I want it all and I want it now

Since its release in the 1980s, Queen’s hit I Want It All has never felt more relevant. Growing up with a mother who was a die-hard Freddie Mercury fan, I heard that song countless times at home. Now, it often comes to mind because it could easily be the anthem of our era.

Time is a precious, scarce resource, and the sense of urgency resonates more strongly than ever in today’s society. Naturally, this urgency extends to the world of branding. We want brands that are committed, embody values, and act consistently.

In today’s fast-paced world, our impatience demands that brands be fully dedicated and unwaveringly consistent – right here, right now. Mixing today’s impatience with purpose and politics in the age of polarization creates the perfect storm.
 

THE DIVISIVE CONCEPT OF PURPOSE

 
Recently, “purpose” has become the buzzword in marketing. Study after study confirms that today’s consumers not only want quality products and services but also demand genuine commitment from brands to address social, environmental, and governance challenges.

Consumption trends show that we buy from companies that reflect our values because they make us feel part of the solution. At the same time, we boycott those that don’t because we think that, in doing so, we’re helping to prevent the planet’s problems.

Large multinationals across multiple sectors have embraced this philosophy, developing sustainability and social responsibility plans aimed at reducing their environmental footprint and promoting equality and community well-being. Meanwhile, new companies have emerged with these principles already at their core, building their business models and brand narratives on ethical values.

However, the concept of purpose has had time to spark polarization among brand-building professionals. Opinions vary widely, with some viewing it as greenwashing or forced. It’s also led to activist CEOs being celebrated in some cases and ousted in others for championing it
 

BRANDS ARE NOT POLARIZING—POLITICS IS

 
When brands take a stand, they risk getting caught up in polarization, which is rooted in politics. Consumers’ reactions fluctuate between fierce loyalty—”love brand”—and outright hostility—”brand rage.” A prime example of this is the famous sneaker campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick. While many Americans praised the campaign, others called for a boycott, even going as far as publicly burning their sneakers.

The declining social consensus presents a major challenge for brands, particularly the larger, more powerful ones. These brands often rely on a broad, inclusive range of values, but that clashes with a society that tends to express its core values in starkly opposing terms, as Miller and Bolte suggest. Today, values and social causes are deeply politicized, and it’s at this intersection where brands and polarization collide.
 

THE MESSENGER MATTERS

 
Generation Z values authenticity and prefers peerto-peer communication over traditional corporate messaging. They trust their peers more than big companies. This creates an additional challenge for brands: it’s no longer just about whether or not to engage with purpose or which social cause to align with, but ultimately, the opportunity might not lie in the message itself—but in who delivers it.

The messenger is either the biggest hurdle or a key enabler. Gen Z craves authenticity, so brands face the dual challenge—and opportunity—of developing influence strategies where key opinion leaders (KOLs), employees, and influencers (macro, micro, and nano) become the voice of their purpose. Their authority can resonate far more effectively than any corporate spokesperson.
 

TRANSFORMATION TAKES TIME

 
We’re seeing that social commitment is no longer optional; it’s essential. The key is to pursue it authentically and thoughtfully while also choosing messengers who bring the most credibility.

Brands must also recognize that by positioning themselves on social and values-driven issues, they’re inevitably stepping into the political arena, where polarization is unavoidable.

But what about the factor of time in this era of polarization? I can’t help but think that impatience fuels polarization—it’s the perfect breeding ground. I often notice an overwhelming demand for brands to display extreme coherence in their actions, decisions, and messaging, even when they openly acknowledge that their plans for change will take time—sometimes decades.

There’s something incredibly positive about these expectations for brands, as they reinforce the idea that brands can be social agents of change. But, too often, we lose sight of the fact that any process of transformation or evolution requires time.

If we don’t give brands the time to move toward positive social, environmental, and governance impacts, they may decide it’s not worth the effort. They may opt out of the polarization game altogether, focusing instead on short-term commercial gains. It would be a shame—but, of course, there will always be those who see things differently.