Couldn't agree more! Love how you put it - people don't need brand permission to be themselves. Empty brands are guaranteed to fail. They need real perspectives and POVs that communities can choose to embrace or reject. That's why building iconic brands is such hard, endless work - it's not for the faint of heart. Well put Frankie!
Great read. I couldn't agree more that brands need a sharper POV on what they stand for instead of giving a blank canvas to consumers. I LOVE what adidas is doing right now with its Anthony Edwards "Believe That" campaign. The boldness inevitably inspired Nike to be more aggressive with its marketing, hence the birth of "Winning isn't for Everyone."
This piece nails something that’s been frustrating for a while—brands have become too reactive, letting consumers dictate everything rather than standing for something themselves. The "fill-in-the-blank" branding trend feels more like a shortcut than a real strategy. When every brand tries to be everything to everyone, they become nothing.
But here’s the catch: Gen Z does want brands to align with their values, just not in a way that feels pandering or hollow. We can tell when a brand is just mirroring back whatever is trending versus when it has an actual belief system. That’s why the shift from "Brand as Consumer Canvas" to "Brand as Source of Conviction" makes total sense. People aren’t looking for brands to reflect their identity as much as they’re looking for ones that add depth, texture, and meaning to it.
The call for “gatekeeping” is interesting too. Exclusivity has always been a major brand power move (see Hermès), but does that work in today’s culture of accessibility? Maybe it’s less about making things unattainable and more about making them earned. The examples of Nike, Oatly, and In-n-Out show how friction, debate, and insider knowledge create deeper engagement—not just passive consumption.
The biggest takeaway? Brands need to lead, not just follow. The best ones create cultural moments rather than chasing them. The ones that don’t? They just fade into the algorithmic abyss.
Couldn't agree more! Love how you put it - people don't need brand permission to be themselves. Empty brands are guaranteed to fail. They need real perspectives and POVs that communities can choose to embrace or reject. That's why building iconic brands is such hard, endless work - it's not for the faint of heart. Well put Frankie!
Great read. I couldn't agree more that brands need a sharper POV on what they stand for instead of giving a blank canvas to consumers. I LOVE what adidas is doing right now with its Anthony Edwards "Believe That" campaign. The boldness inevitably inspired Nike to be more aggressive with its marketing, hence the birth of "Winning isn't for Everyone."
Cultural contributor (or amplifier) is so key.
This piece nails something that’s been frustrating for a while—brands have become too reactive, letting consumers dictate everything rather than standing for something themselves. The "fill-in-the-blank" branding trend feels more like a shortcut than a real strategy. When every brand tries to be everything to everyone, they become nothing.
But here’s the catch: Gen Z does want brands to align with their values, just not in a way that feels pandering or hollow. We can tell when a brand is just mirroring back whatever is trending versus when it has an actual belief system. That’s why the shift from "Brand as Consumer Canvas" to "Brand as Source of Conviction" makes total sense. People aren’t looking for brands to reflect their identity as much as they’re looking for ones that add depth, texture, and meaning to it.
The call for “gatekeeping” is interesting too. Exclusivity has always been a major brand power move (see Hermès), but does that work in today’s culture of accessibility? Maybe it’s less about making things unattainable and more about making them earned. The examples of Nike, Oatly, and In-n-Out show how friction, debate, and insider knowledge create deeper engagement—not just passive consumption.
The biggest takeaway? Brands need to lead, not just follow. The best ones create cultural moments rather than chasing them. The ones that don’t? They just fade into the algorithmic abyss.