I first saw this in a repositioning meeting in 2011.
Client: 40-year-old cosmetics brand, sales down 15% annually. The head of marketing presented a new campaign: “Beauty for all women.”
I asked: “Beauty against what?”
Silence.
“I mean… beauty is good, right? It doesn’t need to be against anything.”
Three years later, the brand was discontinued.
WHY BRANDS NEED ENEMIES
I’m not talking about attacking competitors by name.
I’m talking about defining what your brand fights against in the world.
Because positioning isn’t just “what you stand for.”
It’s what you stand against (in opposition to).
And here’s the paradox:
Brands without enemies are brands without clear purpose.
And brands without a clear purpose mobilize no one.
See the difference:
Generic brand:
“We believe in innovation and quality.”
Brand with symbolic enemy:
“We believe technology should be simple. Our enemy is unnecessary complexity.” (Apple)
The second mobilizes.
The first… exists.
THREE TYPES OF SYMBOLIC ENEMY
- ENEMY = STATUS QUO
Example: Tesla
Elon Musk didn’t position Tesla against Ford or GM.
He positioned it against “auto industry that thinks the future is combustion engines.”
Symbolic enemy: complacency with pollution.
Result:
- Tesla buyers aren’t buying “an electric car”
- They’re voting against fossil fuels
- It’s a statement, not transportation
Why it works:
Because you can’t be neutral. Either you drive Tesla (vote future) or drive combustion (vote past).
Tesla created a culture war where none existed.
And is winning $800 billion for it.
- ENEMY = SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Example: Nike “Just Do It”
Nike doesn’t compete with Adidas or Reebok.
It competes with sedentary lifestyle, excuses, and procrastination.
Symbolic enemy: “I don’t have time,” “I’ll start Monday,” “I’m not an athlete.”
Every Nike campaign for 35 years is about defeating the voice in your head saying not to run.
Result:
- Nike worth $200 billion
- Adidas (no clear enemy) is worth $40 billion
Difference: Nike mobilizes against something inside you.
Adidas sells sneakers.
- ENEMY = INDUSTRY STANDARD
Example: Dove “Real Beauty”
Dove doesn’t directly attack L’Oréal or Nivea.
It attacks “beauty industry selling unattainable standards and photoshop.”
2004 campaign: billboard with real women, not models.
Tagline: “When was the last time you felt beautiful?”
Symbolic enemy: beauty ideal excluding 99% of women.
Result:
- Dove sales: $1 billion (2004) → $5 billion (2024)
- Competitors still use size 0 models
- Dove owns the real beauty conversation
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE NO ENEMY
I worked with a tech brand in 2018. Excellent product. Competent team. Zero growth.
Problem: positioning was “we’re better.”
I asked: “Better than who? Against what?”
Answer: “Better than competitors.”
But competitors had clear enemies:
- Competitor A: “No more crashing software” (enemy = instability)
- Competitor B: “Stop paying for features you don’t use” (enemy = price gouging)
- My client: “We’re better” (enemy = none)
Client remained stagnant.
Competitors grew 40% annually.
Because “better” doesn’t mobilize.
“Against something specific” mobilizes.
HOW TO FIND YOUR SYMBOLIC ENEMY
Three questions that work:
- WHAT DEEPLY IRRITATES YOUR CUSTOMER?
Not “what they want.”
What they HATE about the world/category/status quo works
- Airbnb: generic expensive hotels (enemy = soulless hospitality)
- Nubank (Brazilian fintech): bureaucratic inaccessible banks (enemy = financial exclusion)
- Patagonia: rampant consumerism (enemy = fast fashion)
Your customer is angry about something.
Your brand channels that anger.
- WHICH INDUSTRY BELIEF DO YOU REJECT?
Every category has “truths” nobody questions.
- Dollar Shave Club rejected: “razors must cost $20” (Gillette charged this)
- Spotify rejected: “music must be owned” (iTunes sold downloads)
- Uber rejected: “transport must be city-regulated” (taxis had monopoly)
Which “truth” in your sector is a lie?
That’s your enemy.
- IF YOUR BRAND WON, WHAT WOULD DISAPPEAR FROM THE WORLD?
- If Apple won: technological complexity
- If Whole Foods won: ultra-processed food
- If Duolingo won: language barriers
If your brand won… what would change?
If answer is “we’d have more market share” → you have no enemy.
If answer is “the world would be different” → you have positioning.
WARNING: ENEMY ISN’T GRATUITOUS CONTROVERSY
Crucial difference:
Symbolic enemy:
Tesla vs fossil fuels = coherent with product/mission
Empty controversy:
Burger King making controversial tweets unrelated to burgers = noise
Golden rule:
If your enemy isn’t directly related to the problem your product solves, you’re just creating noise.
Nike vs sedentary lifestyle = coherent (they sell running clothes)
Nike vs political party X = incoherent (they don’t sell politics)
CONCLUSION: BRANDS WITHOUT FIGHT ARE BRANDS WITHOUT SOUL
Consumers don’t buy products.
They buy positions in cultural battle fields.
When you drive Tesla, you’re voting against oil.
When you wear Patagonia, you’re voting against fast fashion.
When you use Nubank, you’re voting against traditional banking.
You’re not neutral.
You chose a side.
And brands that make you choose sides are the only ones that become movements.
Does your brand have an enemy?
Or is it trying to please everyone (and mobilize no one)?
Jose Roberto Martins
More on positioning through opposition: BrandingLeaks (2026)
