11/06/2025
McLuhan, forgive us…
A part of communication theory has changed and that seems unquestionable by now. The dynamic between sender and receiver hasn’t been the same for a long time, and there’s no need to dwell on the reasons why.
In an era of limited communication channels, it made perfect sense to start from the nature of the medium in order to shape the message. That’s how many of the prosperous brands we know evolved.
But we’d like to offer a thought that’s been haunting us lately:
For a weak brand, the channel doesn’t matter.
For a strong brand, it doesn’t either.
Weak brands are doomed to become victims of the volatility around them. Lacking clarity about who they are and what space they occupy, it becomes nearly impossible to craft a point of view strong enough to create a competitive edge.
For these brands, the channel doesn’t matter, because there’s no message. They’re stuck in the McLuhan trap, obsessed with finding a clever plan to jump on the trendiest platform of the moment.
For a weak brand, the medium will always be the message.
On the other hand, we have strong brands. And ironically, for them the channel doesn’t matter either.
These brands understand they’re the company’s most valuable intangible asset. They’re aware of their role, their meaning, how they challenge their markets or categories, and how they want to be part of people’s lives in a genuine, respectful way.
These are the brands with the guts to step into the light and show what makes them different.
For these brands, any channel will do.
Because their message is strong enough.
For these brands, the message has become the medium.
Maybe - just maybe - it’s starting to make more and more sense to believe that the message is the medium.
-
