Brand personality is easy to describe and difficult to prove.
Open a typical brand presentation and the evidence is everywhere. The company is “bold.” It is “human.” It is “trusted,” “warm,” “innovative” or “premium.” The words are usually presented as if choosing them has solved an identity problem.
But a useful personality should do more than decorate a strategy deck. It should change what a company approves, rejects and escalates.
That distinction is becoming more important as artificial intelligence increases the volume of customer-facing material businesses can produce. The central question is no longer whether a company has a personality statement. It is whether that statement survives contact with real decisions.
In August, a promotional video tied to a co-branded Callaway driver showed Good Good Golf co-founder Garrett Clark pushing fellow creator Alexis Miestowski to the ground as she reached for the club.
The video was criticized for trivializing violence against women. Reuters reported that Callaway terminated its partnership with Good Good and pledged $1 million to organizations addressing violence against women.
The incident generated the predictable question: how did this get approved?
A September 9 Marketing Dive opinion by Gartner analyst Julie Reeves proposes a different one: did the execution fit the personality of the brand in the first place?
Reeves argues that organizations often treat brand personality as a few descriptive adjectives while relying on positioning and messaging to do the real strategic work. Her central claim is that personality has a more important function as a governance tool.
That argument deserves scrutiny because it sounds intuitively appealing. The test is whether the evidence supports treating personality as more than a creative preference.
What does the research actually say?
Brand personality is not a recent marketing invention.
A 2025 meta-analysis published in Psychology & Marketing reviewed 95 papers covering 28 years of research and 1,441 effect sizes. The authors describe symbolic traits such as brand personality as a value-adding differentiation tool and examine the factors that shape how consumers perceive those traits.
The paper does not prove that a personality framework will prevent a public relations crisis. That would be an overreach.
What it does support is the broader proposition that brand personality is a meaningful consumer perception shaped by multiple influences, including branding activity, product design, consumer characteristics and prior relationships with the brand.
Kantar’s 2026 BrandZ analysis provides another piece of the puzzle. It reported a Difference Index of 109 for brands with strong emotive clarity, compared with 94 for brands without emotive clarity. Kantar argues that emotional meaning becomes distinctive when reinforced through actions, communications and experiences.
Again, the finding should not be stretched beyond what it says. It does not establish a universal causal formula for growth. It does support the idea that coherent emotional meaning is associated with stronger perceived difference in Kantar’s dataset.
The evidence therefore gives personality more substance than a copywriting exercise, but it does not remove the need for managerial judgment.
The reason this debate matters now is not that companies suddenly discovered brand personality.
It is that content creation is becoming faster and more decentralized.
U.S. Census Bureau research from its 2026 AI supplement found that 18 percent of firms used AI in at least one business function during the November 2025 to January 2026 reference period. Among adopting firms, sales and marketing was the most common function, used by 52 percent.
Statistics Canada reported that 19.2 percent of businesses used AI to produce goods or deliver services during the 12 months preceding its second-quarter 2026 survey, up from 6.1 percent two years earlier. Reported applications included text analytics, chatbots, large language models and marketing automation.
These numbers do not tell us how much customer-facing content is being generated by AI. They do show that AI is already embedded in ordinary business workflows in both countries.
That matters because the brand is increasingly expressed by systems and people who may not share the founder’s instinctive sense of what “sounds like us.”
An employee can generate a campaign draft without a copywriter. A freelancer can produce dozens of social posts. Customer service software can suggest replies. A sales team can create its own presentation. An agency can generate many creative variants in hours.
The governance problem is not simply content volume. It is distributed interpretation.
Suppose a brand calls itself confident, friendly and innovative.
What should an AI assistant do with that?
Does confident mean assertive? Does it permit attacking a competitor? Does friendly mean using humor? How familiar is too familiar? Does innovative mean adopting every new cultural reference?
The adjectives do not resolve those questions.
A useful governance framework needs behavioral definitions.
“Confident” might mean clear recommendations and direct language, combined with an explicit prohibition on unsupported certainty.
“Friendly” might mean plain language and empathy, while excluding patronizing phrasing or forced intimacy.
“Innovative” might mean willingness to test new formats and technology, while requiring clear business value before adopting a trend.
These rules are not glamorous. That is precisely why they may be more useful.
They can be placed in AI prompts, agency briefs, creator contracts, review checklists and customer service procedures.
But can governance become brand theater too?
There is an obvious failure mode.
A company can write sophisticated behavioral rules and still ignore them when an exciting campaign arrives.
That would simply turn the old adjective problem into a longer document problem.
The real governance test is whether the framework has authority.
Can a junior employee use it to challenge a senior executive’s favorite idea?
Does it define categories that require escalation?
Can an agency point to the standard when a client asks for something inconsistent?
Does management accept that a high-performing concept may still be rejected because the reputational cost is unacceptable?
If the answer is no, the framework remains theater.
Governance requires more than clarity. It requires consequences.
One way to avoid creating another bureaucratic document is to connect personality rules to risk.
Not every piece of content deserves the same scrutiny.
A routine description of a product feature may need factual and brand checks.
A joke involving a sensitive topic, a major creator partnership, a public response to criticism or a deliberately controversial campaign should trigger additional review.
This approach is more practical than requiring the founder or chief marketing officer to inspect everything.
It also acknowledges that personality is not the only control. Legal review, factual verification, accessibility, privacy and platform policy may all matter depending on the content.
Personality should be one filter in a broader approval system.
The most defensible conclusion is narrower.
A clearly defined brand personality can give teams a shared standard for evaluating behavior, particularly when positioning alone does not answer whether an execution feels appropriate.
That is valuable in an AI-assisted environment because content generation is becoming easier while judgment remains scarce.
But personality rules are not a substitute for leadership, ethics or review. They are only effective when translated into observable behavior and linked to an approval process people actually follow.
The Callaway and Good Good controversy shows what is at stake when a creative decision passes through formal approval yet still creates severe reputational consequences. It does not prove that a stronger personality framework would have prevented the episode.
It does, however, expose a useful question for every business.
When the next unusual idea appears, does your brand system provide a reasoned way to decide whether it belongs, or does the decision still come down to whoever has the most authority in the room?
If personality cannot influence that decision, it is probably not governance.
It is brand theater.
Comments are off for this post.