After all, doesn’t it make sense considering the steep investments in R&D, processes, better ingredients, superior formulation skills and novel manufacturing design? Thus, the theory goes, once the world is made aware of this better tech, consumers will in turn respond by beating a path to the shelf or showroom and reward the hard work and high-quality commitment with ever increasing sales.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

Better mousetrap marketing has been a foundational paradigm of go-to-market thinking since the dawn of the mass media era in the early 1950s.

Are You Always Reaching For Product ‘Betterness’?

The rinse-and-repeat environment that fosters this way of operating is woven into the institutional fabric of many brands and businesses.

Consider the regional potato chip brand that believes to beat the big guys they must be better by meticulously sourcing an improved strain of potatoes. They carefully curate a blend of frying oils to impart taste and texture without any greasy residue. In-house chefs work to test and combine the highest quality spices and flavoring ingredients for dusting the chips to assure the perfect taste notes. Their manufacturing technologists perfect a frying process to achieve the right texture and crunch. Surely this level of quality commitment and superior craftsmanship forms the foundation of a compelling story to capture the hearts and minds of chip lovers?

What if this isn’t the reason why your brand will be successful? What if the incredible investment of time, talent, quality and infrastructure is actually table stakes to your victory?

Facts Don’t Change Minds

The brand that gets closest to the consumer wins. That means embracing your customers’ humanity.

It also means acknowledging that consumers are feeling creatures who think and not thinking creatures who feel. Facts and features serve to feed our need for confirmation bias after purchase that we’ve made the right decision. The experience with your product is rewarded by its performance because you’ve labored to produce the very best product. However, when it comes to effective outreach communication — that’s something else entirely.

Heartfelt Connection

Moving as close to the consumer as possible means putting your brand in league with them on their journey. It’s forging an emotional connection founded on trust and integrity, where the consumer understands and wants to join your brand mission and its deeper meaning. Ultimately, they see via your integrity and actions you have their best interests at heart.

Your ability to form a relationship with consumers is not based on the stats and specs of your product formulation. Relevant brand engagement operates on a higher plane of context, much like the heartfelt bonds that form between people we care about.

Sound Strategy: Different Beats Better

Uniqueness and differentiation comprise the basis of beneficial strategy, not being better. This is a zero-sum and unwinnable game of one-upmanship that operates to commoditize your business.

When you know emotion rather than analytical arguments form the basis of successful communication, how will that change your messaging approach? It’s a given that you must never dilute your quality commitments. However, when it comes to brand communication, the most effective outreach is based on emotional drivers, not specsmanship.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by Robert Wheatley, CEO of Chicago-based Emergent, The Healthy Living Agency.

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

This week’s thought: Inclusivity is business 101.

Brands get bigger by selling to more people. The only way to add more people is to have an appeal that is inclusive of everybody. Inclusivity is the fundamental requirement of brand growth, which makes inclusivity business 101.

Put another way, the biggest brands offer something that everybody wants to buy. By definition. That’s why they’re big. And because they sell to everybody, they are inherently inclusive. Everybody is included as a customer.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

Universal appeal doesn’t necessarily mean a universal message or benefit, though. It just means that everyone can find a connection with a brand, one that is valuable to them. It need not be the same connection for everybody, but everybody needs a connection. The biggest brands have figured out how to make their franchises accessible and welcoming to a full panorama of consumers.

A big challenge in doing so is that inclusivity sits at the intersection of commercial and social priorities. Generally, the commercial imperative of inclusivity makes brands a leveling force of unity and integration, even if sometimes a reluctant one. But not always. During the Jim Crow era, for example, restaurants would sell to everybody, with one entrance for white people and another for black people. So, while inclusivity as a commercial principle puts brands in a unique position relative to social priorities, it does not equate automatically with social justice.

Nevertheless, brands are attuned to social issues and, by and large, try to do what’s fair and respectful for everybody. Brands are motivated to get it right because when brands get it wrong, they find themselves in the crosshairs of controversy. And controversy is bad for brands.

Controversy risks conflict. Conflict will almost assuredly alienate part of a brand’s prospect and customer base, thereby choking off the growth potential of inclusivity. Growth is first and foremost for brands, so the profit motive is an engine of inclusivity.

This is why brands and politics are a bad match. The models don’t align. Politicians win with one more vote, so divide-and-conquer is a good strategy. Brands only win by selling to everybody. Brands must shy away from controversy, not invite it. It’s better commercially for brands to accommodate and conjoin differences than to discriminate, accuse, provoke or evangelize. Stitching diversity together in civil, uncontroversial ways is the superpower of big brands.

Every brand targets; most brands segment. Many brands have plenty of upside growth potential within a niche or specialty. But this doesn’t mean that inclusivity isn’t relevant. It points instead to the way that the best brands do their knitting. They deliver a compelling solution for a shared problem, whether niche or mass, thus bringing together diverse groups in need or want of the same benefit. Brands being better brands makes for inclusivity.

It’s okay for brands to deliver demographically or culturally or economically specific communications. Just not controversial communications. Of course, this moment in time has made it harder than ever to duck controversy, but that just calls for better insights, more testing, better tracking and more real-time response. It’s not easy, but it’s not outside the ken of what brands do in the ordinary course of business.

This may be a riskier moment, but there is never a moment for writing off potential customers, either by walking away from them or by estranging them. Brands must stay current and inventive in order to figure out fresh ways of being inclusive without getting punished by controversy, conflict or politics.

In today’s fraught atmosphere of political division and social discord, brands offer a counterpoint of inclusivity, a recipe to study and follow. Because inclusivity is business 101.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider By Walker Smith, Chief Knowledge Officer, Brand & Marketing at Kantar

The Blake Project Helps Brands In All Stages Of Development Gain An Emotional Advantage, A Distinctive Advantage And A Connective Advantage

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

From the start, both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods made marketing mistakes. Neither brand differentiated itself from the other. Both brands behaved as if the idea of “plant-based protein that mimics animal protein” was enough of a breakthrough that people did not need information. Both companies adopted pricing strategies that were not in line with consumer expectations for non-animal offerings. In fact, it is still the case that plant-based offerings are nearly twice what a shopper would pay for an animal protein offering.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

But, the most troubling issue was that both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were not as insightful as they could be about the way people think about and speak about food. Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were both blind-sided by the previous, persistent power of the organic, natural food wave’s food education and food language.

Ironic.

Both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods designed offerings based on an understanding of the future of food. Both brands focus on non-animal protein substitutes that are sustainable, animal-friendly, anti-industrial food, wellness-oriented, organic, and available in a variety of places.

Sure, we have moved on from macrobiotics, grow-your-own communes, natural, low-fat, fewer calories, less sugar, less sodium, low cholesterol, organic, and a plethora of diets such as Keto, Atkins, Paleo, vegetarian and vegan. But, our food language reflects the ideas generated by these passing food waves. How we talk about food affects our perceptions of food.

Unfortunately for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, the language we use for food puts these brands in a precarious position—and not just from a marketing standpoint. All the ecological and humane benefits of non-CAFO or non-factory-farmed animals that these brands epitomize do not appear to overcome the dreaded idea of “processed.”

Our food vocabulary changed years ago into “good words” and “bad words.”  All-natural, unprocessed, raw, organic, natural, clean, real, raw, pure, not genetically modified, unprocessed foods: these are the best words. Just take a look at the peanut butter section at your local grocery store. Peanut butter brands attempt to differentiate by using “all-natural,” “organic,” “non-GMO.” The bad words are the alternatives: unnatural, unclean, unreal, genetically tampered, chemically-tainted, impure, processed foods.

“Processing” is a bad word. When processing is what makes food convenient, increases safety and value, how did “processed” become a bad idea?

People say they want prepared foods that are not processed. But, prepared is processing.

The “movements” – natural, organic, 1960’s, vegan, vegetarian and so forth co-opted the best words decades ago. The “movements” trained us – regardless of our diets – to want organic, whole food, natural foods, clean foods, real foods, raw, unprocessed, not genetically modified, pure foods versus unnatural, processed, genetically tampered, chemically-tainted foods with free range all-the-time versus caged pigs, confined cows and crowded chickens.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline, “Imitation Meat is Facing concerns About Processing.” The wording is: Imitation Meat. We define imitation as artificial, synthetic, simulated,  manufactured, ersatz, substitute. Surely, “imitation” is not a desirable descriptor for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods.

And, Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods should have known better, at their beginnings, that there might be a tough road ahead. “Processing” is not a fight that should be waged now. It is too late to fight “processing.” There is probably no definition of processing that can overcome processing’s already ruined rep.

There are continuing discussions about the word “processing.” The CEO of Impossible Foods told The Wall Street Journal, “Processed, if you really want to look at it from a food perspective, means highly artificial and very little nutritional value. We are a nutrient-dense product. That’s not the traditional definition of processed.”

On the other hand, Marion Nestle, NYU professor emeritus, nutrition, food studies and public health and the author of many widely read and highly respected books told The Wall Street Journal that “plant-based products were still ultra-processed and that long-term studies on their impacts were needed.” Ms. Nestle did state that from an environmental perspective, plant-based is better than animal. She added that “everything is better than beef.”

It is important to note that neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods made consistent, compelling brand-based propositions relative to processing. It is as if these two brands never thought about the concept. Many 60’s vegetarian and vegan constituencies understand the arguments from multiple angles having spent time thumbing through the bible of the eco-conscious, healthful dietary primer of the 1970’s, Diet for A Small Planet. Younger cohorts need this learning. Yet neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods made processing into acceptable (appealing?) messaging.

So, where are we in the future of food? Not so far off from where we were 20 years ago. However, there are still valuable opportunities for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, brands that should have broader audiences by now. What are consumers looking for in products and services and in life?

Fresh Is Fabulous

Prepared fresh every day. Made fresh. Fresh is still the be all and end all of food.

Fresh and chilled continue to be the growth opportunities

Subway has made fresh a core attribute of their brand even though many might say some of the ingredients are not that healthful.

Of course, “Fresh” is relative. Food travels. Plus, there are food miles and shelf lives to consider. Food distribution is a race against time.

For example, in a large supermarket with its own distribution system, broccoli undergoes a journey like this: farm to local warehouse to regional distribution center to refrigerated truck to regional distribution center at destination to another truck to local supermarket to backroom stocking area to floor and finally to shelf. That “fresh” broccoli can take a week to 10 days.

To allow fruits and vegetables to endure the trip, some are picked green, and chilled then warmed and treated with gases to ripen.

Packaging can be an option. Packaging is not just for ease of use but a good step for freshness. Packaging that makes food look fresh longer is good. Farmers’ markets are increasingly popular.

Convenience Is Critical

Convenience foods: What is convenience?

Convenience is not the same today as it was fifty years ago. Convenience used to just mean “ease of use.” Make it easy to prepare; make it fast to prepare. TV dinners, cake mixes, Jello.

Many of today’s consumers do not cook, do not know how to cook, and do not want to learn. Not having to cook is a commodity claim. Today’s definition of cooking a meal is really assembling a meal… putting together already-made foods. Or the paint-by-numbers approach of meal kits such as Blue Apron.

The food industry knows that consumers want hot food on the table no more than five minutes after they begin preparing and never more than 20 minutes.

And, then, there is the powerful triplet of Ease of choice, Ease of use, and Ease of Mind. Food must be easy to choose. That means all the information must be understandable and believable and, preferably, with all ingredients recognizable. Food must be easy to use. Only the brave choose Julia Childs. And, finally, there is Ease of Mind. What am I eating? What am I serving to my family? Should I worry about these added ingredients? Should I worry about the added sugars?

Convenience is not just convenience any more. Today “convenience” means more than making life easy. it also means putting the consumer’s mind at ease.

No functional and no emotional hassles. No time, no fuss, no worry. Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods should own this idea of ease of mind. But, they do not. In fact, their ingredient lists and manufacturing procedures belie any ease of mind. The CEO of Impossible Foods may think his products are not processed in the traditional sense. But, for consumers, these are processed foods. Convenience means quick-fix entrees and side dishes requiring little preparation. But also flavors, exotic, do-it-yourself doctoring with diets aimed at reducing blood pressure or cholesterol, and farm friendliness – a preference for foods deemed closer to the farm and less processed.

For those who made it through high school Latin, the original Latin meanings for “convenient” are utilitas or commoditatis, meaning advantageous to me, fitness, benefit, comfort. Therefore, convenient will no longer just mean fast and easy. If the food is organic and available, if it is healthful and clean and locally grown, my food is to my advantage.

Ease of mind is a critical component for the future of food. We want to be comfortable with our choices.

Comfort

This ever-changing world in which we live is also an uncertain and volatile world. The events that happen around us cause stress and social tension. In an increasingly fast-paced, out of control, disordered, uncertain and often confusing world… there is a need for comfort.

We need security, as well. We have a desire for physical and emotional safety and food security. We are aghast at the number of food recalls we face every day. People are asking to be insulated from the scares. Not just food safety but the unknown.

Two decades ago, US health officials said that bacteria, viruses and parasites in foods cause approximately 76 million cases of illness, 325,000 hospitalization cases and 5,000 deaths each year. Who can imagine what these numbers look like now?

So, comfort on all dimensions physical comfort, mental comfort and even intellectual comfort are all desired. We want to avoid feeling stressed out or out of control.  We want to feel relaxed, reassured, recharged and revitalized.

Comfort means feeling safe, having knowledge, well-being, sustainable, authentic.

It is comforting to know that we can feel comfortable with the food and beverage products we consume. It is comforting to know that our food and beverage products are safe.

Can technology make food safer? Is more technology, more processing? Should we fix the food or fix the way the food is grown or processed? Does my food/beverage come from nature or is it man-made?

Sustainability

People are becoming more concerned about what we are doing to our planet and its populations. People want to believe that they are helping to keep things going without degrading what is around them:

We live in an age when processed food is made to be better than the whole food on which it is based.

Modern industrial agriculture is incredibly good at the mass production of low-priced commodities. There is incredible single-minded efficiency. But, to many, this industrialization is at a significant cost. Maximizing production at all costs. And, yet, the smallness of production cannot fill our needs.

Production for the sake of production, processed production, mass production for mass markets, we wind up asking ourselves, “when did the modern ways we produce our food become a negative?”

For example, the meat industry is all about efficiency. Yet many see these behaviors as shortening the animal’s life on earth. Further, issue such as hog farms adding toxic wastes to our landscapes is a negative.

Specialization, monocultures and the increasing urbanization of society means that farming is seen as just one more service industry. So, we are witnessing the decline of the small family farm.

There are movements to reduce the use and waste of non-renewable resources in the growing and processing of foods. Some concerns remain such as toxic clean-up, safer pest control

We also want to eliminate genetic pollution and disease resistance. But, these take methods contrary to safety perceptions.

Climate change issues such as frosts, hurricanes, fires, mud slides, long, colder winters with hotter summers also affect our views on food.

Social Responsibility

Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods can combat the misinformation and correct their messaging information by truly understanding that consumers want to feel confident. Consumers want all three dimensions of ease. Consumers want to feel confident that they are doing the right thing for themselves and for their families. They want quality, convenient food choices that are great value and they expect the food they eat to be safe. Consumers want to know where their food comes from and what has happened to it on the way to purchase. Consumers want assurances. Ease of choice, Ease of Use, Ease of Mind.

When Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods communicate to customers, the goal should be to arm them, not alarm them. That is arm consumers with the proper knowledge about the offerings so consumers can be comfortable without being cautious. So consumers  can enjoy what they choose to eat, knowing they have made the right choices. The future of food is ever-changing. Brands have to keep up by keeping on the evolving definition of ease: ease of choice, ease of use and ease of mind.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Partner, The Blake Project, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

It’s easy to dismiss the outrage as noise, but what if it’s something more? What if outrage isn’t the enemy but a signal—a mirror reflecting the fractures in trust and purpose we’ve overlooked?

When viewed this way, outrage becomes more than a reaction to missteps. It reveals where alignment has broken, offering a chance to recalibrate and reconnect. For brand leaders, I see this as a moment to champion intention, curiosity, and courage. Those willing to lean into this challenge have an opportunity to transform outrage into a catalyst for meaningful social influence and change. Perhaps most importantly, the choices we each make today will shape the future.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

Understanding The Landscape: A Crisis In Numbers

Across industries, latching onto the latest social trend with virtue signaling and misalignment between communications and behaviors has come at a time when people are frustrated and no longer giving brands the benefit of the doubt—instead they are asking for consistency, accountability and most importantly resonance alongside relevance. Given the relentless feed of news and information and the pressure to engage in real-time, every message a brand puts out today carries the potential to become a crisis…. It’s impossible to predict who will receive a seemingly innocuous message in the wrong way on the wrong day. And the interconnectedness of challenges—social trends, consumer expectations, and ideological divides—adds even greater complexity.

Revealing a profound trust deficit, research statistics offer insight into the landscape, underscoring the disconnect between corporate actions and stakeholder expectations:

• Only 37% of people globally trust business leaders to act in society’s best interest, a decline of 12% in just one year (Edelman Trust Barometer 2024).
• 72% of Americans believe businesses should stay out of politics unless it directly affects their operations and only 41% of US adults believe businesses should take a public stance on current events (Morning Consult 2024/Gallup and Bentley University poll)
• 61% of consumers are skeptical of corporate sustainability claims and 59% of Americans suspect brands of leveraging social issues for profit (PwC 2024 and Axios- Harris Poll).
• 72% of Americans feel healthcare systems prioritize profit over care (Morning Consult 2024)

These numbers narrate a story of disillusionment. Rising costs, unfulfilled promises, and tokenistic gestures deepen public skepticism. In healthcare, the stakes are particularly stark: inaccessible services and soaring expenses amplify feelings of betrayal. —a sentiment epitomized by the shocking assassination of a major healthcare CEO. Outrage stems from this context, a byproduct of disconnection and unmet expectations. Meanwhile, 91% of CEOs acknowledge the need to recalibrate ESG programs, yet recalibration without systemic change risks eroding trust further and fueling discontent.

Ultimately, brand leaders are being called on to decide what their brands stand for at the highest levels, not to latch on to trends. Yet, how do they do this in a way that addresses existing fractures, realigns purpose, and rebuilds trust?

Lessons From History: Cycles Of Outrage And Leadership

History often is cyclical. And outrage is not new. In many ways, what we are seeing today is somewhat reflective of the time after the Great Recession. Movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party arose from deep disillusionment with institutions. These moments weren’t just reactions—they were signals of broader public demand for change, which accelerated the early purpose movement. As people were being told the economy had recovered and yet weren’t experiencing this in their own lives, businesses stepped into a leadership void.

PepsiCo was one of the earliest brands to embrace purpose, even before the Great Recession in 2006, when Indra Nooyi introduced Performance with Purpose. Paul Polman embedded sustainability into Unilever’s in 2010, after publicly criticizing the stock market’s focus on short-term returns. These efforts accelerated the fledgling purpose movement, demonstrating how businesses could lead by example. Actions like BlackRock’s emphasis on sustainable investing in 2013 and Brand Z’s incorporation of purpose-driven metrics in 2014 signaled the growing demand for businesses to align their strategies with societal needs.

Today, the stakes feel even higher than they did then. Indeed, driven in large part by polarized politics, brands now face increasing backlash. And tellingly, the outrage transcends ideological divides: progressive audiences critique greenwashing and performative actions, while conservative groups resist DEI and sustainability efforts. Yet, systemic shifts take time. The trajectory of today’s anger and frustration—and how it will intersect with the priorities of a new administration—remains uncertain. Brands that view this as a moment to pause, stay aligned with their values, and act consistently can position themselves as trusted leaders in this evolving landscape.

Decoding Outrage: The Signals And Their Meaning

Deconstructing the meaning of today’s outrage requires nuance. Four key drivers help to clarify the complexities:

1. Rage Reflects Systemic Failures: Rage often stems from the perception that brands prioritize profits over people. This sentiment is particularly acute in industries like healthcare, where rising costs and inaccessible services magnify feelings of betrayal.
2. Resistance Reveals Superficiality: Superficial gestures—vague sustainability claims or tokenistic DEI efforts—amplify skepticism. Resistance arises when audiences feel co-opted rather than respected.
3. Reckoning Exposes Misalignment: A reckoning occurs when brands overstep societal boundaries without ensuring coherence between their values and actions. For example, sustainability claims that clash with exploitative supply chain practices erode trust.
4. Rejection Reflects Fear: Fear, often rooted in uncertainty or perceived loss, manifests as rejection. Brands navigating cultural shifts must tread carefully to address anxieties without compromising their values.

These drivers interact to form cycles of distrust. To break them, brand leaders must act with coherence, courage, and intentionality—embedding trust-building practices across all facets of a brand’s operations.

Seven Principles For Rebuilding Trust And Purpose

Adopting an intentional, systemic approach is the best way to rebuild trust and transform outrage into an opportunity. In my work with clients, I have found seven principles help to navigate today’s complex environment. That said, it’s equally important to recognize that there are no guarantees…. I find consistency, alignment, preparedness and courage to be the best mantras.

1. Marketers are fiduciaries

A marketer’s first role is to be a steward of their brands. Their responsibility is to ensure that every action they take is anchored in purpose and a brand’s core operating principles, not to amplify personal beliefs and values.

Acting as a fiduciary requires balancing societal responsibility with business outcomes, harmonizing the influence a brand has the power to wield over culture public discourse with the integrity of the brand’s promises.

2. Purpose is a living discipline

Purpose is more than a statement: it’s a compass—true to your business operations yet broad enough to encompasses a social mission. By necessity, purpose must unfold alongside people’s evolving needs and societal expectations. A brand like Natura, whose purpose is to nurture beauty and relationships for a better way of living and doing business, exemplifies this by respecting the biodiversity of the Amazon when sourcing ingredients, integrating sustainability into supply chains and addressing local community needs.

Purpose thrives when it’s treated as a discipline requiring intentionality at every level. When a brand leader tells you it’s time to move on from purpose, they’ve misunderstood it entirely—would you ever move on from strategic planning?

3. Purpose architecture mitigates risk

Purpose without structure and clarity risks becoming superficial. Guided by nuanced audience insights and materiality, purpose architecture offers a strategic framework to differentiate corporate and product brand roles—and further distinguishes operational commitments (sustainability and regulatory compliance) from messaging.

Begin developing purpose architecture by systems mapping potentially conflicting perspectives and expectations – spoken and unspoken – of customers, employees, investors and other stakeholders. And, importantly, consider segmenting by ideology to identify both messages that resonate and red flags to navigate and ensure you use scenario planning to be prepared for potential crises.

4. A values-driven POV builds confidence

Stakeholders seek alignment between a company’s values and its actions. So, it’s essential to identify where your brand has earned the right to lead and take confident, values-driven action. The question isn’t if you should speak up—it’s whether your audience grants you permission to add your voice to the conversation.

A clear POV is a lens for navigating this complexity, guiding consistency and clarity necessary to strengthen credibility and avoid virtue signaling. Airbnb’s program that offers housing to refugees is an earnest act of belonging that resonates with people’s deepest values. By turning its ethos into action, Airbnb transforms its mission into tangible hope, rebuilding trust and loyalty at a human level.

5. Diversity is competitive advantage

Diversity is a strategic asset, driving innovation and connection. A Washington Post/IPSOS poll (April 2024) found 61% of Americans support DEI practices, saying they are a “good thing.” And McKinsey data from 2023 shows companies with ethnically diverse leadership are 39% more likely to outperform peers. Signaling their belief in its strategic value, both Costco’s and Apple’s boards recently recommended that investors reject shareholder proposals from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) that ask the companies to publish a report on the risk of DEI programs or eliminate them completely.

Homogenous brand and marketing teams risk developing campaigns and programs that don’t resonate across different audience demographics and psychographics. Oxford University research indicates that diverse advertising increases short-term sales by 3.5% and long-term sales by 16%, demonstrating how inclusive storytelling is an important aspect of resonating with modern audiences. Importantly, DEI isn’t a prerequisite for hiring diversely; individual brand leaders can always choose to bring people with different backgrounds or who think differently onto their teams, even as official policies are pulled back.

6. Sustainability as Resilience

When deeply embedded in a brand’s operations, sustainability amplifies trust and fuels innovation. Kantar reports that sustainability adds $193 billion to the value of the top 100 global brands. And 93% of consumers say they want to live more sustainably.

By aligning sustainability with long-term business strategy, brands address immediate environmental concerns while demonstrating accountability and forward-thinking approaches. Effective sustainability strategies foster trust and relevance in an increasingly environmentally conscious marketplace. Ikea’s unwavering commitment to sustainability reflects its ability to unlock value creation from society’s evolving priorities. Whether addressing consumer pushback, adopting renewable energy, or embracing circularity, Ikea shows resilience is rooted in the willingness to adapt, evolve, and lead from purpose.

7. Unify Cross-Functionally

Siloed efforts lead to inconsistency; champion a collaborative approach across marketing, PR, HR, operations, and, yes, even finance and bring the C-suite and potentially the Board alongside to ensure a harmonized front and standing stronger together. Integrated efforts help organizations adapt effectively to external pressures while fostering coherence across teams and initiatives.

Establishing multi-functional Brand/Purpose Councils effectively aligns teams and initiatives, fosters coherence and resilience, and increases operational effectiveness and financial efficiencies.

The Path Forward: An Invitation To Marketers

Outrage isn’t simply rejecting purpose, sustainability, DEI or even taking a stand. It’s an invitation to reimagine brand leadership. We can see fractured trust as a call to step back or as a chance to move forward more intentionally with purpose, cautiously and bravely, not recklessly.

The choices we each make today shape tomorrow. Will you let public frustration and anger drown out possibility, or will you seize this moment to lead with courage, clarity and purpose? The future isn’t waiting; brand leaders are shaping it right now. And in choosing courage and clarity, we can turn outrage into trust—and trust into enduring success.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Anne Bahr Thompson, Author Do Good, Embracing Brand Citizenship to Fuel Both Purpose and Profit.

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define or redefine and articulate what makes them competitive at critical moments of change. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Some users of Facebook and Instagram are rebelling and moving to Bluesky, for now. But, most users really need these social networks. Sure, there are other social media platforms, but nodes, connections, are the drivers.

From a brand standpoint, the more social media platforms become similar in terms of benefits, rewards, user values and personality, the more relevant differentiation disappears. The platforms become named but brandless. In other words, commodities. For example, LinkedIn used to be a professional job site. Now, it is a glorified social media platform. Lots of socializing; less true professional hiring.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

Regardless of the reasons for the changes at Meta, the underlying issue is, “Are Facebook, Instagram and X relevantly differentiated in the eyes of consumers?” Or, have we reached a great convergence?”

One Op-Ed piece in The New York Times said the Meta “transformation” is just its CEO acting out. This is actually not that important. What is important are the reactions of users. And, for most Meta brands’ users, the necessity of Facebook and Instagram takes priority over everything else. The Wall Street Journal’s interviews reveal that Meta is now abstaining from providing “brand safety,” that is, the ability of brands to run advertisements within environments that are free from “objectionable content.”

“Despite misgivings about the new speech policy, advertisers are unlikely to shun Meta. They (ad agencies) have grown dependent on its massive reach and ability to precisely target their ads, drawing on a trove of consumer data. Meta can afford some defections by blue-chip advertisers, as it is insulated by having a large base of small business advertisers.”

Advertisers are not yet fleeing Meta brands even though the restrictions on speech are lifted. As The Wall Street Journal points out, unlike X, Meta brands are absolute necessities. Both Facebook and Instagram are too big to ignore. Meta has “… nearly 3.3 billion daily users across its platforms, generating more than $152 billion in annual advertising revenue. This is a scale few advertisers can afford to ignore.” As one analyst opined, advertisers will not be making any changes to ad budgets as long as Meta platforms continue to perform, i.e., generate profit through sales. Shareholders are happy “… as Meta’s market value has more than quadrupled over the past two years.” It is unlikely that a shareholder revolt is in the cards.

Even if there were a shareholder revolt, Meta has been through this before. Although on a much smaller scale, X, too, is weathering an ad loss storm. The X brand still has dedicated users and advertisers across a broad opinion spectrum.

The rewards of the lawsuits X has initiated against advertisers are yet to be known. As Facebook and Instagram become more similar to X in terms of openness and deregulation of “safety” and “responsibility,” the less power the lawsuits may have. After all, the size of Meta’s brands’ reach far outweigh the reach of X. And, with fewer free speech overseeing, advertisers may just select the platform with the largest reach rather than avoiding the platform with the least safety.

What happens when social media platforms decide to compete as “me too” offerings?

In many ways, these “me too” social media platforms become just like mass transit.

Is this how social media platforms want their brands to be perceived?

Connections, community, going somewhere, getting somewhere, liking the experience but not in love with the experience, not the most trustworthy deliverable, coping with people who are loud and may communicate angry words: these are all descriptors of social media. And, these are also descriptions of mass transit.

As the years go on, with no social media restrictions, where everyone and anyone can play a role, social media will be a form of mass transit. This means that the major social media brands will turn themselves into mass brands or mass markets… becoming commodities.

We can rail against the subway and the bus as being unsafe and crowded and slow, but the facts are that we cannot do without mass transit. Same for these social media brands. Advertisers and users need the social media platforms.

As with mass transit, the system, the operations, the necessity is powerful. And, not just because of the connectivity. Mass transit and social media are socioeconomic and environmental drivers. Both have value for users. As Alex Pentland describes concepts in his seminal work, Social Physics, we can extrapolate and compare mass transit and social media. The surprise is how unbranded these comparisons are. For example,

Mass transit is flow. People in flux, moving, human traffic flowing from one place to another. Social media are flow;  the flow of ideas, the networks of exchange. Mass transit is a social network, as well. Mass transit is a network that works to generate social exchange.

Mass transit is operationally efficient. Its infrastructure, in most cases, works quickly, reliably, and without much waste. The electrification of mass transit addresses waste as do electronic transit passes. Social media are efficient operationally as well. Social media are easy to use, a seamless ebb and flow of connections and disconnections and reconnections.

Mass transit is valuable. Mass transit satisfies user goals such as moving to and from work, to and from medical appointments, to and from social engagements. Social media are valuable in this same way as social media satisfy goals of social support, curiosity and usefulness.

Mass transit generates communities of peers: we are along on the train or bus together as commuters. We are traveling kith rather than kin. Social media are similar. Social media create groups of peers, kith not kin.

Mass transit is considered a given, a commodity. Mass transit, although given an acronym associated with its city, is essentially unbranded, essentially generic. Social media, although given brand names, are becoming more and more generic, as the race is for subscribers. It is the same for streaming entertainment.

And, then, there is the lack of trust. Data from 2020, indicate that only 5% of Americans trust mass transit. Trust does not appear to be a factor with social media, either. If trust were a deciding factor, Facebook would have lost millions of customers after its Data Analytics debacle or after a whistleblower revealed how Facebook made itself “sticky” for teens and youngsters. If trust were an issue for X, it would not have survived its initial post-Musk-purchase months.

And, if you use the definition of trust that equates trust with “an expected exchange value,” then Facebook, X and Instagram are trusted. These brands are expected to deliver the same opinion platforms and communities.

After all these years of differentiated social media, the segue to being like mass transit is unfortunate. Maybe this is the future. Maybe the future is just one large undifferentiated mass of mass platforms: the great convergence. Yet, Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn and all the others should focus on staying relevant and differentiated. If anything, it would make social media platforms more interesting.

How to stop the drift towards mass transit? How to stay relevantly differentiated? How to avoid the downward spiral of mass transit?

1. Do not abandon the brand promise. Really. It is critical to articulate the relevant, differentiated experience that the brand delivers. Users want to know the benefits, the rewards, the character of the brand. Without a relevant differentiation, the brand will be a commodity, mass transit. Perhaps, as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says about Meta, the relevant differentiation at Meta is innovation. If so, let the users know. A brand promise is profitable. A brand with a relevant, differentiated promised experience generates brand value. Shareholder value is possible only if there is customer-perceived brand value.
2. Focus on being better and stronger as well as bigger. How is your social media platform becoming better and stronger? Being bigger means becoming more familiar and creating more penetration. This is what streaming brands aim for: to be bigger. Being better means having a stellar reputation and generating overall satisfaction, where satisfaction is relative, i.e., satisfaction relative to customer-perceived competition. Being stronger focuses on brand loyalty, brand preference, brand value and brand power. As Facebook should continually be aware, power is not always related to size. Even when Dyson was small, Dyson was an extremely powerful brand. It was the same with IBM. IBM was the biggest, but Apple was the most innovative and popular. As social media should understand, repeat purchase is not necessarily a sign of brand loyalty. In fact, non-loyal repeat purchase is a threat to brand value. Continuous repetition of low price deals and convenience does not build loyalty.
3. Do not let trust slip away. Trust is a precious asset. If you do not care about customer-perceived trust, well there is this: Trust is a source of organizational wealth. Figure out ways in which your brand can be perceived as trustworthy. Do not sidestep trust-building. So, your brand might not be a source of “trustworthy” information. Your brand may be honest about that; honesty is good. Openness is good. There are other trust building actions. There is no single idea of trustworthiness. Trust can grow from meeting expectations, from being reliable, from being honest by keeping commitments, by treating employees well, by being ecologically sound.
4. Stop speaking only to Wall Street. Speak with and to users. Speak with and to potential users. Not everyone is reading a newspaper. Not everyone visits the business section of online news. Wall Street’s focus is profitability, anyway it can be generated. Financial engineering still has a lot of friends. Users want to know why they should choose your branded platform. Avoid focusing on analyst satisfaction rather than customer satisfaction. Brands are symbols of quality. It is unfortunate when brand owners debase brands to increase market share, step up volume or achieve any other number of short-term goals. Analyst satisfaction tends not to have the customer in mind. A focus on analyst satisfaction is short-term, not designed for the creation of enduring profitable growth.
5. Keep your customers sold. Reinforce the brand relationship customers had when they started using the brand. Do not make customers feel as if they are trapped, the way cable companies behaved. Use after-sale communications for reinforcement. Streaming brands focus on making the sale and gaining subscribers but do not follow up with post-sale reinforcement. Focus on the fact that your brand is superior in delivering on its relevant and distinctive branded experience that the customer fell in love with in the first place.

These five actions alone will continue to keep the social media platforms relevantly differentiated. Avoid these five actions at your peril. Sure, having masses of people as users is great. But mass marketing is passé. As a business wave, it peaked some time ago. Mass marketing is a mass marketing mistake. Rather than resigning your brand to mass transit, continue to provide a relevant, differentiated experience.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Partner, The Blake Project, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education