What PR lessons can brands learn from populism?

Populists are incredibly effective at using the media to command attention, spread their ideas and build a passionate following. What does this mean for businesses, what can they learn from this, and how can they use this to communicate more effectively?

One of the age old rules in PR, is that if there is no tension, there is no story.

Or as former Labour comms head (and The Rest is Politics co-host) Alistair Campbell put it -

"The definition of news is something that someone, somewhere, doesn't want people to know about".

This is instructive for challenger brands.

Being the same as everyone else is dull, as is a world where everyone gets on and there is no conflict - not least because human beings are tribal and competitive. We want to both pick a tribe, and benchmark ourselves against others.

This insight is being use to great effect by populist movements.

By identifying an enemy, defining them in negative terms and using highly-emotive and negative language and presenting simple binary solutions - populists can spread their messages fast.

This is helped by the fact that many of us like to virtue-signal - we communicate own values by nailing our colours to a particular mast, whether that in conversations in the pub or by sharing/ reposting/ engaging with content on social media.

I'm no different from this. One of my central, guiding values for years has been my dislike of bullies. Or more generally - those people who wilfully abuse positions of power.

There’s lots been said about the negative impacts that a huge concentration of power in the hands of the few can have on society. And I have, like many people, become concerned about the concentration of power between a few leaders within big tech.

It often feels like they operate outside the rule of law, use their power to move markets and influence legislation in their favour, and are more powerful than many nation states - rather like oligarchs operating in a mafia state.

A technoligarch, if you like.

The Technoligarchs

This phrase aims to bundle the leaders of big tech firms by aligning them with the oligarch class who acquired immense wealth and power by being in the right place at the right time, and exercising ruthlessness to acquire power and doing whatever it takes to retain it.

I have seen this story played out so many times in popular culture. Westworld. The Circle. Mountainhead - to name but a few.

Steve Carrell plays a sociopathic technoligarch in 2025's Mountainhead.

This article in Vanity Fair (from a few years ago now) is one of many brilliantly written on the subject, by Jonathan Taplin, famed author of "Move Fast and Break Things" - but it’s the use of the phrase techno-oligarch in the headline (OK, close) that stands out for me.

[And for the record, I’d used the phrase “technoligarch” a while before reading this article. I don’t say this as I wish to claim it, just to make the point that it’s a catchy play on words that works.]

Concerns around AI have brought the issue of market power to light again in recent years, with a growing movement against big tech and its perceived disregard for nation states’ rule of law; privacy, intellectual property, tax, competition, libel and so on.

We are far from a ‘big tobacco’ moment, but as the consequences play out (in terms of deaths and real-world social harms) awareness continues to grow.

Should all challenger brands ‘fight the power’?

I’m not suggesting that every startup positions itself in direct opposition to big tech, and the majority of businesses will not.

Sometimes it's strategic.

Many startups will either want to sell their services to big tech, partner with them/ need to use them as a sales channel, or eventually be acquired by them and move on to the next project. And while I’m sceptical as to how much criticising a potential future partner or acquirer would have (the powerful don’t really care, look at Trump and JD Vance) - I can understand the desire the hold the tongue.

But most challenger brands can find a way to use ‘others’ to inject the tension in the story and define themselves as David to the Goliath.

By calling out the impacts of what the 'others' do, and behaving the opposite way, and brand can not only reinforce its own values and attributes but insert itself in the wider debate around big tech.

’Technoligarchs’ works well in PR terms as it immediately compresses an idea and position into one word.

🥊 It has tension (tech vs the people).

⚔️ It polarises (simple to pick a side)

⚖️ It negatively frames the ‘enemy’ (outside rule of law)

✊ It emotes a call to action (we must rise, fight the power)

👹 It is relatable in the real world (we know what oligarchs are) Tone and style really matters.

It’s possible to take an oppositional tone without coming across like a helpless and powerless angry teenager - provided you look the part, walk the talk, and choose words carefully.

Listen to those politicians on the radio who clearly disagree with the party line but stop short of creating negative headlines as they don’t directly criticise the leadership, or give the journalists the binary answers they push for.

The Insight > Learn from the populists

I accept it is much harder for anti-authoritarian centrist politicians to use populist communications methods, due to the nature of modern media.

🤖 Technoligarch-owned, unregulated, algorithm-curated media (social media) remains in the ascendancy due to increasing relevance and revenues, caused by growing audiences, high brand prominence, a lack of competition and rapidly growing digital ad revenues.

This is driven by commanding attention and addictive design with little regard for the ‘user’. The advertiser has always been the customer.

🧠 Publisher-owned, editorially-regulated, human-curated media (newspapers, magazines, broadcast) is in severe decline due to decreasing relevance and revenues, caused by subscription fatigue and tanking digital ad revenues.

The digital pennies are not replacing the analogue pounds and publishers need to keep audiences entertained and engaged to survive - journalists have always been drawn to the shocking and sensational, but maintaining a measured line gets harder when you have column-inches to fill.

This is even more true today as (like social media) for many publishers the reader is no longer the paying customer. And now AI is taking content theft to new levels.

This is why shouty and aggressive challengers will always get more prominence than merit would suggest.

Where this leaves mainstream centrism (from a communications perspective) will be the subject of a future article - but the takeout for businesses would be to consider who are your ‘technoligarchs’?

Thinking about your own business or cause, can you find a phrase to contain and simplify your big idea, or to frame your (ideological) opponent(s) in negative terms?

If so, you can use other people’s interest in their story to draw attention to your own (better) idea. If you can this could be an effective way to draw attention to your cause or category, and shape perceptions around your brand by defining what it's not.