On Research & Reputation

Photo by AbsolutVision on Unsplash

Commissioning research to drive brand reputation has historically been a top-down affair, with attention earned primarily through authority. But, unless you’re Edelman and have been running a longitudinal study for 25+ years, and/or have an identifiable (ideally charismatic) leader to prominently feature alongside your research, the model has changed.

Today, thought leadership isn’t enough. Your research has to work bottom up - earning attention through resonance with lived experience, rather than by asserting expertise.

There was a time when branded research could earn attention almost by existing. A 2,500-person national survey signaled seriousness. A credible methodology was proof of investment. The very fact that you'd commissioned the work set you apart. Coverage would follow.

The formula for using research for reputational purposes was simple: Commission rigorous research that generates compelling and timely stats. Publish findings. Execute thoughtful media relations. Build reputation on the issue.

It worked because three things were true…

• The Cost Barrier: Not everyone could afford to commission a 2,500-person survey with Ipsos or Leger. The investment itself signalled seriousness.

• Institutional Trust: When a bank or a consultancy published research, the logo carried weight because businesses and institutions were generally perceived as trustworthy.

• Common Truth: A national survey meant something when there was still a national conversation. Large cohorts landing in a shared reality.

None of these conditions hold anymore. The authority-derived, top-down approach is now the exception, not the rule, if you expect to earn attention.

What’s Changed

The Cost Barrier Has Collapsed: Self-serve survey platforms with advanced analysis tools have made large studies far more affordable and accessible. The investment that once signaled seriousness is no longer required.

Institutional Trust Has Eroded: This year's Edelman Trust Barometer found nearly seven in ten people now fear institutional leaders are deliberately misleading them. Trust has become personal and local—concentrated in employers, coworkers, neighbors—while faith in institutions has collapsed. Logos that once conferred authority can now trigger suspicion.

When a bank publishes research showing Canadians are optimistic about their financial futures, fewer people think “they get it.” They’re more likely to think, "of course a bank would say that."

Common Truth Has Fractured: Algorithmic feeds have fragmented shared reality. Seventy percent of people are now hesitant to trust anyone with different values, information sources, or backgrounds than their own. A 2,500-person sample may be rigorous, but it lands in a world where audiences increasingly trust their own experience over institutional pronouncements.

Though I don't think we win by pandering to the lowest common denominator, this is simply the environment we're operating in— the environment shapes how research is received, and whether or not it achieves its commercial or reputational aim.

What Now?

Credibility and trust still come from the same place: visible humanity. What's changed is how that principle must now extend into the content of research itself.

The importance of visible authorship isn't new. Research with an identifiable author has always outperformed research from a faceless brand. Edelman data shows 67% of people prefer thought leadership with a named expert over institutional anonymity. A person is simply more credible than a logo.

What's become more critical is that humanity has to be centered in your findings too—not only abstracted into percentages and cohorts—if you expect to earn attention.

The shift is analogous to how advertising and PR have converged. It used to be about PR-ing the ad: create a spot, then earn coverage of it. Now success comes from advertising the PR: create something real worth talking about, then amplify it.

Thought leadership has undergone the same inversion. Instead of leading with data and illustrating with anecdotes, you lead with the human angle—then use research to back it up.

This isn't a new idea. It's just good comms. But today it's more important than ever.

Bottom Up, Human First

The research earning attention and driving results today inverts the traditional sequence. Instead of leading with data and illustrating with anecdotes, it leads with stories—then uses data to show why those stories matter.

Some of the best examples from over the years don’t even feel like research. Just timely and extremely relatable POVs if you’re a human being who occasionally touches grass.

• Dove’s 2004 Real Beauty Campaign is the canonical example here. It began with a survey and interviews, and was driven by a compelling statistic: Only 2% of women considered themselves beautiful. Most people haven’t read the white paper or visited Dove’s Global State of Beauty Website. It was the real women, whose stories were so viscerally featured in campaign assets that made it work - the campaign was about women, but also from them.

• Hinge Labs’ 2025 Gen Z D.A.T.E. Report is another great example. Hinge explicitly states their methodology: "Recognizing that dating is complex and personal, Hinge Labs uses both quantitative and qualitative research methods to study successful daters." But the key here is the emphasis… Their reports don't lead with stats, they lead with concepts that give a name to lived experience: Digital Body Language. Cringe Mode. The Communication Gap. Label Fatigue. Misunderstood Matches. Their reports also heavily feature real daters sharing their own stories, and a mix of named experts.

• Sonos’ 2016 Music Makes It Home Campaign is also great. Yes, they surveyed 30,000 people. Yes, 11,000 hours of video and 151 million individual data points were collected through ethnographic research, and with sensors embedded in peoples’ homes. But the campaign's core came from the stories of families inside 30 homes, across eight countries. The insight—that families aren't connecting like they used to, and music is the thing that brings them back together—emerged from their experience.

The structural difference: these campaigns earn attention not because of who commissioned them, but because they connect with something people are already feeling. They work bottom-up, starting from lived experience and building toward credibility, rather than top-down relying solely on authority.

In an environment where institutional trust has eroded and a logo can trigger suspicion as easily as confidence, this approach is a strategic necessity—and not just in consumer contexts. Whether you're a consumer brand, a consultancy, or a SaaS company, the imperative is the same.

Remember too that bottom-up doesn't happen by accident. It’s a blend of comms/brand and data/insights thinking right from the start - shaping what you're looking for and finding attention-worthy ways of going about it, not just packaging what you found. That starts with who's in the mix.