Influencers can drive sales, but they do not build memory

Sinh Vũ observes a repetitive loop in the domestic cosmetics industry: a brand launches, pours budget into KOLs, sales spike for a few weeks, then silence. Pour in more budget, and sales return. Stop, and silence returns. Eventually, the budget is no longer sufficient to maintain that rhythm. The brand disappears, not because of poor products but because it never built anything in the customers' minds.

The mechanism of a single purchase

When a KOL reviews a product, what happens in the viewer's mind is not "I need to remember this brand." What happens is "this person is trustworthy, this product looks okay, I'll give it a try." The purchase decision is anchored in the credibility of the reviewer, not in the brand. Customers remember "the serum that sister X introduced," not the brand name on the box.

Byron Sharp refers to this as the issue of Mental Availability: the ability of a brand to come to mind at the moment a customer is ready to buy. Mental Availability cannot be built by others on behalf of the brand. It is built by consistently repeating unique identifying signals long enough to leave a trace in memory. KOLs create reach. Consistent repetition creates memory.

Why do local brands easily fall into traps

The barriers to entry in the Vietnamese cosmetics industry are almost nonexistent. A contract manufacturer, a bottle sourced from a Chinese supplier, a cheap outsourced design file: products can be launched within weeks. As a result, the market is flooded with similar-looking serums and creams, lacking any strong identifying signals to differentiate them. In this context, KOLs become the quickest path to instant differentiation because their personal credibility overshadows the similarities of the products.

But this is the trap. Brands are borrowing credibility instead of building it. Every dollar spent on KOLs makes their faces more memorable, not the brand itself. When the budget runs out, that face moves on to another brand. The brand is left empty-handed.

Influencer marketing is not wrong, the usage is what’s wrong

Sinh Vũ does not see KOLs as the enemy of the brand. The issue lies in the order: most local brands use KOLs before establishing a foundation of identity, rather than after. When a brand does not own any unique identifying assets, such as distinctive colors, consistent language, or an uncopyable story, KOLs are merely temporary sales pumps. Once the brand has that foundation, KOLs can become a true amplification channel.

Cocoon is a case worth studying. They built a story around the regional origins of their ingredients, achieving Leaping Bunny and PETA certifications before widely engaging KOLs. When KOLs talk about Cocoon, they amplify things that already exist and can be verified. Customers buy not just because of the face on the video but because the story behind that product has its own weight.

Distinctive assets only create Mental Availability when consistently repeated long enough to form traces in memory.

Jenni Romaniuk, Building Distinctive Brand Assets (Ehrenberg-Bass Institute)

Identity assets belong to you

Jenni Romaniuk defines Distinctive Brand Assets through two dimensions: Fame (level of popularity) and Uniqueness (level of distinctiveness). A true identifying asset must achieve both. The orange color of Hermès is an asset. The unnamed pastel blue on your cream box is not, as it is neither unique nor popular enough to anchor in anyone's memory.

Identifying assets can include colors, packaging shapes, brand language, distinctive scents, or an uncopyable origin story. The common thread: they belong to the brand, not to the person currently reviewing on their phone. When you invest in building and consistently repeating these assets across all touchpoints, packaging, website, social media channels, customer service language, the brand begins to accumulate memories in customers' minds without anyone doing it for them.

The way out: build first, amplify later

For a local cosmetics brand that is dependent on KOLs, the real question is not "Should we stop using KOLs?". The question is: "If all KOL channels stopped today, what would remain of the brand in customers' minds?"

If the answer is "not much," that is a clear sign that the budget is flowing into a bottomless pit. Each KOL campaign generates purchases but leaves nothing cumulative. The solution is to stop allocating the entire marketing budget to amplification channels and dedicate a portion to building identifying assets that can accumulate over time. There is no need to stop using KOLs. It is necessary to invest in things that will remain after the last KOL contract ends.

• Identify one or two distinctive identity assets and commit to consistent repetition.
• Build a brand origin story or perspective that cannot be replicated by competitors.
• Ensure packaging, language, and brand behavior are consistent across all touchpoints, not just in KOL clips.
• Measure not only the campaign sales but also the brand's natural recognition over time.