In the traditional playbook of brand management, controversy is typically seen as something to be avoided – a potential crisis that requires careful navigation and damage control. But what happens when controversy itself becomes the brand strategy? The Trump brand presents a fascinating case study of this unconventional approach, challenging conventional wisdom about reputation management in the digital age.

In today’s digital landscape, algorithms favour engagement above all else. While most brands carefully craft messages to avoid polarisation, the Trump brand has consistently leveraged divisiveness to maintain unprecedented visibility. Every controversial statement or action generates millions of interactions across social media platforms, keeping the brand consistently at the forefront of public consciousness. This approach presents a stark contrast to traditional reputation management strategies. While most brands follow a careful path of measured responses, balanced messaging, broad appeal and risk mitigation, the Trump brand instead embraces provocative statements, polarising positions, targeted messaging and risk amplification.

What makes the Trump brand particularly interesting is its relationship with authenticity – a crucial element in modern branding. While traditional reputation management emphasises careful message crafting and strategic response to controversy, the Trump brand has maintained a perception of authenticity through consistent inconsistency. The brand voice remains unchanging, even (and especially) in the face of controversy, creating a unique form of trust with its core audience. This raises interesting questions about traditional reputation management strategies. While most brands follow the conventional wisdom of acknowledging mistakes, showing contrition, promising change and implementing improvements, the Trump brand often doubles down on controversial positions, attacks critics, reframes narratives and mobilises its supporter base. 

There are, I believe three important lessons for brand strategists to reflect upon: Firstly, algorithm understanding. The Trump brand demonstrates deep understanding of how social media algorithms work. Controversy generates engagement, engagement drives visibility and visibility maintains relevance. In an attention economy, this creates a self-sustaining cycle of brand awareness. Secondly, audience segmentation. Rather than trying to appeal to everyone, the brand accepts and even encourages polarisation. This creates incredibly strong bonds with core supporters while accepting complete alienation of opponents – a high-risk, high-reward strategy. And thirdly, consistency in controversy. While the content may be controversial, the brand voice remains consistent. This creates a form of reliability that supporters can trust, even when (or especially when) facing criticism.

This strategy raises important ethical questions for brand managers. While the approach has undeniably been effective in maintaining brand visibility and core supporter loyalty, it comes with significant costs: societal polarisation, erosion of traditional discourse norms, challenge to conventional truth metrics and impact on democratic institutions. The Trump brand approach forces us to reconsider traditional approaches to reputation management. While most brands shouldn’t adopt this high-risk strategy, elements of it deserve analysis: algorithmic awareness – understanding how digital platforms reward engagement; authentic voice – maintaining consistency even during controversies; core audience focus – sometimes accepting polarisation for stronger supporter bonds; and strategic controversy – recognising when conventional wisdom about brand safety might be wrong.

The contrast between traditional reputation management and the Trump brand approach becomes particularly stark when we examine established crisis management frameworks. Let’s analyse this through the lens of the atypical five strategic steps to reputation salvage. Firstly, immediate transparency. The traditional approach is prompt acknowledgment of issues, taking full responsibility, demonstrating understanding and respectful communication. The Trump brand approach is immediate counter-narrative, rejection of responsibility, reframing of issues and aggressive communication stance. Secondly, there is deep listening. The traditional approach is comprehensive sentiment analysis, direct community engagement, structured feedback mechanisms and actionable insight generation. The Trump brand approach here is selective audience listening, rally-style engagement, social media monitoring and base sentiment prioritisation.

Thirdly, there is concrete action. The traditional approach is quantifiable correction strategies, internal protocol implementation, transparent improvement plans and organisational change demonstration. The Trump brand approach is immediate counteractions, loyalty reinforcement protocols, alternative narrative development and base-energising initiatives. Fourthly, rebuild trust. Here, the traditional approach is core value alignment, maintained transparency, empathetic communication and progress demonstration. The Trump brand approach is base trust reinforcement, selective transparency, combative communication and victory narrative maintenance.

Finally, there is long-term management. Here, the traditional approach is proactive communication strategy, regular brand voice audits, diverse representation and cultural competency training. The Trump brand approach is reactive engagement strategy, consistent brand voice maintenance, core audience focus and cultural division leverage. These comparisons reveal how the Trump brand has essentially created an alternative crisis management framework that, while opposing traditional best practices, has proven remarkably effective for its specific goals and audience.

The Trump brand represents either a brilliant adaptation to modern media dynamics or a cautionary tale of short-term engagement at the cost of long-term brand health – perhaps both simultaneously. What’s undeniable is that it has rewritten many rules of brand management and forces marketing professionals to reconsider long-held assumptions about reputation management. The key lesson might be that in an age of algorithmic content distribution and extreme polarisation, traditional reputation management strategies need careful reconsideration.

While few brands should or could adopt the Trump approach wholesale, understanding its mechanics should become crucial for modern brand managers. Whether this represents progress or regression in brand management theory remains debatable, but its impact on the field is undeniable. As we move forward, brands will need to find their own balance between engagement and responsibility, controversy and consensus, immediate impact and long-term sustainability.

 

A recent article in The Guardian discussed how, 200 years after its creation, Hokusai’s The Great Wave off Kanagawa has become the defining image of our era. As Sarah E Thompson, curator of the Hokusai: Inspiration and Influence exhibition at Museum of Fine Arts Boston, poignantly asks: “Are you a pessimist or an optimist? Who are the men in the boats? Will they make it? It’s a landscape, but it’s not just a view.” 

As the dawn of a second Trump term commences, brand managers find themselves in those same boats beneath the great wave of disruption. Some will see only the threatening surge of chaos, while others will recognise the opportunity to harness its momentum. The true test of modern brand management isn’t just surviving the wave – it’s understanding how to navigate it. Whether this represents progress or regression in brand theory remains debatable, but one thing is certain: those who can read these waters while maintaining their course will define the future of brand management in our algorithm-driven age.