The Problem With “Main Character Energy” In A Purpose-Driven Brand Strategy

Words by Sian Henderson

The post–International Women’s Day hangover and what this exposes about how big brands operate.

Post–International Women’s Day, I always find myself reflecting for weeks… On the campaigns that took the stage (cue: it’s all about me energy). The taglines trying to say “we get it” (written somewhere high up in an advertising office). And the women still working diligently while bleeding, drained of energy, stuck in uncomfortable environments, and being told they can’t work from home — but hey, have a pink muffin.

Don’t get me wrong, I love that we have this day. I back the people who try rather than sit still. And before anyone gets their boxers in a twist, I genuinely do love free food. The men in my life, too? Total allies. I feel lucky.

But every year, I’m left thinking the same thing: brands and corporate leaders hold an enormous amount of power, influence, and infrastructure — and yet, purpose-driven campaigns so often position the brand as the hero, rather than using that power to elevate the people already doing the work.

Because what sits behind a brand campaign is often exactly what communities and advocacy groups are missing access to: budgets, media reach, audience data, strategic teams, influential networks, and production capability. Major infrastructure.

And instead of redistributing some of that power, many campaigns end up doing the opposite. Communities get consulted late, filtered through layers of brand messaging, or brought in to validate an idea that’s already been decided. So, there’s a real disconnect I can’t help pondering.

So, with that mini-vent over, let’s talk about the enormous amount of power brands already hold behind the scenes — budgets, platforms, industry access, data, influence — and what happens when that power stops centring the brand itself and starts creating real ownership, visibility, and opportunity for the people closest to the issue from the very beginning.

The part no one sees: where brand power actually sits

When we think about brand influence, we often picture the visible layer: the campaign, the social media rollout, the press articles. But the major power that facilitates this sits behind the scenes.

Brands have access to layers of powerful infrastructure:

• Large paid media budgets that amplify messages at scale

• Owned channels with loyal, established audiences

• Incredibly valuable first-party data that highlights audience patterns and pain points

• Established relationships with media, partners, and industry bodies

• Internal teams with strategic and creative minds, and proper production capability

If you’ve been in this industry long enough, you can forget how powerful that actually is. How long it took to understand it, and how wildly gatekept it can feel at the beginning. And more importantly, how inaccessible it still is to the people actually trying to create meaningful change.

For most advocacy groups, not-for-profits (NFPs), and community voices, this kind of infrastructure is an absolute dream. But it can feel like a closed, almost mythical world — one they can’t access, and often don’t fully understand the scale of, because so much of it happens behind closed doors.

The disconnect: who holds the power vs who needs it

And yet, what often happens? 

Brands — even when well-intentioned — take that infrastructure, find a person doing meaningful work, slap a tagline they had no input in, and blast it out as job done.

Sometimes this happens when brands are misinformed on how to “do purpose”. Sometimes it’s stakeholder pressure and corporate red tape. Sometimes it’s straight-up women/rainbow/green-washing (ugh). 

Over the last decade, I’ve seen many examples both near me and from afar. Like one $20K budget spent solely on Meta ads over three months, while trying to cut the line item of the women doing the job. Projects where hundreds of thousands go into out-of-home, while the people closest to the message are excluded, or are tacked on at the end without any real consultation.

And all of us — whether in the industry or not — have clocked those moments where a brand puts out a post that just feels off. Slightly insincere. Not quite rooted in anything true to the brand itself (talk about awkward).

And if we’re learning anything in 2026, it’s that this kind of campaigning is increasingly see-through, and instead of earning brownie points, it just gets eye-rolls from audiences.

What if brands weren’t the main character?

Hear me out, because I’ve seen this work from the backend. What if brands acted less like the main character in purpose-led campaigns and more like the host?

Less like a helicopter parent scripting every word, more like someone opening the doors, handing over the keys, and making sure the right people are actually in the room.

This doesn’t mean completely changing how campaigns work. It just means letting go of some of the control that brands and agencies are used to having. When that happens, communities gain more ownership, and brands gain more trust in return — a redistribution of industry power that can move mountains for communities and a brand's credibility.

So, what can “playing host” actually look like? 

1. Paid media can amplify community or advocacy voices at scale

Many brands already attempt this through creator partnerships or community-led campaigns (and some do it incredibly well!). But, more often, those voices are filtered through heavy brand control or brought in at the end to validate a pre-built idea. Redistributing power means involving communities earlier: using brand budgets and platforms to hand them those mics with the big ol’ ad spend (and your guidance) behind it.  

2. Data can become a source for great insight-led impact

Brands sit on super-powerful insights: cultural shifts, behavioural trends, unmet needs, and emerging conversations. When that information is shared back with purpose-led communities and collaborators, it gives them much stronger tools to advocate, organise, build, and create impact alongside the brand, rather than simply being analysed by it. They can direct their limited resources toward the areas where they know they’ll create the greatest impact — that’s huge!

3. Industry access can open doors and let the magic happen

Brands already have seats at influential tables: media opportunities, speaking panels, leadership events, partnerships, and press relationships. Redistributing power means using that access to bring new voices into spaces they’ve historically been excluded from — and not as token guests, but as experts, leaders, and decision-makers. Even just peeking behind the curtain helps communities understand how decisions are made and where influence sits.

4. Creative and strategy teams can move from gatekeepers to enablers

Instead of owning every idea from start to finish, great purpose-led teams focus their attention on creating the conditions for better ideas to emerge. That means resourcing, supporting, and collaborating with people who bring lived experience and cultural insight that agencies and brands often can’t replicate on their own. The outcome is smarter, sharper, and more effective creative work. And often, IMO, it’s a more enriching experience for internal teams.

It’s just a different use of the same power. 

And it works. I’ve seen it done well, and you probably have too, without knowing it.

During a women’s health project, I’ve watched budget trackers intentionally weighted towards co-creating content with health advocates. And media spend backing their voices rather than replacing them with brand language.

On another project, an LGBTIQA+ campaign, a community NFP was brought in from the start as a core strategic partner. They helped shape campaign research and direction, and their voice directly influenced a report shared across Australia with real impact and an authentic brand appreciation. 

And I’ve watched powerhouse leaders (absolute icons!) push back on clients with empathy, insight, and expertise, for the sake of true impact — and everyone’s credibility. 

Why most campaigns still miss the mark and where to make a shift in thinking 

A lot of this comes down to something I hope will make its way into industry language soon: emic vs etic perspectives — terminology we’ll borrow from anthropology (and later adopted by psychology).

• Emic is the insider perspective > from within a community, lived, felt, and understood as it actually exists in that culture.

• Etic is the outsider perspective > looking in, analytical and interpreted, often well-intentioned but still a step removed.

When trying to land on a purpose-led idea, most campaigns (even the quick social ones) are often still built from an etic (outside) perspective. Strategists analyse behaviour, creatives interpret it, and something gets made that feels close enough.

But much like a Gen X trying to land a Gen Z joke, lived experience doesn’t translate cleanly from the outside. You miss the language, the context, the nuanced emotion — the parts that are instinctive to people within the community, and almost impossible to fully explain (let alone replicate with any real authenticity) from the edges.

Shifting out of “main character energy” is really about rebalancing that.

Let emic (from within) perspectives lead when the work is purpose-specific — International Women’s Day, Mardi Gras, moments that actually belong to the communities you’re speaking to. Use etic expertise to support and scale, not to overwrite or dominate.

Recognise where the power usually sits — in agencies, in brand teams — and consciously loosen your grip on it. Let the voices closest to the work stop echoing from the edges and actually sit in the centre, where they belong.

It’s less about stepping up, more about waving a welcoming hand, moving to the side and giving other voices a seat at the table.