Following the purpose debate, the next discussion about meaning in branding is taking place in the world of brand professionals: the question of a brand's stance. A colorful, rather eclectic array of questions on this topic has come up in conversations with industry colleagues over the past few months:
Should brands take social or political stances – for example, on sustainability or democracy? Do such stances have a positive economic impact? And above all: What exactly is meant by "stance" in a brand strategy sense?
A brand is a social alliance – not a loudspeaker system.
To put this into perspective, it helps to look at the essence of every brand: Brands are not transmitters of marketing messages, but social alliances. They emerge around ideas and promises of value, gaining strength through resonance – not through assertion. Their power lies not only in the logo, but above all in their social impact. Brands don't work by decree, nor solely through technological dominance. They must be desired by people.
Therefore, differentiation is not a nice add-on, but a necessity. Only those who occupy a clear, relevant, and distinctive position in the market will become visible—and desirable—amidst the oversupply. Brands create genuine added value when they substantially differentiate themselves from competitors. This differentiation is not an end in itself, but a prerequisite for economic success. Brands managed in this way represent a strong, inherent stance.
According to this understanding, brand values and stances are only useful and economically promising if they contribute to a relevant differentiation. To achieve this, they should stem from the brand's own identity.
Lego: Taking a stand through action and with a clear focus
A prominent example comes from Denmark: Lego is a highly successful brand that impressively demonstrates this time and again. Founded as a carpentry workshop in Billund, a place where there's practically nothing else, it is now the strongest and most valuable toy brand in the world. Its focus remains on the core principles of "create, learn, play" and its famous bricks. These bricks are constantly being developed in new variations for ever-expanding target groups. Children and teenagers play with Star Wars sets, mostly men engage with complex Technic sets, and recently, mostly women have been buying high-priced Lego flower bouquet sets. Sustainability, diversity, and other typical corporate values are also important to Lego. They are communicated credibly, but are not the core of its communication strategy and are addressed by the company where it is truly relevant. Instead of making loud pronouncements about its stance, Lego acts with restraint and within context.
Customer centricity is also the guiding principle here.
Carefully considering which messages are communicated to whom is one of the fundamental tasks for any brand. I once met a bicycle manufacturer who was determined to promote sustainability to their customers. At the same time, the manufacturer discovered that customers weren't receptive to the idea. Trying to force it on customers is counterproductive. It only costs money and achieves nothing – it's not sustainable. However, the company should, of course, continue its commitment to sustainability and communicate this to the financial market and through employer branding. There, the topic might receive more attention and be perceived by stakeholders as highly relevant to their own decisions. It all depends on the context in which these values are communicated.
Reflecting on oneself
The fact that many brands focus on the same few values, such as "sustainability" or "diversity," doesn't make sense to me, especially given the fundamental brand requirement of differentiation. Communicating stances that can be interpreted as political or even partisan seems detrimental to building trust with customers for brands not directly involved in the political arena (the much-cited "Musk" effect for Tesla). In this respect, such stances can also prevent the brands in question from fully realizing the potential inherent in their offerings.
Focusing on "attitude-based issues" such as sustainability can be beneficial if the brand's positioning and core performance can deliver on that promise. Brands like Viva con Agua, Frosch, and the frequently mentioned outdoor brand Patagonia are certainly capable of this. Beyond that, however, the field narrows considerably. The same logic applies in the B2B segment.
The most plausible and effective approach for brands seems to be one that focuses on what the brand is truly capable of delivering and what demonstrably achieves relevant differentiation in the market. This means setting boundaries instead of reflexively spouting cheap phrases that are far removed from the brand's core and fail to resonate with people.
The vote is ultimately cast, every single day, at the checkout. There, the democracy of the market is demonstrated with every purchase. Brand professionals should keep this in mind and manage the brands entrusted to them in the way their customers deserve. Many a brand could use a good rethink.