In recent years, we've witnessed a new phenomenon: new brands and software companies alike emerge seemingly overnight, challenging established players with promises of better quality at lower prices. These upstarts, often founded by small teams or solo entrepreneurs, burst onto the scene with a distinct aesthetic and a heavy social media presence.

From eCommerce SaaS disruptors to "dupe" consumer products, these newcomers share a common spirit—bold comparisons, defiant marketing, and carefully crafted (and very-online) personas. Yet, many disappear just as quickly as they appeared, either through public downfalls or quiet fade into obscurity. We can all name the names.

But this trend isn't merely brought about by economic conditions or algorithmic influence. It's a symptom of a deeper shift in how both brands and influencers must operate in our hyper-connected world.

Welcome to the age of the Potemkin Brand—where facades aren't just marketing tools but necessary adaptations to the nature of digital communication itself.

In this global digital theater, brands have become both performers and audience members, constantly adapting their identities at the speed of light. To understand this phenomenon, we must examine how technology has transformed the very essence of brand identity and consumer interaction.

The Rise of the Facade: Brands in the Digital Age

The blame for all these upstart samey-samey brands is often placed on two phenomena of our time: ZIRP-era money and the algorithm. ZIRP blamers cite the VC formula for growth leading to a specific aesthetic that seemed to be necessary to achieve credibility for scale and “unlimited” money available to pursue it. Algo-blamers cite increasing sameness or “flatness” because of recommendation engines that guide users down specific holes that are increasingly difficult to stray from once in. Consumers buy an item, and the algo thinks that’s all they care about, and they end up in a rut of similar content and products, which leads to… more of the same content and products. Brands build for that algo-hole because it’s the only way they’ll be surfaced to the users. The cycle is completed on both sides of the consumer-brand relationship, and there’s no way out.

There’s truth to both of these arguments. However, now we’ve seen ZIRP money run out and algos break down, but the samey-samey brands abide. I will argue that these explanations for what’s happening are symptoms more than root causes. There’s a more profound movement that’s driving us toward flatness. It’s embedded like electronic communication.

The mere fact that we’re communicating at the speed of light drives us toward this spirit—the spirit of the facade—and it will continue to do so. Companies now, whether they sell goods or software, or perhaps even services (although maybe to a lesser extent because they require the most presence), are players in a global theater that requires a costume; or in other words, a uniform. The play can change quickly—at the speed of light—but uniform-ity is now necessary to engage in Commerce.

The proliferation of these uniform brands and software is not merely a symptom of economic conditions or algorithmic influence but a fundamental adaptation to the nature of communication in our global digital theater. The speed and reach of electronic communication have created an environment where brands must simultaneously perform and consume cultural narratives, leading to uniformity in their quest for distinctiveness. 

Global Theater: The World’s a Stage

“Since Sputnik [launched in 1957] put the globe in a ‘proscenium arch,’... the global village has been transformed into a global theater” - Marshall McLuhan, From Cliche to Archetype

“When you put a satellite environment around the planet, the planet ceases to be the human environment. The planet drops out. It becomes an art form.” - Marshall McLuhan, A Picnic in Space

The fulfillment of Shakespeare’s iconic words (‘all the world’s a stage’) was fully realized when satellites were launched.  There is no difference between actors and audience; we are the characters of a play that we consume. This is true for brands as well. In this global theater, brands must both consume and produce cultural narratives. They must absorb societal trends, values, and consumer behaviors and then project reimagined versions of them back onto the world stage. This dual role blurs the lines between authenticity and performance, as brands must constantly adapt their personas to remain relevant while maintaining a sense of core identity. The result is a complex dance of influence and adaptation, where brands both shape and are shaped by the cultural zeitgeist.

Brands must now be acutely aware of their role as cultural participants, not just commercial entities. They must engage in real-time dialogue with their audience, responding to global events, social movements, and emerging trends with agility and sensitivity. This requires brands to develop a keen sense of cultural intelligence and to cultivate a flexible, responsive identity that can evolve with the rapidly changing global narrative. The most successful brands in this new landscape will be those that can authentically embody the values and aspirations of their audience while also contributing meaningfully to broader societal conversations.

This concept challenges traditional notions of brand loyalty and consumer identity. As brands become active participants in cultural discourse, consumers increasingly align themselves with brands that reflect their values and worldviews. This alignment goes beyond mere product preference; it becomes a form of self-expression and social signaling. Consumers, in turn, become brand ambassadors, amplifying and reinterpreting brand messages through their actions and social media presence. This creates a feedback loop where the lines between brand narrative and personal identity become increasingly blurred.

Potemkin Brands: When Brands Become Performers

Just as individuals construct carefully curated personas to navigate social interactions and mask their flaws, brands must create elaborate facades to project an idealized image to their audience.

This reminds me of Potemkin villages. In the 18th century, Russian minister Grigory Potemkin allegedly erected fake portable village facades to hide the reality of certain Crimean towns from Empress Catherine the Great while she floated by them on a barge. The term has taken on metaphorical meaning—employing a front to give the appearance that a situation is better than it actually is.

In our global theater, Potemkin villages take on a new significance. All brands—like people—must participate in the new environment. Potemkin brands reflect both aspirational ideals and the collective insecurities of the people behind them. Digital media has created an environment where the line between authentic representation and strategic illusion must merge. This is the metamodern: the act becomes the actors becomes the act. The employees become the brand becomes the employees. The brand becomes the customers become the brand (hence The Multiplayer Brand).

Whether it’s brands roleplaying the idealized facade or the North Korean village of Kijŏng-dong outside the DMZ, Potemkin villages are a modern construct that has very real psychological impacts on perceptions today.

In a world where information travels at the speed of light, consumers are constantly bombarded with stimuli. A facade acts as a shorthand, allowing entities to quickly communicate their essence in a crowded marketplace. It's a form of cognitive efficiency, both for the sender and receiver of information. The speed of digital interaction also often doesn't allow for nuanced, gradual understanding. First impressions become disproportionately important. A carefully constructed facade helps manage these critical first moments of interaction.

The reach of competition in this new world also places a burden on brands. The facade is necessary for multi-touch interactions. Brands and individuals must project an image that can resonate across diverse cultures and contexts. This necessitates a certain level of abstraction, which the facade provides. The facade helps manage the gap between reality and expectation. In a world where perfection is often presented as the norm, becoming a Potemkin brand helps align with these near-impossible standards.

Given these pressures, the role of social media management becomes paramount. Instinctively, the social media manager becomes the key hire:

For new brands, this often means the founder or a key employee takes up the mantle. This voice must both lean in personally and professionally to complete the facade. They become the ultimate embodiment of the Potemkin village we've been discussing—a living, breathing facade that must appear authentic while strategically curating every aspect of their public presence. 

The facade, then, isn't just about deception. It's a necessary adaptation to the conditions of the global village, where instant communication requires instant comprehension and where the complexity of reality must often be distilled into more easily digestible forms. 

The Uniformity Paradox: Standing Out by Fitting In

This costume, required to participate in the global theater, is both a shield and a straightjacket. It provides the necessary visibility to exist in a light-speed marketplace, but it also constrains, flattening unique identities into recognizable types. It’s also a fragile line. Stray too close to authenticity or costume and watch your house tumble down as people call you out. 

The uniformity we perceive in brands, despite their carefully constructed facades, stems from a shared underlying reality that becomes increasingly apparent to discerning consumers. Most brands face similar challenges and operate under comparable pressures. They all grapple with market competition, consumer demands, supply chain issues, employee retention, and the need for continuous innovation. These universal struggles create a corporate homogeneity that seeps through even the most meticulously crafted brand images. As consumers become more savvy, they can increasingly see through the glossy exteriors to the familiar patterns beneath.

The very tools and strategies brands use to differentiate themselves often lead to further sameness. Social media playbooks, marketing best practices, and even the language of brand purpose and values have created the opposite of the desired effect; in trying to stand out, brands blend in.

Superficial differences in aesthetics or messaging barely conceal the fundamental similarities in how brands operate and the challenges they face. This pervasive sameness and the transparency of brand facades can lead to a complex mix of emotions and attitudes among consumers. Many experience a growing sense of cynicism and fatigue towards brand messaging, viewing even seemingly authentic communications with skepticism.

This coincides with the consumer feeling manipulated, confirmed by the fact they’ve become increasingly aware of the strategic nature behind every brand interaction. This can result in a kind of emotional detachment from brands, where loyalty is now transactional and less about genuine connection. Consumers are disillusioned, realizing that the brands they once viewed as unique or special are, in fact, facing the same mundane challenges as any other business. 

This awareness can also lead to a more pragmatic approach to consumption. Some consumers are prioritizing tangible value over emotional appeals—hence the rise of dupes. Other consumers find themselves attracted to smaller and local businesses. So now, breaking through consumer indifference and establishing meaningful connections has become more difficult, despite—or perhaps because of—the elaborate facades they construct.

“I know there are plenty of great products being created and brought to market in the DTC format,” wrote Future Commerce’s own Jesse Tyler in ‘These Brands I Trust.’ “But there are a lot more half-assed knockoffs reskinned to catch your eye while you mindlessly tap through Instagram stories… this familiar look and feel has wholly imploded on itself. Beauty has become a reverse indicator.”

Aesthetics are costumes. The world of DTC caught up with Jesse and started producing more organic-looking and feeling brands. Now, even that costume has entered its established era and will eventually decline.

The digital narrative is shifting faster and faster. A costume can come and go in a week or even a weekend. The blue color from the Blue Screen of Death was here this weekend due to the Crowdstrike issue, but it will be gone by the time you’re done with this article.

Digital Tools: Shaping Brand Behavior

Digital platforms and software solutions, from social media management tools to customer relationship management systems, are not passive instruments but active shapers of brand identity and behavior. They come with built-in affordances, limitations, and best practices that subtly guide brands toward certain types of expression and interaction. For instance, the character limits on Twitter have influenced brand voices to become more concise and punchy. At the same time, Instagram's visual focus has pushed brands to prioritize aesthetic coherence and visual storytelling. The more the brand relies on a specific platform to grow, the more it caters to the tools it affords them.

These digital tools often embody certain values and methodologies that seep into the brands that use them. Agile project management software can foster a culture of iterative development and rapid response within a brand, while deep reliance on a data analytics tool might push a brand towards more metrics-driven decision-making. The very roles within the company begin to shift. Look at the role of the CMO. When companies relied on ad spreads and TV spots for growth, the role was for the creative visionary—the Don Drapers of the past. Now, the CMO is less of a visionary and more of a data manager, pushing brands to shift the title to Chief Marketing and Digital Officer; even eliminating the role altogether in favor of just having a CDO.

The algorithms that power these tools - designed to optimize engagement, reach, or conversion—begin to shape brand strategy itself, influencing everything from content creation to product development. This creates a feedback loop where brands, in their quest to maximize the effectiveness of these tools, increasingly align their operations and communications with the logic of the software. The result is a subtle homogenization of brand behavior across industries, as diverse companies adopt similar digital toolsets and, consequently, similar approaches to engaging with their audiences.

The Coming Split: Authenticity vs. Digital Personas

The necessity of maintaining a facade while striving for authenticity creates a complex dance of perception and reality. The tools brands use to communicate and operate have become integral to their identity, blurring the lines between the brand, the consumer, and the technology that connects them.

Looking ahead, we may see a bifurcation in brand strategies. Some may double down on their digital facades, leveraging AI and advanced analytics to create ever more tailored and responsive brand personas. Others might reject this approach, emphasizing tangible value and “realness” over image. Regardless of the path chosen, the era of the static, unchanging brand is over. In our global digital theater, adaptability, authenticity, and a keen understanding of the interplay between technology and human perception will be key to brand survival and success.