Back in 2018, I published a post titled “Narrative Coherence: The Emerging Measure of Brand Equity?” on my blog. What was “emerging” then is simply extant reality now. But the fundamentals remain unchanged, so here is a 2025 update for MxMIndia readers.
Over the past few decades, technology has rewritten not just how we communicate but how we construct reality itself — both external and internal. One fact, however, remains constant: consumption continues to be the central organising principle of the modern economy and, perhaps unfortunately, also a foundational layer of individual self-image.
Brands are essential to both. They are building blocks of consumer identity and crucial components of economic productivity. In fact, the number of viable brands in an economy is both a cause and an outcome of economic growth — a circularity worth a doctoral thesis. In classical advertising planning, a brand was understood through the picture of its loyal consumer. In my own strategy practice, I have extended this to construct a composite picture of the individual as a constellation of brands. This reveals patterns that traditional segmentation misses.
However, while brands remain woven into the self-image of individuals as they have for eight decades, the process by which brands acquire meaning has undergone a deep, structural transformation. Traditionally, brand building was imagined as a linear, one-way ladder, summarised neatly by the Awareness–Interest–Desire–Action (AIDA) model. Brand managers communicated; consumers received; the goal was to convert and reconvert. That world no longer exists.
Today, the formation of brand perception is a negotiated, two-way, always-on process. The first step is no longer a brand message. It is a consumer expression — a review, a WhatsApp forward, an Instagram reel, an unboxing video, a gripe on X, a recommendation on Reddit or LinkedIn. If this happened earlier too, two tectonic changes have transformed the dynamic: peer groups are now amorphous, ever-shifting digital clusters rather than a stable circle of friends; and sharing is instantaneous, continuous and emotionally charged, feeding a 24×7 river of opinions. This relentless river inevitably sweeps brands into its flow. If a brand is not being talked about — positively, negatively, humorously, critically — it is not a brand.
The totality of consumer-generated views, conversations, reactions and re-enactments creates what I call the Brand Narrative. Analysing this Brand Narrative is no longer optional. It is central to modern brand-building. Two dimensions matter most: the strength of the narrative and its coherence. Strength is the sheer quantum of interactions — mentions, discussions, shares, searches, saves, reviews, unboxings, memes. It is a Big Data measure, shaped more by what consumers choose to engage with rather than what brands push at them. Coherence, however, is the real x-factor. Do all these interactions cohere around a few distinct themes? If yes, those themes constitute the brand’s ruling narrative. If not, the brand may be noisy but directionless — strong but shallow.
The biggest shift since 2018 is the rise of AI-mediated brand perception. A large proportion of consumer impressions now emerge not from Human → Human pathways but from Human → AI → Human loops. People ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, MetaAI for recommendations, comparisons, moral judgments, troubleshooting, recipes, fitness coaching — everything that earlier would have been discovered via advertising or human conversation. AI systems have one core habit: they elevate patterns. If a brand’s narrative is coherent, AI reinforces it. If it is incoherent, AI refuses to assemble a clear story — creating a perception of vagueness or unreliability. Narrative coherence has become the dominant currency of the AI age.
Consider Apple and Samsung. Apple’s Brand Narrative Strength remains massive. But its narrative coherence has shifted. Earlier, Apple’s narrative cohered around Steve Jobs’ genius, American design arrogance (reflected in pricing), and meticulous form–function integration. After Jobs’ passing, the company attempted to pivot narrative coherence to Jony Ive but could not sustain it. Today, under Tim Cook, Apple remains financially successful but risks losing narrative distinctiveness in the consumer imagination, particularly as “American arrogance” mutates into broader scepticism of Big Tech. Samsung, on the other hand, has developed enormous Brand Narrative Strength, but its coherence is looser. Different clusters associate Samsung with innovation, value, Korean tech nationalism, camera wars, foldables, or simply “good alternatives to Apple.” The noisy, multi-theme nature of Samsung’s narrative gives it strength but limits coherence.
A contrasting pair unfolds in the global journeys of Tesla and Patagonia. Tesla’s narrative was once laser-focused: EV revolution, sustainability, engineering leadership, and Elon Musk as the visionary-outsider. Between 2022 and 2025, this narrative fractured. Political polarisation around Musk, safety and quality anxieties, Autopilot investigations, the disruption of the premium positioning due to aggressive price cuts, and the rise of compelling EV competitors have all splintered the narrative. Tesla today has high narrative strength but low coherence — a brand endlessly talked about but not consistently understood. Patagonia sits at the opposite end. Its narrative — environmental guardianship, durability, anti-consumerist philosophy — has remained unwavering. Every action, from repairing old jackets to donating the company to a climate trust, reinforces the same message. Even non-consumers can articulate Patagonia’s narrative clearly. It represents the ideal combination of narrative strength and coherence.
A very contemporary Indian example emerges from the electric two-wheeler market, which has taken off far more rapidly than India’s passenger EV market. Ather’s brand narrative coheres with striking clarity around engineering purity, reliability and safety, software excellence, premium restraint, and a “thinking rider” ethos. Ather is not the noisiest brand, but its narrative is remarkably consistent across touchpoints — owner groups, long-term reviews, service experiences, influencer discussions, and tech analyses. The sentiment that “Ather is serious, dependable and built with care” circulates as a unified theme. Ola Electric, by contrast, enjoys enormous Brand Narrative Strength — no other two-wheeler EV brand is discussed as much. But its narrative is volatile and often contradictory: hyper-ambition, disruption, affordability, political proximity, rapid innovation, quality-control controversies, and equal parts fanfare and scepticism. Ola represents scale without stability; Ather represents trust without theatrics. Here, narrative theory plays out in real time: strength alone does not create equity; coherence does.
This contrast appears in other Indian categories too. Zomato and Swiggy, for instance, have both built massive narrative strength, but Swiggy’s narrative has historically been more coherent — convenience, reliability, the everyday friend — whereas Zomato’s has oscillated between irreverent humour, financial scrutiny, hyper-growth, acquisitions, and governance debates. In the hearables category, boAt and Noise illustrate a similar divergence: boAt’s narrative, anchored in youth culture, fashion-tech and IPL-powered energy, has great strength but variable coherence, while Noise has built a quieter but more stable narrative around value, reliability and smart functionality. Even in ICE automobiles, Tata and Maruti demonstrate differing narrative compositions. Tata’s narrative has cohered in recent years around safety, design modernity, and a rediscovered engineering confidence, whereas Maruti’s narrative — though still incredibly strong — is increasingly fragmented across price leadership, mass reliability, hybrid experiments, and questions about future readiness.
Brand managers cannot manufacture narrative coherence. Apple’s failed attempt to elevate Jony Ive into an icon illustrates the limits of narrative imposition. Consumers — now amplified by digital communities — determine coherence. But brand management can and must listen, synchronise and counter. Listening requires comprehensive Big Data systems, social listening tools and AI-driven narrative mapping. Synchronising means aligning product, communication, experience and culture with the positive emergent themes consumers already associate with the brand. Countering involves tracing negative narratives to their source and addressing them at the root — whether it is a product flaw, a policy misstep or an influential detractor.
A final thought: as AI increasingly mediates communication, we may be moving from Human → AI → Human loops to AI → AI → Human → AI → AI networks, where AI systems summarise each other’s summaries. In such an environment, brand narratives will crystallise or collapse faster than human comprehension can keep up with. One of the biggest brand wars of the decade will not be between FMCG giants or EV manufacturers, but between the LLMs themselves — ChatGPT, Gemini, Meta, Perplexity and others yet to emerge. Narrative Strength and Narrative Coherence will determine platform dominance in that battlefield, too.
That is the world we live in now. Brands that understand narrative coherence will rise. Brands that ignore it will drift. And as always, the consumer — now amplified and extended by AI — will be the final arbiter of the story.
hardraincafe.blog 