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

Now what?

How Boeing can be fixed was the subject for dozens of people interviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal spoke with “… current and former Boeing leaders, airline executives, employees, suppliers, safety regulators and others….”  The newspaper’s interviewers asked: What should Boeing do to turn itself around?

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.

The Wall Street Journal sorted respondent comments into five groups: 1) Think big, 2) Fix the culture, 3) Forget production deadlines… for now, 4) Revamp the design process and 5) Restore trust.

These important action areas must be part of an agreed strategic action plan. Boeing needs to implement the Six Rules For Brand Revitalization, immediately.

The Six Rules For Brand Revitalization guide brand rejuvenation and create a brand-building mind-set. Each of the Six Rules has a series of “Practices” – ongoing actions. Rules without actions are just theory. Brand is not theory. Brands are promises of relevant differentiated experiences. How you run your brand is how you run your business and vice versa.

The Six Rules are:

Rule 1: Refocus The Organization – Financial discipline, operational excellence, leadership marketing, Brand Purpose, and goals

Rule 2: Restore Brand Relevance – Thorough knowledge of the market, needs-based occasion market segmentation, Brand Promise

Rule 3: Reinvent The Brand Experience – Innovation and renovation, marketing, Trustworthy Brand Value Equation, fair value, total brand experience

Rule 4: Reinforce A Results Culture – Measurable mile-stones, balanced Brand-Business Scorecard, recognition and rewards

Rule 5: Rebuild Brand Trust – Internal/external, Trust Capital

Rule 6: Realize Global Alignment – Freedom Within a Framework, Plan to Win: Eight Ps, the Collaborative Three-Box Model

You might be thinking that a focus on brand is the least of Boeing’s problems at this crucial time. Brand is never an afterthought. Boeing’s now well-known, well-detailed operational issues are affecting Boeing’s reputation and profitability. Brand reputation is an indicator of the health of a brand.

A healthy business relies on four “must-haves”, one of which is Reputation:

• • Be a credible source: Provide stakeholders with confidence that its information is true and that its promises are delivered.
  • Have an excellent reputation for quality and leadership: Behave in the same way, every time.
  • Be a pillar of integrity: Keep stakeholders’ best interests at heart.
• Have a responsibility ethic: Be an effective global citizen

Boeing seems to have deficits in all four of these areas. Boeing does not appear to be perceived as believable. Although Boeing’s CEO is quite passionate, are shareholders believing what they are hearing but not seeing? Boeing’s reputation is unhealthy. There have been and may still be serious issues with cultural cohesiveness. Is taking responsibility still an unresolved issue? Do global customers still feel a sense of uncertainty in dealing with Boeing?

Shareholders do not like uncertainty. An unhealthy business is an uncertain financial bet. This is why it is imperative that Boeing implement against the Six Rules in order to reassert its health and its provenance for excellence and safety in flight.

Three of The Six Rules are implicit within the interviewees’ comments. With the interviewee comments, we can begin to develop a Boeing Brand Revitalization strategy to revitalize and re-establish the Boeing brand.

Rule 1: Refocus The Organization

Refocusing an organization around common goals is the first step for Brand Revitalization. What are our Common Goals? What is our Common Brand Purpose?

People need to know what is going on and where they are going. Employees do not mind an organizational refocus, especially when the situation is in flux or is on a downturn. But, employees do expect to know in what direction they are rowing. Is the company on a road to financial health? Are we allocating resources to key areas? Do we all share the same vision for the brand’s future?

Refocusing an organization requires organizational realignment behind improving financial discipline, dedication to operational excellence, leadership marketing including revitalized brand goals (purpose and promise). Telling employees that “we are at low point here.” And, saying publicly that Boeing has to “get its house in order” and “clean up its act,” as CEO Kelly Ortberg did, helps everyone face the facts. But, without a full understanding of what all this means for employees, the calls for remedial action are unhelpful.

Organizational excellence is a critical issue. As suggested by respondent comments, quality is suffering at Boeing. “Shareholders over safety” has apparently been the strategy. “Speed over quality” has been the mantra. CEO Ortberg told investors that eliminating layers of bureaucracy (a good thing) has placed Boeing in “.. a better position to make faster decisions.” Yet, no one remembers how fast you do something if that something is the wrong thing. Following the Six Rules allows the right people to do the right things in the right way for the right reasons.

As many interviewees suggested, Boeing needs to figure out just what are its goals in the new world in which Boeing now plays. The Wall Street Journal writes that “for decades, Boeing was an aerospace pioneer.” Boeing is no longer thought of as an aerospace pioneer. It is really easy to lose your pioneering advantage. History is littered with the headstones of pioneering brands. MITS was the first personal computer. Chux was the first disposable diaper. Ampex was the first video recorder. We do not remember these brands as Apple, Pampers and Sony became leaders. (Gerard Tellis and Peter Golder wrote about the pioneering advantage – or lack of – in their famous 1996 article, First To Market, First To Fail? in Sloan Management Review.)

Having a new brand direction is important. There is no substitute for the power of a clear and consistent definition of a new brand direction and destination. The same goes for organizational alignment. Nothing is more powerful than a properly aligned organization.

As the interviewees alluded to, a Boeing organizational refocus will provide: clarity of purpose; a common brand and business vision; a common set of goals including quality and safety; move everyone toward the same North Star; set priorities, insure brand consistency across geography and time; measurable objectives.

Rule 4: Reinforce A Results Culture

When there is a conflict between culture and strategy, inevitably culture wins. Research shows the link between culture and employee behavior.

A results culture is one that evaluates performance based on producing measurable results. It means having a clear relationship between executive rewards and brand-business performance. A results culture rests on measurable milestones and rewarding people based on performance where progress is tracked in a Balanced Brand-Business Scorecard.

People manage what management measures, recognizes, and rewards. Define how progress will be measured. It is not enough to produce the right results. It is important to produce the right results the right way for the right reasons. It is important to produce the right business results. It is also important that these results are based on a strong brand foundation. A Balanced Brand-Business Scorecard evaluates whether the brand is producing the right results the right way.

Interviewees agree that Boeing has a culture problem. One troubling cultural issue is the reluctance of employees to report safety and quality problems along with a “blaming” culture. There appears to be agreement that safety must be everyone’s job. Without safety, Boeing will struggle in its recovery.

Interviewees agree that Boeing lost its “ingenuity and  quality” when Boeing management decided to focus on shareholder value, financial engineering and cost-cutting. Those financial wizards at Boeing overlooked the facts: You cannot cost cut your way to enduring profitable growth; Without brand value there is no customer value and without customer value there are no shareholder value results.

Your people come first. Not financial shenanigans. As one respondent reported, Boeing’s mindset has been to focus on the cash register rather than excellence and safety in flight. If employees do not feel that they are moving forward and respected, the brand will not move forward.

Rule 5: Rebuild Brand Trust

Trust is fundamental in building and maintaining long-term relationships. Trust enhances the quality of a relationship and minimizes perceived risk. Boeing has a trust deficit. Boeing’s trust deficit presents an enormous opportunity for Boeing to become the “trust-worthiest” source of a relevant and differentiated promise.

Boeing’s provenance is a good place to start. Boeing’s provenance is trustworthy evidence of Boeing’s authentic character, expressing what Boeing stands for internally and externally. Boeing’s provenance is its principled foundation of trustworthiness.

Boeing should reestablish its provenance, using that provenance to create the roadmap for moving forward. The provenance of a business is its consistent, motivating, relevant, distinctive heritage, based on its past theme. The power of provenance is not about preserving everything from the past; it is about preserving the best of the past for the present and the future.

Customer-centricity, as a prerequisite for growth, requires trust. Businesses are expected to act like trusted partners. A brand-led business culture that puts customers and users at the heart of all actions, helps embed trust building.

Trust is essential. Being a trustworthy source acts as a multiplier with regards to customer-and-user-perceived value. Trust is a key component of value. If there is no trust, there is no value. Why? Because people are willing to consider and support – personally and financially –  brands they trust. If there is no willingness to rely on, to trust, a brand, then there will be no personal and financial support. No brand trust leads to no financial support leads to no shareholder value. Trust is a relationship criterion more than a transaction criterion.

Building trust as a source of corporate, organizational wealth is an important driver for enduring, profitable growth. Trust Capital is one of the components of organizational wealth. Creating Trust Capital allows an enterprise to generate a trust reserve that helps through crises of brand or corporate character. A trust reserve of Trust Capital builds strong relationships over time. Trustworthiness is a key component of Brand Power.

A powerful brand is more than a trademark; it is a trustmark. Trust is an important prerequisite for building long-term brand loyalty. Without trust, there can be no brand loyalty. When you trust a brand, you become committed to that brand. Trust is the most important prerequisite for building long-term brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is profitable.  Trust takes time to build but can be destroyed in seconds. Saying “trust me” is not a viable nor credible solution.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the respondents defined four constituencies where trust is lost. Boeing lost trust with airline travelers due to crashes and a frightening incident on an Alaska Airline flight when a door fell off the plane. Boeing lost trust with its plane-buying customers. Boeing lost trust with the US military dues to massive overcharging. And, worst of all, Boeing lost trust with its employees. A member of the National Transportation Safety Board stated on the record, “They have a workforce that doesn’t trust Boeing, that is afraid of retaliation. As long as that continues… they’re going to have problems.”

Focusing on Financial Discipline and Operational Excellence are absolute necessities for Boeing right now. But, as with other turnarounds, Boeing must also understand and create Marketing Leadership actions to resurrect the Boeing brand. This is because all the work on Financial Discipline and Operational Excellence are on behalf of the Boeing brand. Engineers and factory workers are not designing and building airplanes. Engineers and factory workers are designing and building Boeing airplanes. Without the Boeing brand, Boeing runs the risk of becoming a commodity supplier.

The Six Rules and their associated Practices help create organizational cohesiveness, brand passion, corporate pride and quality. When people work together and move in the same direction toward the same destination with passion and pride, things fall into place.

Brand revitalization drives financial management, service management, personnel managements, product developments, distribution managements, pricing strategy, marketing management and operational excellence. The business of everyone associate with the brand is to drive enduring profitable growth of the brand to ever-greater heights.

Shareholders want a positive prediction for the future. The only future you can predict is the one that you create for your brand. You need adherence to The Six Rules to do this well.

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 or redefine and articulate what makes them competitive at critical moments of change from the inside-out. 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

Pricing is fundamental to the management of a firm’s future financial success. The relationship between price and volume is well understood. All other things being equal, higher prices reduce volume. This does not mean that the price premium commanded by a brand necessarily reduces sales volume. Effective branding strengthens consumers’ brand preference, which has the effect of pushing the demand curve upward and to the right, as shown in Figure 1. This means that the consumer will pay more for the brand even at the lower end of the price/demand curve than would be the case for a comparable unbranded product. This change in the demand curve is what creates the strategic pricing advantage of a brand. The firm uses the change in the demand curve (shown by the curve that is upward and to the right in Figure 1) to capture greater volume, to increase the price (and margins), or some combination of higher volume and increased price that corresponds to at a point along the branded demand curve.

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.

A closer look at the improved brand demand curve is helpful for illustrating the array of strategic choices available to the firm that pursues an effective branding strategy. The new brand-driven demand curve, which is illustrated in Figure 2, creates a region of pricing latitude bounded at the top end by the maximum feasible premium price and at the bottom end by the maximum feasible volume that may be achieved by a low price. For most brands, the optimal price, as defined by the price that maximizes flow for the firm, is not the top or the bottom of the curve. Rather, the optimal prices are likely somewhere in the middle. In addition, the optimal price may vary over time. These facts produce important strategic options.

The firm might pursue a pure premium pricing strategy that seeks to maximize cash flow through the capture of large margins. However, a modest reduction in price might dramatically increase sales volume. The result might be an overall increase in cash flow, even with modestly lower margins. The optimal price for any brand is really an empirical question and can be addressed with market research. And, the effect of price is not just the result of taking share from competitors.

The strategic implications of the branded demand curve become even more interesting, and potentially more profitable, when costs of production and marketing are considered. If there are economies of scale in production and/or marketing, greater sales volume may be associated with reductions in costs, and a concomitant increase in margins. When the firm has a portfolio of products that share production, marketing, or distribution costs, the cost effects can become even more important.

But wait! There’s more. The same strategic pricing decisions associated with a branded demand curve also flow to members of the distribution channel(s). The firm’s branded demand curve also applies to channel members, who will have greater pricing latitude themselves. This, in turn, gives the marketer greater influence in the distribution channel because the brand is accompanied by strategic opportunities, assuming they are understood by the marketer and the channel member. And there are implications for managing adjustments to price over time, including temporary reductions (or increases) in price related to trade and consumer promotions.

Branding is not just about making consumers feel good about a product. It’s not just about the ability to charge a price premium. Rather, it is about creating strategic opportunities for the firm. Realization of these opportunities requires an understanding of the influence of branding on pricing and demand. It is also why effective branding is not just about marketing communication; it is about influencing the demand curve through strategic pricing decisions.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by Dr. David Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Marketing and Business Law, Loyola Marymount University, Author, Financial Dimensions Of Marketing Decisions.

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable 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

It’s a tidy, linear model, and like many tidy models, it fails to reflect reality.

The problem? There is no single consideration set.

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.

Contextual Brand Choices

Human decision-making doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Instead, it is deeply shaped by context. Take wine, for example:

• For a casual dinner, you might consider affordable, widely available brands.
• For a romantic evening, your preferences shift to something more refined.
• For a party gift, your focus turns to well-known or prestigious labels.

These contexts radically reshape which brands come to mind. There is no static, universal “wine consideration set” stored in your memory, and asking consumers to identify one in a survey ignores the dynamic nature of their choices.

Cognitive Inefficiency

Why don’t we hold a universal set of brands in memory for every occasion? Simply put, it’s inefficient. Consider the Australian wine market:

• 2,213 wine producers
• 65 distinct wine regions
• 150+ varietals

Attempting to sort through these options for every wine-buying decision is cognitively impossible. Instead, the human brain adapts to specific contexts, retrieving just a few brands relevant to the immediate situation.

Imagine needing coffee on your way to work. Would you sift through thousands of beverage brands? Of course not. The brands you consider are shaped by your need (caffeine), your environment (a café nearby), and even your previous experiences.

Flaws In Survey-Based Metrics

Surveys often ask a deceptively simple question: “Which brands would you consider?” Yet, this question assumes:

1. A static consideration set.
2. That consumers consciously retrieve brands in a naturalistic way during a survey.

In practice, consumer responses are highly situational, heavily primed by how the question is framed, and often fail to represent real-world decision-making. For instance, you may list a luxury car brand in a survey because it feels aspirational, even if you’d never seriously consider it when actually buying a car.

Source: Attest Brand Perception Survey Example

Evidence Against The Static Consideration Set

Research consistently undermines the idea of a singular, stable consideration set:

• A study on automobile purchases found that 22% of buyers considered only one brand, with prior ownership being a key determinant.
• Another analysis in financial services revealed an average consideration set size of just 1.4 brands.
• Analysis of over 100,000 consumers searching for LED TVs showed consideration set size of 3.19

When decisions are highly contextual, the size and composition of consideration sets vary wildly—sometimes they don’t exist at all.

Source: Visualizing Asymmetric Competition Among More Than 1,000 Products Using Big Search Data

The Rise Of Category Entry Points (CEPs)

If traditional consideration metrics are flawed, what’s the alternative? Enter Category Entry Points (CEPs).

CEPs are the mental cues that link consumer needs or contexts to brands. Rather than assuming consumers start with a predefined list of brands, CEPs recognize that consumers begin with situations or desires:

• Need: “I want something healthy.”
• Context: “It’s a cold evening.”
• Mood: “I want to treat myself.”

By focusing on these cues, marketers can better understand and influence how consumers approach purchase decisions.

Real-World Applications

CEPs allow brands to find new opportunities by expanding into adjacent contexts. Consider the case of the Aperol Spritz:

• Historically positioned as a summer drink, the brand identified a gap in winter occasions.
• By launching campaigns around après-ski moments, Aperol reframed itself as a year-round beverage.
• Result: a 9.6% volume increase in 2023, driven by penetrating new mental and social contexts.

Rethinking Brand Metrics

Using consideration as your primary metric risks oversimplifying consumer behavior and underestimating the fluidity of brand choice. Instead, CEPs provide a more actionable framework:

• Measure relevance across different contexts.
• Identify gaps where your brand isn’t currently evoked.
• Build campaigns tailored to situational needs rather than static demographics.

The End of Consideration

The traditional consideration set is an outdated relic. Brands must adapt to a world where context—not static loyalty—shapes consumer choice.

• There is no one-size-fits-all consideration set.
• CEPs offer a better lens for understanding and influencing purchase behavior.

If your brand strategy is still anchored in outdated consideration metrics, it’s time to rethink your approach.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider By Matthew Daniell, Founder, Memorised.ai

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

This week’s thought: Business is inherently aspirational.

Harvard marketing guru Ted Levitt made his mark with a number of pithy ideas about the role of marketing and the purpose of business, all of which rested on the foundational insight that brands solve problems. In his first book, The Marketing Mode (1969)—a long-neglected book that should be required reading for every modern marketer—Levitt noted that a “customer’s purchasing activities” should be understood as “problem-solving activities.” Eleven years later he turned this insight into one of his classic aphorisms, to wit: “Products are problem-solving tools.”

From that insight, it is a small step to the asseveration for which Levitt is probably best known. Which is that people don’t want quarter-inch drill bits—they want quarter-inch holes. People buy solutions not products. People buy benefits not features. People have problems and they buy brands to solve these problems.

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.

If brands don’t solve problems, brands have no value and thus no reason for being. Solving problems is the purpose of business. Everything about marketing follows from that.

Maybe this seems too obvious to repeat. But it wasn’t so obvious that Levitt felt it unnecessary to say time and again. Nor is it so obvious that we wouldn’t benefit from a reminder today.

The best ads lean hard into aspiration. A personal favorite is Apple’s “Think Different” campaign. I’m not alone—this campaign won many awards, spawned a cult following and still finds its way into Apple materials. The ad celebrates genius with a free-verse poem voiced over black-and-white images of famously pioneering people—the misfits, rebels and square pegs who changed things and “push[ed] the human race forward.” These “crazy ones” are the geniuses whose spirit, verve and influence changed our lives for the better. Apple celebrates it, and in doing so, allies its brand with the height of aspiration.

Aspiration is true of all brands, not just Apple, though Apple modeled it best with “Think Different.” All brands offer something better, something to aspire to. A better product. A better lifestyle. A better self-image. A better value. Always better; never worse. Brands may fall short on delivering something better, but the goal is always aspirational.

Marketing succeeds by making aspiration persuasive. Or as Ted Levitt put it in another of his famous phrases, by getting and keeping a customer. Which begins with a better solution. This sort of forward-looking view is integral to business.

Business stands apart as intrinsically forward-looking and aspirational. All too often, politics gets stuck in the mud of retrenchment, reversals, slurs and slights. Many religious sects are more about iniquity and negation than uplift and exultation. There is plenty of elation to be found in sports and entertainment, but no shortage of dark shadows either. Looking up can be found in every arena, but only for business is it the very keystone of engagement and success.

This is why controversy is bad for business. Politicians can win with divide-and-conquer. They just need one more vote. Brands get big only by selling to everyone. Brands must be universally appealing and inspiring. Alienating customers is not in keeping with being aspirational.

This is also why marketers tend to follow trends rather than lead trends. Brands follow what people want and need—the problems people have. It’s not aspirational to deliver something people don’t want, need or even know about. This is not to say that brands shouldn’t raise people’s horizons with new ways of thinking. Only that brands aren’t about creating problems; brands are about solving problems.

Levitt’s contention that business is about getting and keeping customers echoed legendary management thinker Peter Drucker who said the same thing in his 1954 book, The Practice of Management—another book that should be on every marketer’s reading list. With ‘creating customers’ first and foremost, Drucker argued that only two functions are “basic”—marketing and innovation. “All the rest,” he wrote, “are costs.”

You don’t have to read between the lines to see that Drucker was saying that business is inherently aspirational. The truly forward-looking functions are marketing and innovation, and thus only these two functions are basic or essential. Because only these functions grow value.

Maybe the most important thing I’ve learned about marketing over the years is that marketing is the steward of aspiration, which is the essence of problem-solving and thus the heart and soul of business. Yet, many of the senior management leaders I’ve known and worked with relegate marketing to a position of secondary importance. I guess marketers don’t sell themselves as well as they should, but it’s also true that lots of companies succeed in spite of themselves. Because business is inherently aspirational.

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