In the contemporary era, brands have moved beyond being mere market elements to become silent protagonists of everyday life. They are present in the choices we make, the preferences we develop, and the symbolic relationships we build with products and services, often without realizing it. A brand no longer simply identifies an offering. It functions as a sophisticated system of meanings capable of influencing behavior with almost invisible effectiveness, which is, admittedly, both brilliant and slightly unsettling.
This understanding of the brand as a strategic construct consolidated throughout the 20th century, with decisive contributions from scholars such as David Aaker and Philip Kotler, who conceptualized it as a set of values, associations, and promises deliberately managed by organizations. The central assumption was clear and reassuring: control. Brands knew who they were, what they wanted to communicate, and how they wished to be perceived. They defined robust value propositions, built consistent identities, and used available media channels, from television to print to outdoor advertising, to disseminate a coherent narrative over time. The brand spoke, the public listened, and strategy fulfilled its role with a predictability that now feels almost nostalgic.
With the emergence of new communication channels, particularly digital platforms, this balance began to show cracks. Social media initially appeared as a natural extension of traditional channels, closer and more interactive, yet still relatively manageable. Content was adapted to the medium without major identity disruptions and remained aligned with the brand’s values and strategic vision. The dynamic seemed simple: the brand communicated, the consumer reacted, and the system remained functional, predictable, and, above all, manageable.
That time has passed. Today, a brand’s visibility depends less on its strategic intent, much to the frustration of strategists, and more on what algorithms decide to amplify. What appears in a feed rarely corresponds to what best expresses the brand’s identity. Instead, it reflects what maximizes clicks, shares, comments, and additional seconds of attention. The logic no longer rests on coherence or long-term vision. It responds to the momentary interests of algorithmic systems that, by definition, have no attachment to values, only to metrics.
The consequences of this transformation are profound and, in some cases, difficult to ignore. In the relentless race for reach and relevance, many brands have turned into true content production lines, constantly watching for the next trend, the next meme, or the next viral audio. Rapid adaptation has become the norm, even when it means communicating in ways that have little or nothing to do with the identity built over years. The result is fragmented communication, where strategic coherence gives way to algorithmic survival, in a constant effort to avoid disappearing from the feed, even at the expense of the brand’s own value proposition.
There are situations in which this adaptation reveals creativity, intelligence, and cultural awareness. In others, it comes dangerously close to identity dilution. Brands that once stood out for clear values end up replicating discourses and formats they would hardly recognize as their own, simply because they deliver strong performance results. An uncomfortable question inevitably arises: when a brand communicates something that does not reflect who it is, is it truly building brand equity, or merely competing for a few more seconds of attention?
This scenario creates a central strategic dilemma. Ignoring algorithms often means accepting irrelevance. Following them uncritically can turn brands into reactive entities, guided by short-term metrics and stripped of sustained strategic vision. Strategic control has not disappeared, but it has become more fragile, more negotiated, and frequently conditioned by external logics. The real challenge is not to defeat the algorithm, an obviously uneven battle, but to learn how to coexist with it. That means adapting formats without abandoning identity, following trends without sacrificing coherence, and accepting that not every piece of content needs to meet every performance metric.
In the end, the question may not be whether algorithms shape brands, but to what extent brands are willing to relinquish their own strategic decision-making in exchange for visibility. When everything is designed to please the algorithm, the risk is not only losing reach. It is losing meaning.
André Alves, Brand & Digital Marketing Diretor at CATÓLICA-LISBON