I’ve always believed that brand building is about meaning creation and that the biggest amplifier of this meaning is logic. Value propositions need to strategically make sense, ladder up to design and be implemented consistently over time. Break this logic, and my brain needs to process a fatal system error.
I’ve recently written about purpose-led brands born out of the well-intended desire to deliver more than shareholder value. And that is great, however managing a purpose-led brand means that everything ought to run in line with the same purpose. Using the humbler ‘mission’ in the brand model would keep things simpler across the board if that is not the case.
And most recently about the ability of research to inform meaningful brand building and the recommended direction of travel for agencies and clients. What I’ve not written about yet – but said that I would 🙂 is research that reveals gaps in understanding, invites additional questions and (self-)correction.
Enter SDGs, ESGs, DEI, stage left,
For a head scratch on dealing with, attention, please – external sets of messaging in building brands
The externality of SDGs, ESGs, and DEI to brand
There is a difference between organisational/brand messaging and frameworks like SDGs, ESGs and DEI. These constructs sit external to organisations and brands. A drive towards a more sustainable, fairer and respectful world is needed, however I wonder if we have lost sense of this externality in dealing with these frameworks and have sometimes assumed, out of good intentions, that we need to fully align the process of brand building and all brands to this direction to make them mean something today.
While these frameworks help brands respond to broader stakeholder requirements, I believe they should be deployed in ways that are true to each brand’s DNA. This would ensure that each brand is more differentiated rather than automatically altered to suit this externality. It’s an inside-out rather than outside-in job, where the brand that deploys them meaningfully becomes smarter and savvier, the impact is more profound and long-lasting, and the organisation navigates its environment more resiliently as a result.
SDGs, ESGs and DEI are emotionally charged. They carry the weight of a more sustainable, fairer and more respectful world on their shoulders, and it all somehow needs to come to fruition at brand level. Brand theory (DNA) is a good way to take the emotion out of deployment and brand build with a clear head. SDG, ESG and DEI badging for the sake of accolades is more easily avoided as a result.
A made-to-measure instead of a one-size fits all approach
Visualise the typical positioning map with brands dispersed on price, function and emotion. SDGs, ESGs, and DEI cannot be dialled up equally across all the brands in the field. Organisational strategy and fit make it impossible to max out on these indicators to 100% and if that happened the result will be a psychedelic mess.
It is more valuable to calibrate these frameworks to the positioning and DNA of each brand and deploy them in measured and relevant portions instead.
Dose the portions
In my view, it is important to build brand research that captures comprehensive stakeholder associations and expectations on brand, as well as SDGs, ESGs and DEI from the start of a project or piece of work.
When discussing the vision that organisations have for their future and set up project Discovery, there is therefore a need to probe proactively around brand, SDG, ESG and DEI combined and recommend supplementary research that gives access to direct and specific audience insights from the start instead as an afterthought. This implies co-opting internal audiences beyond Marketing and Commercial in stakeholder interviews and bringing in a point of view from Governance and HR as well; it also implies giving a deliberate voice to external audiences and partners in the process.
Agencies and internal teams can tag-team to gather the info, however the complexities of brand development are only amplified when brands need to deliver from an organisational perspective, as well as SDG, ESG and DEI. Establishing a solid foundation and understanding of expectations with the help of quantitative and qualitative data can set up a thorough and reassuring foundation to work from along the way. Brand and Marketing teams are best placed to lead this from the front and strategic agency partners should feel emboldened to ask the right questions from the start and bake the findings into the brief.
Cut away the extra sugar
SDGs, ESGs and DEI don’t need to be deployed simultaneously within a single brand. To respond to stakeholder requirements and add further value, each brand should take from these frameworks only what aligns to its DNA, positioning and audiences. See Victoria’s Secret (VS), a brand that in my view still feels awkward in the body positivity space. It’s a territory defined and owned by Fenty (and overcrowded at the moment), so I believe VS would be better off returning to its original perfect fantasy, “sexy” DNA and tying it into the codes of consistency, determination and willpower required to get your body to perform in all walks of life and supremely on their annual catwalk. This approach doesn’t make the VS brand ‘bad’ or dismissive of the importance of body positivity. However, it does turn body positivity inside-out and suggests that for some brands reinterpreting it in a way that is true to their DNA is more authentic: “I’m proud of my body, therefore I get it to perform”.
(Self-)correction & how’s all this even relevant from a client services perspective?
Some time ago, I oversaw the refresh of a brand looking to reassert its leadership. I believed it needed to retain and update its assets to communicate contemporaneity and leadership from the outset, however it was only through the final-stage qualitative research that I was able to clearly hear our audiences’ voice. And while they felt the refreshed brand communicated both competence and contemporaneity, they also saw themselves as part of a society that was indeed more diverse than 20 years ago.
Tying this back to the brief, that moment of audience feedback delivered the reassurance to preserve the original brand toolkit and amplify photographic elements to engage broader, more diverse groups. I go back to this moment of clearly hearing our audience speak as eye-opening: brand, DNA and DEI can exist elegantly and authentically in the same identity. A reminder that brand building is not done until audiences have meaningfully spoken and their insights have been triangulated with the work and the original intent.
And that is what I mean by (self-)correction and what I think great client services and brand management are about, listening deeply to all the work and all the insights until everything aligns and is true to the brief, and not ignoring those final moment, uncomfortable insights which ultimately make the end result that much valuable and better.
To sum up
There is a difference between brand and organisational messaging and external sets of messaging such as SDGs, ESGs, and DEI. The primary game in brand building has always been to identify and communicate an authentic, strong DNA.
When it comes to these external frameworks, the second game as I see it seems to be about querying the brand and its associations through the lens of these frameworks and carefully weaving in what is relevant so that each brand becomes more differentiated, meaningful and more resilient.
It’s artisan cake-making instead of working on a production line. It’s a recipe that makes brand building tastier, or at least it does so in my book.
Unmistakably,
Irina
Irina Gheorghe 
Leave a comment