There is a particular scene in a brand’s marketing video where the narration becomes quieter, the music becomes softer, and a representative of the company’s communications department describes, with obvious emotion, the challenges the business encountered in its early years. The founders were outsiders. They were turned down by the industry. The establishment had little faith in what they were constructing. And now, because they know what it’s like to be ignored, they are here for you, the customer.
One of the most dependable models in modern brand storytelling is the villain origin tale. Its framework is straight out of fiction: a hero who, after being let down by the world, turns into a villain and ultimately redeems themselves by venting their suffering. When applied to a business, it basically looks like this: identify an adversary (an industry, an algorithm, a malfunctioning system), assert that you and your client are experiencing similar difficulties, and then present your product as the way forward. Instead than just making a purchase, the customer is asked to participate.
It’s easy to see why this is appealing. Stories about someone or something overcoming adversity elicit reactions from people. The underdog narrative appears to be effective in DTC mattress companies and fintech startups, as well as in politics, sports, and Hollywood. The mechanisms of empathy remain the same regardless of the person using them. What shifts is whether the empathy is genuine or fake, and in the business setting, that question merits closer examination than it typically receives.
A billion-dollar corporation that describes its “villain origin story” is engaging in a certain activity: it is appropriating the emotional impact of real systemic struggle and affixing it to a brand identity that supports a business model. The “broken industry” that the corporation says it is fighting frequently turns out to be the same industry in which it already operates, at the same prices, and with the same behaviors that it denounced. The story’s opponent serves to humanize the brand. Not because there has been any real disruption caused by the brand.
The way it affects customers who have legitimate grounds for mistrusting organizations is what elevates this above a simple PR annoyance. A person has a genuine connection to systemic failure if they have been turned down for a bank loan, had a landlord ignore their calls, or seen their income stagnant while prices increased. A brand is not engaging with a customer when it presents itself as a fellow traveler in that event. It’s taking advantage of a complaint in order to make a sale.
Marketing research companies keep a close eye on this. Communications teams create vulnerability to fit the emotional storylines that appeal to particular demographics based on consumer sentiment data. A/B testing was used to calibrate the “human” voice in the brand’s social media post. Before being published, the “authentic” founding tale underwent multiple rounds of messaging strategy.
This strategy has a short shelf life when it isn’t supported by real activity since consumers are catching on. Audiences are becoming more vigilant due to the pushback against manufactured empathy, including charges of “woke-washing” and the expanding list of companies found to be acting contrary to their stated beliefs. People want to see policies and actions, not carefully crafted emotional backstories, according to data from the Edelman Trust Barometer, which has been monitoring eroding institutional trust for years.
