Brand Strategy Diary Series | Part 2
Diary reflections of a marketer on brand strategy and its core pillars — purpose, positioning, brand experience, governance and meaning (with the growing suspicion that none of them work without people, trust and a few unexpected companions along the way).
⸻
“If you want to know what a company really values, don’t read the mission statement. Watch what happens when things get uncomfortable.”
— Almost Peter Drucker, probably said sometime between a board meeting and a deep sigh
Dear Diary,
I used to think misalignment announced itself loudly — through debates, escalations, or dramatic exits.
In reality, it often arrives much more politely, disguised as a perfectly reasonable suggestion to adjust the rules once reality stops behaving as planned.
This is one of those moments I still come back to.
🟨 Post-it 1: When brand experience meets the boardroom
Earlier in my career, I was involved in building a customer community at a time when “community strategy” wasn’t yet a recognised term.
The intent was clear, sensible — and widely supported at the start:
- connect customers with each other
- create a space for learning and shared experience
- allow honest questions and visible answers
The community worked.
People engaged.
They helped each other.
Trust began to form — quietly, without a launch deck celebrating it.
And then, inevitably, reality showed up.
Some customers began to express disappointment — publicly.
Not outrage.
Not drama.
Just thoughtful, inconvenient dissatisfaction.
That was the moment when enthusiasm started to cool — not inside the community, but one organisational layer above it.
Wizard, when does a brand philosophy start feeling risky to leadership?
🔮📈 CMO Wizard answers:
When openness begins to surface outcomes that weren’t part of the original success narrative. Transparency feels inspiring until it reveals uncertainty, criticism or loss of control.
🟨 Post-it 2: Transparency is not a value — it’s a governance choice
The proposed solution was, on paper, entirely reasonable:
- move the conversation to a more controlled space
- introduce stricter moderation
- reduce the visibility of negative feedback
From a governance perspective, it sounded responsible.
From a brand experience perspective, it felt like treating the symptom while carefully avoiding the diagnosis.
Because nothing fundamental had changed:
- not the community
- not the product
- not the customer expectations
Only the organisation’s tolerance for seeing reality — in public — had shifted.
That’s when the uncomfortable insight landed:
👉 Transparency isn’t something you announce.
👉 It’s something leadership commits to — especially when it starts testing nerves.
And without that commitment, community initiatives tend to be brave on day one… and fragile the moment things get complicated.
Wiz, is transparency always the right choice for a brand?
🔮📈 CMO Wizard answers:
Transparency is never automatic. It must be consciously chosen, owned and defended by leadership. Without alignment, it collapses under pressure.
🟨 Post-it 3: Community doesn’t create tension — it reveals it
Community has an unfair reputation for “causing issues”.
In reality, it’s more like a mirror — slightly unforgiving, but very accurate.
Community doesn’t manufacture dissatisfaction.
It simply makes it visible.
It reveals:
- how feedback is handled
- whose voice is welcome
- what happens when expectations aren’t met
Which is why community often feels uncomfortable at scale: it shortens the distance between brand values and actual behaviour.
It quickly becomes clear whether:
- learning is genuinely encouraged
- trust exists beyond slideware
- values survive contact with real people
And when those things aren’t aligned, the tension doesn’t stay hidden for long — even if everyone would very much like it to.
Wizard, why do community strategies so often struggle once they scale?
🔮📈 CMO Wizard answers:
Because they are launched as engagement initiatives instead of leadership commitments. Community exposes governance gaps faster than organisations can reconcile them.
💜 Note to self: The A–B–C lens for introducing community to leadership
Before launching — or scaling — any brand community, I now come back to three strategic questions leadership must answer together.
A — Align
Why does this community exist?
- What role does it play in the overall brand experience?
- What outcomes are we genuinely prepared to support?
- What trade-offs are we willing to accept?
B — Belong
Who is this space really for?
- Who belongs here — and who doesn’t?
- What behaviour is acceptable?
- How much disagreement are we willing to host publicly?
C — Contribute
What are we prepared to hear — and respond to?
- Are we ready for feedback we didn’t script?
- Who owns the response when things get uncomfortable?
- How visible are we willing to be when learning happens in public?
If leadership can’t align on these questions, the community isn’t ready — no matter how good the platform or concept looks.
🟨 My conclusion post-it 4: The lesson that stayed with me
That experience didn’t make me sceptical about community.
It made me more precise about what community actually requires.
Community is not a marketing layer. It’s a leadership mirror.
It quietly asks organisations to choose:
- learning over control
- trust over polish
- behaviour over slogans
And not every organisation is ready for that choice — at least not yet.
Quest for ROMI 
Leave a comment