Blog

With all the excitement around the inauguration of the new President of the United States, it seems timely to question the role of democracy in branding.

Is the "democratic way" the right way when it comes to branding?

If this were just about making my job easier, I’d respond with a resounding "yes." People grow attached to their own creations. When you have people from all levels involved from the beginning you have a better chance of achieving the emotional engagement required to deliver the brand promise.

Of course, we cannot ignore the changing landscape of branding—which can mostly be attributed to YouTube. Who owns the brand is up for debate. It used to be the marketing department or brand manager; then the CEO and top management team. Now customers lay claim.

We live in a world of user-generated content. This sensibility not only impacts how customers want to interact with your brand, but also how your employees do. Everyone wants their say.

Our old, formulaic, top-down ways of developing brands just don’t feel relevant anymore. We need to find ways in the brand development and positioning process to capitalize on this new zeitgeist and capture the brand's DNA from the people who deliver it every day.

But what about aspiration? What about vision? What about courage and leadership? We all know that a good brand is not only about capturing what it is today—it’s about having a brave vision for the future. If branding truly becomes democratic, there is a very real risk that people would vote down the best and bravest ideas simply because they are unfamiliar. A democratic approach can at best dilute a good idea and at worst, kill it off.

All ideas are not created equal. Not everybody has the same level of insight into branding, market trends, competition, and business strategy to be able to say whether an idea is good for that business. And it is still important to have a strong leader.

But I would advocate an approach that is more inclusive than we have traditionally known.

I think of it as concentric circles of influence. We ask people for different types of input in the brand development process. In England, they would call it "horses for courses."

Circle 1: Everyone in the business should contribute to an understanding of your brand's DNA—i.e., the irrevocable truth about you. Take ideas from online forums and chat rooms as input, and perhaps as hard truths about your strengths and weaknesses.

Make your progress transparent to everyone inside the business. Let them help you build on ideas once you come up with them. If you decide to go forward with a less popular but more courageous direction, you will know in advance how tough your job of engagement will be.

Circle 2: There needs to be a debate among management around the business implications of a new brand positioning early on, so you can ensure there is enough appetite to deliver this new vision. Too often we do this as part of the brand launch, when there is no opportunity to make a difference.

Circle 3: This is the bullseye, where top leadership (including the CEO) must be involved. We can give them our opinion as experts, but they need to set and embrace the vision. We must make them a part of development beyond our usual 30-minute interviews and a final presentation.


In principle democracy can be very good for branding, but only in measured doses. It seems to me that branding requires a small element of dictatorship as well.

What do you think?