IPA encourages members to submit content in the form of articles, commentary, and research summaries for inclusion on the blog. Below is an article by Michael Daily, APR, Co-founder and CEO of Communication Metrics, Inc. and a retired U.S. Marine Corps Public Affairs Officer.
Note: The views expressed in this article are that of the author.
By Michael N. Daily, APR
Executive Summary
Cognitive influence operations-whether conducted in business, government, or international arenas-often fail not because of weak messaging, but because of poor strategic alignment. Too many campaigns treat influence as a matter of pushing content rather than cultivating trust. Branding strategy provides a corrective discipline.
This paper explores how branding principles-positioning, narrative, and consistency-can sharpen the planning, execution, and evaluation of influence operations. Drawing lessons from both commercial branding failures and strategic communication successes, the analysis argues that branding-informed influence operations offer greater credibility, resilience, and long-term impact.
Introduction
Influence has always been a contest of perception. From Cold War propaganda broadcasts to today’s AI-driven disinformation campaigns, the stakes remain the same: who earns belief, trust, and loyalty?
But in both the corporate and geopolitical spheres, many influence efforts stumble. They confuse tactics with strategy, messaging with meaning, and attention with trust. Branding strategy offers a lens through which to correct those flaws.
Branding is not merely a marketing activity. It is the discipline of defining identity, clarifying values, and aligning every action and message to build durable trust. When applied to influence operations, it transforms campaigns from one-off message pushes into sustainable efforts that shift cognition and behavior.
Branding Strategy: Core Principles
Branding, properly understood, is not about logos or slogans. It is about “meaning-making.” Three principles matter most:
- Positioning – Owning a distinct and credible space in the audience’s mind relative to competitors or adversaries (Ries & Trout, 2001).
- Narrative – Articulating a coherent story rooted in truth, values, and identity (Fog et al., 2010).
- Consistency – Reinforcing the brand promise through aligned actions, messaging, and symbolism (Keller, 2012).
These principles apply not just in commerce, but in any attempt to influence cognition. Without them, operations collapse under scrutiny.
Influence Operations: The Cognitive Domain
Cognitive influence operations aim to shape how audiences think, perceive, and act. NATO’s Allied Joint Doctrine for Strategic Communications (AJP-10) emphasizes that success in this domain depends on credibility and trust, not just message dissemination. The U.S. Army’s Information Operations field manual (FM 3-13) likewise notes that information effects must be synchronized with actions to achieve lasting impact.
In practice, however, many influence operations fail because they focus narrowly on messaging without anchoring those messages in a credible narrative. Branding strategy fills that gap.
Planning with Branding Discipline
Effective planning requires clarity on:
- Identity – Who are we in the eyes of this audience?
- Positioning – What space do we claim in relation to competitors or adversaries?
- Values – What principles will guide our credibility?
- Promise – What can we consistently deliver to sustain trust?
Branding-informed planning prevents operations from being reactive. For example, counter-disinformation campaigns must go beyond fact-checking falsehoods. They must position the sponsoring entity as the most credible voice, reinforcing that position through consistent actions and values alignment.
Execution with Branding Advantage
Execution is where branding sharpens influence operations most tangibly:
- Message Discipline – Branding enforces coherence across channels and actors.
- Symbolism – Branding leverages semiotics and rituals that resonate emotionally.
- Credibility through Consistency – Actions align with messages, reinforcing trust.
- Segmentation and Relevance – Branding ensures tailored resonance without fracturing identity.
A case in point: countering violent extremism campaigns that simply denounce ideology often fail. Those that instead offer an aspirational counter-identity-delivered through credible messengers and consistent narratives-achieve greater traction.
Evaluation Through a Branding Lens
Measurement is the Achilles’ heel of influence operations. Branding strategy insists that evaluation move beyond outputs to outcomes. Key metrics include:
- Brand Alignment – Did the operation reinforce the desired identity?
- Trust Indicators – Did credibility rise or fall?
- Narrative Adoption – Did audiences internalize and repeat the narrative?
- Behavioral Outcomes – Were actions measurably altered?
As Keller (2012) notes in branding research, true success is when audiences carry forward your story in their own words. Influence operations succeed by the same measure.
Risks of Ignoring Branding
When branding strategy is ignored, influence operations risk:
- Credibility Collapse – Inconsistent actions destroy trust.
- Narrative Drift – Lack of positioning allows adversaries to seize dominance.
- Short-Termism – Viral reach without long-term resonance yields fleeting impact.
- Backlash – Tone-deaf or fractured messaging alienates audiences.
Corporate branding failures such as “New Coke” (1985) or Bud Light’s 2023 misstep show how tactical creativity can backfire absent strategic alignment. The same risks apply in political or military influence operations.
A Branding-Informed Model for Influence Operations
- Integrate Brand Positioning into Planning – Begin with identity, positioning, and promise.
- Build Narrative Architecture – Construct a story that resonates and sustains.
- Execute with Symbolic Consistency – Treat each channel and messenger as a brand touchpoint.
- Evaluate for Trust and Alignment – Use credibility and narrative adoption as primary metrics.
This approach does not replace traditional information operations frameworks. It strengthens them by adding the discipline of brand strategy.
Conclusion
Influence is not about being heard — it is about being believed. Branding strategy ensures influence operations build credibility, consistency, and trust, transforming tactical noise into durable impact.
Tactical messaging may create sparks, but strategic branding sustains the fire. If planners, operators, and evaluators of influence campaigns embrace branding strategy, they will move beyond the chase for impressions toward shaping enduring belief systems. And belief, once earned, is the ultimate force multiplier.
References
- Fog, K., Budtz, C., Munch, P., & Blanchette, S. (2010). Storytelling: Branding in Practice. Springer.
- Keller, K. L. (2012). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Pearson.
- Ries, A., & Trout, J. (2001). Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. McGraw-Hill.
- U.S. Army. (2016). FM 3-13: Information Operations. Headquarters, Department of the Army.
- NATO. (2019). AJP-10: Allied Joint Doctrine for Strategic Communications. NATO Standardization Office.
- Schaefer, M. (2023). Belonging to the Brand: Why Community is the Last Great Marketing Strategy. McGraw-Hill.
Author Bio:
Michael Daily, APR, is Co-founder and CEO of Communication Metrics, Inc., a branding strategy-focused measurement and analysis firm primarily focused on the Space and Defense Industries. Mike is also a part-time Instructor with Rutgers University in Public Relations Measurement. Colonel Daily retired after 30 years from the United States Marine Corps as a Public Affairs Officer in 2006. Mike can be contacted at: daily@communicationmetrics.com