“Flags, Market Value, and Positioning: How to Identify What Truly Connects and Drives Sales”

Not Every Cause Creates Connection: How to Identify the Real Value of Your Market

Today, many companies think that adopting as many social flags as possible automatically makes them relevant and socially conscious. In reality, the opposite often happens. Piling on flags creates noise, fragments the audience, and weakens a brand’s strategic positioning.

From a business perspective, markets have their own logic. They are shaped by values, pain points, and needs that follow a clear hierarchy, even if it’s not always obvious.

When a company tries to embrace multiple flags at the same time without understanding this hierarchy, it creates a symbolic competition within its own consumer base. The audience may not consciously notice it, but it directly affects how the brand is recognized and connected with.

This effect becomes even stronger when the flags are heavily influenced by global agendas, like the Sustainable Development Goals, and launched without a deep understanding of the local context. The result is a scattered positioning where no flag truly consolidates as a clear and legitimate part of the brand’s identity.

In sustainability, this phenomenon is particularly visible. It’s increasingly common to see companies promoting organizational campaigns based on environmental or social flags that aren’t integrated into their core strategy. When these campaigns aren’t sustained over time or linked to real actions, the market quickly recognizes them as greenwashing. In general, these are flags that lack the structural strength to remain consistent alongside other campaigns or business decisions, damaging credibility and weakening consumer trust.

A rare and positive example of strategic execution is the recent campaign in Brazil - Amstel.

During a TV commercial break, it was clear how the brand communicates with the entire market, addressing the pains and values of a broad majority of consumers in a consistent, inclusive, and elegant way, without creating conflicts or alienating other audiences. It’s a carefully planned, soothing, and extensive communication. The sound, narrative, and messaging align so harmoniously that it inspires reflection on market positioning. In the highly polarized Brazilian context, where even staying silent can be misinterpreted, campaigns like this show how to convey values and engage audiences strategically without compromising brand consistency.

I have to admit, when I watched the Amstel commercial, I thought: what a clever move! How to talk about something without saying it directly, how to show the harmonious side that people don’t question while watching, they just observe, agree, and feel good. You watch it and think: wow, I wish my name was part of this creation! It’s such a soothing approach that connects with viewers, no matter their ethnicity.

The Brazilian market illustrates this dynamic well. Here, racial issues represent a real market value. They are a historically built structural pain point that influences culture, consumption, and public opinion. Initially, the Black community faced organizational challenges, internal disagreements, and communication barriers. Yet, these differences were gradually overcome in pursuit of something larger: visibility, recognition, belonging, and historical reparations.

This process created symbolic legitimacy. The racial cause moved beyond being just a flag and became a convergence point in the market. It’s a space where other flags either find consensus or simply lack the market strength to challenge it. The real value of the market doesn’t eliminate other flags. It organizes the field and defines the central axis around which the others revolve.

That’s why brands that understood this real pain point connected more authentically and consistently with the Brazilian market. They didn’t try to compete with multiple narratives at once. They chose a clear, legitimate positioning aligned with the social reality of the country.

Strategic mistakes happen when companies try to replicate this kind of connection by adopting multiple flags simultaneously, such as gender, sexual orientation, or identity, without evaluating whether these issues carry the same relevance in that specific market. It’s not about saying these flags aren’t important, but recognizing that not all of them have the same converging power, recognition, or commercial impact.

Strategy requires choice. Michael Porter emphasized that strategy is, above all, deciding what not to do. Philip Kotler reinforces that brands create value when they connect with real human causes, not generic trend-driven narratives. Clayton Christensen adds that consumers choose brands to solve a core problem, not a diffuse set of issues.

When multiple flags are launched indiscriminately, only one tends to solidify the one that represents the real market value. It becomes the common point where different narratives meet or stop competing. Without this clarity, the brand loses identity, strength, and relevance.

Identifying the real value of a market isn’t an ideological exercise, it’s strategic. It requires deep cultural understanding, active listening, and the courage to take a coherent stance. That’s where marketing stops being just words and starts guiding real business decisions.

Thank you for reading! I hope this article sparks strategic thinking and helps you identify the real value of your market.— Fernanda Bu-Harb