As consumers increasingly seek a more human touch and gravitate toward individual personalities over corporate entities, we at Manifest explored whether corporations still benefit from playing it safe to avoid alienating audiences or if embracing vulnerability has become an asset for personal brands in today’s market.

What is more influential: the collective voice and culture of corporations, or the individual values, beliefs, skills, and aspirations represented by personal brands?

Chandan Mendiratta (CM): Both voices are crucial. Corporations can achieve broad reach and recognition, while personal brands add authenticity and purpose. Early on, execution and product-market fit take precedence. As companies mature, personal branding becomes a significant lever, amplifying the entity’s brand values and driving organic growth.

Mona Jain (MJ): In today’s market, both the collective voice and culture of corporations and the individual values, beliefs, skills, and aspirations represented by personal brands can exert significant influence. The collective voice and culture of the organisation should be very well defined - which should be reflected in the individuals, and their value systems, acumen and skills. This should be aligned to the overall organisation’s aspirations. Individuals are important but strong organisations with strong value systems also value add to individuals’ strength and aspirations. Hence, both corporate voices and personal brands are influential in today’s market. Successful corporations may leverage individual influencers to enhance their brand appeal, while individuals can align themselves with corporations that reflect their values and aspirations.

In modern  communication strategies, what is more effective? A formal, polished tone used by corporations to appeal to a broader audience or the authentic, unique voice of personal brands?

CM: It depends on the product and its role in the customer’s life. Brands evolve with their customers, and so does their tone. The brand needs to understand the role it will play in the customer’s life. Essentially, the customer archetype. I favour everyday language that connects personally. As an everyday brand, we speak in the language of our customers. Relatability is key.

MJ: People are perceptive and can easily decipher if organisations are being sincere and transparent. The tonality should be one that sounds truthful and authentic. Personal brands thrive on authenticity and uniqueness, connecting deeply with their audience on a personal level. This voice is effective in building trust, loyalty, and engagement. Corporations also have the option to use the mode of tonality/positioning which projects authority and credibility through a consistent and professional tone, which in a way also builds confidence and reassures the audiences. 

When it comes to branding and publicity, which approach is more effective: the cautious stance of corporations fearing customer alienation by having strong opinions, or the bold stance of personal brands that assert clear stances on issues, risking both support and opposition?

CM: Brands should be bold yet balanced. Indifference is a brand’s enemy. Strong opinions can polarise, but without them, a brand risks becoming irrelevant. However, brands should avoid being preachy. Like business strategies, brand strategies require calculated risks. Bold ideas often face scrutiny, but they can also define a brand’s distinctiveness.

MJ: Today’s environment where consumers have evolved and ease of access to information has made them aware - they often prefer brands that stand for something meaningful and are contextually attuned. Asserting clear stances on matters of concern can build strong connections and lead to a highly engaged and loyal following. This can lead to a risk of alienating some consumers who would disagree hence, it’s extremely important to have convincing and consistent communication, which will garner trust. Effectiveness depends on strategic alignment with the brand’s values, aligned to the preferences of the target audience, and the specific positioning in which the point of view or perspective is projected or communicated.

What are your views on vulnerability? Is it seen as a liability for corporations or as an asset that makes one feel real and relatable, allowing for evolution and changes of heart?

CM: Relatability is an asset. Brands, like humans, make mistakes, and acknowledging them makes brands real and relatable. Brand strategies reflect human decisions and leadership. A ship in the harbour is safe, but that is not what a ship is for.

MJ: In current times – showing vulnerability can be seen as a willingness to be and relate on a common platform with consumers.

Vulnerability can be an asset. It makes corporations look more approachable and relatable to their customers and individuals. We would have observed that when leaders and brands show vulnerability, they garner more respect and connect at an emotional level which will translate into stronger bonds and connections. It essentially portrays a willingness to learn from mistakes and unlearn from all the negative feedback one may receive and evolve from there. This leads to a unified and progressive organisation – which adapts to change, and an open culture which encourages the exchange of ideas and feedback. It improves relationships with partners. Vulnerability should be managed well and sensitively, and the endeavour should be to mitigate any risks – which could lead to negative resonation of culture.

(This article first appeared in the July print issue of Manifest, part of the monthly 'Perspectives' feature. Buy your copy here)