During a period of rapid economic growth, when businesses were searching for novel approaches to differentiate themselves from their rivals, marketing emerged. Developments in several fields, including design, communication, and advertising, among many others, complemented the demands of businesses in their process of differentiation as a result of this expansion in competition.

In the last ten years, a significant turning point has occurred. The world is becoming more and more divided and polarized. Certain themes are now being discussed in public at lengths that were difficult to observe only a few years ago. Concurrently, businesses include suggestions for sustainability, social responsibility, diversity, gender parity, and other related issues in their storylines.

They’ll tell me, quite accurately, that we’re just talking about topics that are widely accepted in society as humanist subjects. But is it actually the case? Some brands aren’t neutral. And does this deliberate approach benefit brands? Are we producing “left-wing” and “right-wing” brands?

I would like you to take a moment to look at a social media platform or watch any debate program on television. Take a look at what appears in your feed, but pay particular attention to the posts’ comments. Ten minutes in, you will experience intense, all-encompassing pain. There are factions rather than discourse. It is impossible to try to explain or interpret. Certain concepts, some preconceived notions, turn into absolute, unchangeable truths. It reflects our current situation.

However, marketers must situate themselves inside this reality. This is where your acts will be assessed and, more importantly, judged—in this actual “popular court.”

A few days ago, I witnessed a national brand’s campaign completely derailed because of an ostensibly benign but highly misconstrued allusion. We no longer have a sense of humor, and with it, the capacity to laugh at ourselves. I think we will end up with a society that is so flat and smooth that it becomes absolutely amorphous and boring if everything has to adhere to political correctness and nothing can challenge it.

And now the brands appear the ones with true values. They act as though they know that this is their target audience and that this is who they want to spend their time with. that they are sincere and real. who don’t act merely out of self-interest or to pretend to be someone they’re not. These people – and I don’t have any serious reservations about this – will pick a side. It is already evident in upcycling and recycling initiatives, as well as in brands that prioritize sustainability and the environment. These brands are obviously trying to make a political statement. They were designed with an activist goal, which is a healthy one.

There will be a clearer separation—even a split—between business models and brands. The era in which brands were uniting and aggregating appears increasingly remote from us today. I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of ideological marketing.

We will need to build ideological marketing more than purpose and causes—not to be confused with political marketing, which is unrelated to the former. Ideological marketing will mirror society and all of its intersections. It will center on contentious issues that are hard to agree on, as well as political and social problems. Brands will be forced to choose a side, even though they are aware that doing so will mean losing a certain group. Because consumers are starting to expect brands to behave as they intend, ideological marketing will include elements of sustainability, social responsibility, gender-specific social choices, and equal opportunity. However, its inverse will also be seen.

More companies will be voicing their opinions in public on a variety of topics. They will be the subject of further discussion because of the opposition they will pose to some of these causes. The hardest and riskiest choice you have to make will likely be whether or not to participate. The good-natured approach of appeasing “Greeks and Trojans” is starting to run out of time.

The marketing team will make decisions based on their knowledge of the brand and its target audience, their comprehension of the obstacles it must overcome to protect its position, and most importantly, their ability to foresee how these factors will affect the company going forward. However, adopting a stance is also beneficial to the brand since it ensures that its operations must be honest since they will be examined and that there is tremendous conviction and certainty in the cause rather than opportunism.

For those who select the appropriate cause and mode of participation, it will be a land of immense opportunity, but there will also be a significant danger of reputational harm and financial damage, as it will be difficult to retract or refute.

I’m pretty sure of one thing: nobody can claim they have nothing to say, or else they’ll get soon forgotten. I do not doubt that these will be exciting times!

Originally published in ECO.