Over the past 50 years, the proportion of S&P 500 market value attributed to intangible assets has grown from 17% to more than 90%.

Brand and reputation are clearly significant contributors to business value. Yet they remain difficult to capture on a balance sheet, vulnerable when budgets come under pressure and, occasionally, dismissed as little more than marketing fluff.

At our latest Oystercatchers Club Evening, we brought together three brilliant industry leaders to explore why this disconnect persists:

  • Aisling Ryan, SVP International Marketing at Celsius International
  • Lucy Jameson, Co-founder of Uncommon Creative Studio
  • Julian Payne, CEO of Edelman EMEA and Global Chair of Crisis and Risk

The conversation explored the relationship between brand, reputation and commercial growth, as well as what marketers can do to make a more compelling case in the boardroom. Missed the evening, don’t worry, here are the key talking points:

The problem starts with the way businesses account for brand

One of the fundamental challenges is that traditional accounting standards were not designed for businesses whose value is dominated by intangible assets.

A company can spend years building a powerful brand, loyal customer base and valuable cultural position without any of that value appearing on its balance sheet. It is often only when the company is acquired that the financial value of its brand becomes visible.

Lucy pointed to LVMH’s acquisition of Tiffany & Co. for nearly $16 billion. Much of that valuation was connected to the strength, heritage and desirability of the Tiffany brand, yet this value had not been represented as an asset on the company’s balance sheet before the transaction.

The financial markets may recognise that the system is imperfect, but businesses are still rewarded in the short term for reducing costs. Marketing investment can therefore look expendable during difficult periods, even when cutting it damages the source of future demand.

Marketers cannot rewrite accounting standards, but we can become much better at translating brand into the language of business.

Stop talking about brand only in marketing terms

Aisling argued that the issue is not simply a failure to recognise brand value. It is also a failure of translation.

Generic marketing language can quickly lose the attention of a board. The conversation changes when brand is positioned in terms of commercial growth, pricing power, reputational equity, risk mitigation or the value of the business itself.

In private equity, mergers and acquisitions, the value of a strong brand is rarely in doubt. Businesses routinely pay substantial premiums for companies with distinctive brands, committed communities and loyal customers.

Brand is not suddenly created at the moment a transaction takes place. The transaction simply gives it a financial value that everyone can see.

The challenge for marketers is to make that value visible before the company is sold.

Marketers need stronger business cases

The panel was united on one point: CFOs should not own brand strategy. But marketing leaders must become more financially fluent if they want to compete for investment.

A request for brand budget is being considered alongside other demands for capital. That might include opening a factory, hiring more people, entering a new market or investing in new technology. Marketers therefore need to explain why investing in brand represents the best use of that money.

That requires more than presenting campaign metrics. It means building a structured commercial case that reflects the organisation’s current priorities.

The right argument will vary according to the circumstances. A private equity-backed business, a company preparing for an IPO and a brand entering a new market will each have different objectives, pressures and time horizons.

Marketers also need to understand the econometric evidence behind their recommendations. This does not mean promising certainty where none exists. It means being able to explain the likely direction and scale of an outcome with enough confidence and rigour to support an investment decision.

Reputation is an emotional bank account

Brand value is not only about generating demand. A strong reputation also provides protection when things go wrong.

Julian described reputation as an emotional bank account. Businesses build credit through their actions over time and draw upon it when they face a crisis.

The time to build that trust is before it is needed. Or, as the old saying goes, you fix the roof while the sun is shining.

Once a crisis breaks, social media, misinformation and speculation can make it extremely difficult for an organisation to regain control of the narrative. Businesses should therefore identify potential threats in advance and establish a clear, credible story before someone else tells it for them.

Trust is built through a combination of ability, dependability, integrity, impact and a sense of personal connection. It cannot be manufactured overnight.

The commercial consequences of getting this wrong can be immediate. In extreme boycott situations, brands can experience dramatic overnight falls in sales. Choosing not to buy a product has become one of the most direct ways in which consumers can express control, dissatisfaction or disagreement.

Reputation should therefore be treated as a source of commercial resilience, not simply a communications concern.

Performance marketing harvests demand. Brand creates it.

The pressure to prioritise short-term performance remains a daily reality for marketing leaders.

Performance marketing is attractive because it appears immediate and measurable. But it primarily captures existing demand. Brand investment helps to create that demand in the first place.

Without sustained brand building, businesses can find themselves competing for an increasingly limited pool of customers. Acquisition costs rise, payback periods lengthen and performance activity becomes progressively less efficient.

Lucy observed that UK marketers are generally familiar with the principles of balancing long-term brand building and short-term activation. In other markets, particularly the US, the pressure to focus on immediate performance can be even greater.

Luxury brands offer an instructive example. Their communications rarely focus solely on product features or immediate conversion. They sell culture, craftsmanship, identity and belonging. These associations sustain desire, differentiation and pricing power over the long term.

Performance and brand should not be competing philosophies. Businesses need both. The danger comes when harvesting existing demand is mistaken for creating future growth.

There is a commercial cost to being dull

In an environment crowded with similar messages and increasingly similar content, being noticed has real economic value.

Research into the “cost of dull” suggests that enormous amounts of advertising investment are wasted because the work fails to attract attention or be remembered. Safe, generic communications can feel less risky, but invisibility is rarely a sensible commercial strategy.

Lucy shared the example of Uncommon’s work for haircare brand K18, which involved rolling a giant hairball through the streets of New York. The idea generated widespread attention and secured prominent CNN coverage without requiring an enormous media budget.

It was unexpected, distinctive and impossible to ignore.

That does not mean brands should pursue provocation for its own sake. Bravery must be calculated and supported by proper risk management. It also requires leaders who are prepared to stand behind an idea when the first signs of criticism appear.

Too many organisations approve distinctive work and then retreat as soon as it attracts the attention it was designed to generate.

AI will make distinctiveness more important, not less

There is a growing assumption that AI-powered assistants and algorithms will reduce purchasing decisions to comparisons of price, availability and product performance.

The panel was unconvinced.

People do not make entirely rational decisions. We choose brands that reflect our values, identity and aspirations, then use rational arguments to explain those choices.

AI may make it easier to compare products, but it will not remove our emotional relationship with brands. If anything, a world filled with algorithmically generated content and functionally similar products will make genuine distinctiveness more valuable.

Product advantage alone is rarely a sustainable moat. Technology can be copied. Features can be replicated. Prices can be undercut.

Brand, design, reputation and emotional connection are much harder to reproduce.

Making brand a boardroom priority

Brand will not earn greater influence simply because marketers insist that it matters.

We need to show how it creates demand, supports pricing power, reduces risk, strengthens resilience and contributes to the long-term value of the business. We need to understand the commercial context, build better investment cases and communicate in language the rest of the board recognises.

Most importantly, we need to stop treating brand as something separate from business performance.

Brand is not the decoration added after the commercial strategy has been agreed. It is one of the assets through which that strategy succeeds.

Click here to find out more about the Oystercatchers Club.