Meta’s moves aren’t just corporate policy shifts, they’re signals. Signals to investors, regulators, and an audience that’s either too distracted to notice or too jaded to care. But as history shows, brand erosion doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a slow decay, and once trust is gone, it’s almost impossible to rebuild (just ask MySpace).
Thank you for this deep dive Kira! I completely agree with: “The brands that build on consistent values and genuine human connection…are playing the long game, even when shareholders and political winds push for short-term thinking.” As these big players are loudly killing their DEI programs and rolling back any inclusive messaging, it’s scaring mid-size and small brands into thinking they should do the same.
For all the reasons you explained, these brands probably shouldn’t abandon their values. But in tough economic times, they are worried and feel like, well, if Trump won the popular vote, maybe their values are alienating those voters and perhaps their customers don’t care about inclusivity after all. I’ve been thinking about this lot, and I feel it's a major fallacy. I actually believe this is now a huge differentiation opportunity for small and mid-size companies to double down on their values. Brands searching for growth always fall into the trap of trying to be everything to everyone, which was never a good idea, but current cultural polarization makes that clearly impossible. So brands need to define - who is your actual target market, and what are their values?
If you’re targeting women with high disposable incomes, what are THEIR values? If you’re targeting young consumers between the ages of 18-35, what do they care about? 80% of women 18-29 believe we’re not doing enough to protect the environment and 60% think abortion should be legal in nearly all circumstances. 69% of all Americans support same-sex marriage (Gallup, 2024). Align to the values of your target instead of blindly following billionaires into the abyss. And if people outside of your target market are getting angry and trolling your social posts - just ignore it. They don’t matter. You’re building loyalty with the people who actually matter to your business.
Brands trying to be everything to everyone is a trap I've seen over and over, and you're right that our current cultural climate makes it not just ineffective but, now, totally impossible. The demographic values data you shared is exactly the kind of insight that *should* be driving brand strategy decisions.
I especially like your point about ignoring trolls outside your target market. This is something I coach brand teams on frequently—if you're not getting any pushback, you might not have a strong enough point of view. The goal isn't to be controversial, but to be clear and opinionated about who you're for and what you stand for.
Meta and Amazon's decisions feel particularly cynical because they're abandoning values that clearly align with their core users' beliefs, especially younger demographics. You hit on something I wish I'd emphasized more in the post—for smaller companies, this creates an opening. While the giants chase political winds, brands that maintain consistent values and authentic connections with their actual target audience will likely find themselves with more loyal customers, not fewer.
The key is exactly what you've outlined—know your *actual* target market, understand their values deeply, and build genuine connections with them. Everything else is noise.
Thanks for your response! I might write a post about it. I've found it to be a struggle in my work in-house at brands, as I don't think I've yet managed to build those coaching skills to talk leadership out of their spiral cycle on this topic. And I'm sure plenty of people felt the same in their roles, as we saw barely any brands say anything during/after the election. After weeks of sharing this sort of data and debating, I was finally able to convince them we should at least not post anything on social (rather than continue with tone deaf product content). But I was so impressed by the way Saie approached it, for instance - very clear, very confident.
The thing for me is that Patagonia etc are exception rather than the norm, I personally think it’s hard to find any kind of ‘values’ in Facebook/Meta’s existence, like most businesses their existence is to make money (in their case for MZ) rather than some Simon Sinek-esque ‘start with why’ reason. Most consumers are not buying/using based on brand values, they are using based on ease of mental and physical availability and these large tech platforms have incredible amounts of both. I hope the markets allow for more competition soon, it’s depressing to think MZ has so much power.
I actually completely agree—Facebook never really had "values" in the way we talk about brand values today (it literally started out as a "hot or not" app), but as they grew they did have a story they told themselves and the world about connecting people and making the world more open, which helped attract talent and build trust with users early on.
What's interesting now isn't that they're choosing profit over values (they always did), but how explicitly they're abandoning even the pretense of caring about user wellbeing. You're absolutely right that most users won't leave—the platforms have too much lock-in through mental and physical availability, as you said. That's exactly what makes it feel so cynical. And without real alternatives, we're stuck with platforms optimizing for engagement and profit at any cost.
This is immensely gratifying to read. An exceptional and insightful analysis.
Thank you, Silvia—I'm glad it resonated!
Meta’s moves aren’t just corporate policy shifts, they’re signals. Signals to investors, regulators, and an audience that’s either too distracted to notice or too jaded to care. But as history shows, brand erosion doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a slow decay, and once trust is gone, it’s almost impossible to rebuild (just ask MySpace).
Thanks for the mention, glad to discover your newsletter!
Brilliant post. I wonder how many brands will want to avoid activating on these platforms in the future - I suppose time will tell as we've not seen the ramifications of these terms just yet. I also read this piece about the Edelman Trust Barometer for 2025 and it is seriously bleak. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2025/01/21/richard-edelman-warns-highly-aggrieved-world-hostile-activism-rises?mod=djemCMOToday
Thank you for this deep dive Kira! I completely agree with: “The brands that build on consistent values and genuine human connection…are playing the long game, even when shareholders and political winds push for short-term thinking.” As these big players are loudly killing their DEI programs and rolling back any inclusive messaging, it’s scaring mid-size and small brands into thinking they should do the same.
For all the reasons you explained, these brands probably shouldn’t abandon their values. But in tough economic times, they are worried and feel like, well, if Trump won the popular vote, maybe their values are alienating those voters and perhaps their customers don’t care about inclusivity after all. I’ve been thinking about this lot, and I feel it's a major fallacy. I actually believe this is now a huge differentiation opportunity for small and mid-size companies to double down on their values. Brands searching for growth always fall into the trap of trying to be everything to everyone, which was never a good idea, but current cultural polarization makes that clearly impossible. So brands need to define - who is your actual target market, and what are their values?
If you’re targeting women with high disposable incomes, what are THEIR values? If you’re targeting young consumers between the ages of 18-35, what do they care about? 80% of women 18-29 believe we’re not doing enough to protect the environment and 60% think abortion should be legal in nearly all circumstances. 69% of all Americans support same-sex marriage (Gallup, 2024). Align to the values of your target instead of blindly following billionaires into the abyss. And if people outside of your target market are getting angry and trolling your social posts - just ignore it. They don’t matter. You’re building loyalty with the people who actually matter to your business.
Brands trying to be everything to everyone is a trap I've seen over and over, and you're right that our current cultural climate makes it not just ineffective but, now, totally impossible. The demographic values data you shared is exactly the kind of insight that *should* be driving brand strategy decisions.
I especially like your point about ignoring trolls outside your target market. This is something I coach brand teams on frequently—if you're not getting any pushback, you might not have a strong enough point of view. The goal isn't to be controversial, but to be clear and opinionated about who you're for and what you stand for.
Meta and Amazon's decisions feel particularly cynical because they're abandoning values that clearly align with their core users' beliefs, especially younger demographics. You hit on something I wish I'd emphasized more in the post—for smaller companies, this creates an opening. While the giants chase political winds, brands that maintain consistent values and authentic connections with their actual target audience will likely find themselves with more loyal customers, not fewer.
The key is exactly what you've outlined—know your *actual* target market, understand their values deeply, and build genuine connections with them. Everything else is noise.
Thank you for this incredibly thoughtful comment!
Thanks for your response! I might write a post about it. I've found it to be a struggle in my work in-house at brands, as I don't think I've yet managed to build those coaching skills to talk leadership out of their spiral cycle on this topic. And I'm sure plenty of people felt the same in their roles, as we saw barely any brands say anything during/after the election. After weeks of sharing this sort of data and debating, I was finally able to convince them we should at least not post anything on social (rather than continue with tone deaf product content). But I was so impressed by the way Saie approached it, for instance - very clear, very confident.
The thing for me is that Patagonia etc are exception rather than the norm, I personally think it’s hard to find any kind of ‘values’ in Facebook/Meta’s existence, like most businesses their existence is to make money (in their case for MZ) rather than some Simon Sinek-esque ‘start with why’ reason. Most consumers are not buying/using based on brand values, they are using based on ease of mental and physical availability and these large tech platforms have incredible amounts of both. I hope the markets allow for more competition soon, it’s depressing to think MZ has so much power.
I actually completely agree—Facebook never really had "values" in the way we talk about brand values today (it literally started out as a "hot or not" app), but as they grew they did have a story they told themselves and the world about connecting people and making the world more open, which helped attract talent and build trust with users early on.
What's interesting now isn't that they're choosing profit over values (they always did), but how explicitly they're abandoning even the pretense of caring about user wellbeing. You're absolutely right that most users won't leave—the platforms have too much lock-in through mental and physical availability, as you said. That's exactly what makes it feel so cynical. And without real alternatives, we're stuck with platforms optimizing for engagement and profit at any cost.