest brands should do their part, showing what social responsibility actually means. And they must avoid certain temptations. For instance, in the current situation they shouldn’t inundate email boxes with newsletters aimed at stimulating captive customers to buy online things they don’t really need. That’s not the time to be greedy: it’s the time for brands to play their role of helpers, supporting the heroes of this battle – the normal consumers/citizens, the doctors and nurses, the little businesses – in their effort to overcome this moment and get their lives back.

Many are already doing the right thing. Brands such as Subway, Pret A Manger, Nando’s are offering discounts on food and free coffee to medical workers. Chinese tech companies have developed apps to provide citizens with detailed, verified and updated information on the virus outbreak. Eventually, when the crisis will pass, and it will pass, people will remember which brands were indeed helpful and which ones weren’t.

I discussed this article with my friend Alexander Linder, who contributed some valuable insights. Clearly Alexander is not responsible for the possible shortcomings of my piece.

Nell’anno che si è appena concluso molte aziende hanno saputo creare storie di marca attraenti e di valore. Ma quella che per me è risultata la più interessante è Breaking2 di Nike. Lo stimolo narrativo è partito col trailer: Rompere la barriera di 2 ore nella maratona è impossibile. Tutti lo sanno. Lo sa la storia. Lo sa la scienza. Lo sa chiunque abbia un po’ di buon senso. È una follia. Nessuno può correre così veloce per tutto quel tempo. Quindi, ci proviamo noi.

Come? Tre maratoneti tra i più forti del mondo, tutti provenienti dai paesi dell’Africa orientale in cui correre è assieme normalità e leggenda. Un obiettivo considerato oltre i limiti delle capacità umane. Un gruppo unico di tecnici di Nike, medici dello sport, scienziati, ingegneri, fisiologi. Una nuova scarpa Nike realizzata per questo specifico evento (anche se poi disponibile a tutti gli atleti). Un investimento di milioni di dollari. Una partnership con National Geographic per registrare la cronaca di questa eccezionale impresa.

(more…)

Per cortese decisione dell’editore Franco Angeli, a distanza di sei anni dalla sua prima uscita il mio libro Web Storytelling viene ripubblicato. Ieri ho consegnato il testo aggiornato, e il nuovo libro uscirà con lo stesso titolo in Aprile 2018.

(more…)