Brands used to own the microphone. Now everyone has one.

A stunt by The North Face demonstrated the true role of brands in 2026, says senior creative Herman Dias, who calls for companies to consider their true place in the culture.

In 2023, Jennifer Jensen was hiking through New Zealand wearing a supposedly waterproof jacket from The North Face. Unfortunately, nobody appeared to have told the jacket it was supposed to be waterproof.

So there she was, soaked on a mountainside, doing what any frustrated customer with a smartphone might do: filming a TikTok calling out the brand and jokingly demanding a replacement.

The video went viral. Imagine arriving at work in The North Face's comms department to discover one very wet customer had put your global brand on the spot. You could issue a carefully worded statement about your unwavering commitment to customer satisfaction. Apologise for any inconvenience caused. Promise to investigate.

Or you could send a helicopter.

Which is exactly what The North Face did. It arranged to deliver a replacement jacket by helicopter, turning an embarrassing complaint into wonderfully entertaining publicity. 

Sometimes the best way to defend your reputation is to stop defending it and just make things right with a bit of creativity and humour.

Everyone has a microphone. And they're not all saying the same thing.

One unhappy customer is one thing. But what happens when the people who matter to your business want completely different things? Customers want lower prices. Employees want better wages. Shareholders want bigger returns. Campaigners want environmental commitments. And everyone expects their priorities to come first.

Now you've got a reputation challenge that no clever press release can solve. 

Every decision risks pleasing one group while upsetting another. So whose side do you take?

Personally, I think that's the wrong question. We're quick to frame stakeholder relationships as a tug-of-war. If customers win, shareholders lose. If employees get more, profits must suffer.

But does it have to work that way?

Look at Iceland's decision at Christmas 2023.

While other supermarkets competed to produce lavish festive TV adverts, Iceland decided not to run one at all. Instead, during a cost-of-living crisis, it put the money towards keeping prices down. And I think that's rather genius.

While everyone else was spending money telling customers how much they cared, Iceland found a way to demonstrate it. 

It wasn't necessarily the most creative advertising campaign. It was something better: a clever business decision that became a powerful piece of communication without needing an advert.

And the beauty of it? Customers got better value, employees had a decision they could feel proud of, and shareholders had a business giving people another reason to shop there. Suddenly, what looked like competing stakeholder interests didn't seem so incompatible after all.

Of course, not every disagreement has a neat win-win solution. You can't promise lower prices, higher wages and bigger profits indefinitely without somebody paying for it.

That's when reputation is really tested: can you make a fair decision, explain who it affects and stand behind it? You might not win everyone's approval. But you can still earn their respect.

Maybe brands don't need an opinion on everything.

Politics and social media seem to demand a position on everything. Brands increasingly feel obliged to join in. But does someone buying a waterproof jacket really need to know where its manufacturer stands on every political issue? Maybe they just want a jacket that keeps the rain out.

Before joining the latest controversy, I'd ask: do we actually have something meaningful to contribute? Does this issue genuinely affect our business or the people we have a responsibility towards? Or are we overstepping our role as a business that, ultimately, exists to sell products and services? And most importantly, are we prepared to back our words with action?

If yes, speak up and mean it. If not, there's nothing wrong with staying silent. Knowing when not to join the conversation can earn you more respect in the long run than having an opinion on everything.

Don't confuse control with trust

Businesses sometimes become so obsessed with managing perceptions that they forget the most effective way to build a good reputation is to give people genuinely good experiences.

Take my local chicken shop, Morley's. In a fiercely competitive fast-food market, it won my loyalty through something remarkably simple: tasty wings, affordable prices, and occasionally giving customers a little more than they paid for. Order three wings, and sometimes you'd open the box to discover five.

No grand marketing campaign. No lecture about corporate values. Just a couple of unexpected extra wings. And that's the kind of thing people remember.

Good reputation is built through experiences that leave people feeling that a business is on their side. That goodwill becomes especially valuable when a brand is under pressure.

Empower people, and they'll become your greatest advocates.

Perhaps that's where boardroom conversations need to change. Instead of asking how to get more out of people, what if we asked how giving people more could help the business achieve more?

Customers who feel valued return and recommend you. Employees who feel respected are better placed to deliver those experiences. Investors have an interest in a business people want to support.

These interests won't always align. But we should look for the connections before assuming someone has to lose.

And perhaps those internal conversations need to start with a little less discussion about what the brand wants to say, and a little more curiosity about what customers actually want to hear.

Before approving another grand statement, ask the people closest to your customers whether it reflects their reality. Because a message that sounds brilliant in a boardroom can feel completely out of touch in the real world.

We spend millions on advertising and PR trying to build loyalty, trust and advocacy.

Perhaps we're overcomplicating it.