Choosing the type of discourse a brand will adopt over the long term is an essential strategic decision for any company. This decision shapes how the company is perceived by the public, defines its identity in the market and influences the way consumers and other stakeholders relate to the brand.
French author Pascale Weil, in her study of the communication strategies of leading French companies, proposed four main types of discourse that may be adopted: sovereignty discourse, activity discourse, vocation discourse and relationship discourse.
Each of these forms of discourse offers a distinct approach aimed at communicating different aspects of the brand. By organising its communications according to a specific discourse typology, a company gains a powerful factor of coherence in the way it interacts with the market, because all its messages contribute to a perception that is intended and controlled by the brand manager.
It is important for entrepreneurs, business owners and managers to understand why choosing the right discourse is crucial for a brand. First and foremost, discourse defines the way a company communicates its values and objectives, helping to build a coherent and appealing image for the public. Consistency in that discourse, particularly over the long term, strengthens brand identity and enables consumers to develop a relationship of trust and understanding with it.
Furthermore, discourse influences public perception of the brand’s relevance and purpose in society. Brands that choose a discourse that is well aligned with their practices and values are perceived as more authentic and trustworthy, qualities that are increasingly valued by consumers.
The type of discourse adopted by a brand is often strongly indicated by its institutional slogan or motto, generally a short phrase that proposes a particular “way of seeing” the company and summarises the central idea around which all institutional and commercial communications will be organised.
1. Sovereignty discourse
Sovereignty discourse emphasises leadership, dominance and the brand’s role as a benchmark within its sector. This type of discourse is characterised by a language of authority, highlighting the elements that distinguish the brand from its competitors and position it as a market leader.
Companies that adopt this type of discourse seek to be perceived as superior and unrivalled, not only because of the quality of their products and services, but also because of their influence, innovation, scale or capacity to guarantee a differentiated outcome for any customer.
A clear example of a company that uses sovereignty discourse is Apple. The brand positions itself not only as a leader in technology and innovation, but also as a cultural reference, with an iconic identity that influences a wide range of markets.
The slogan Think Different exemplifies Apple’s sovereignty discourse, highlighting its position as an innovative and pioneering brand. The launch of new products is always a global event that demonstrates the brand’s authority over technological trends. By adopting sovereignty discourse, Apple conveys the idea that it is a unique and superior brand, raising consumer expectations accordingly.
2. Activity discourse
Activity discourse focuses on the company’s achievements, actions and technical capabilities. In this type of discourse, the brand communicates what it is capable of doing, its initiatives and its actions, highlighting the practical and tangible impact it generates in the market or in society.
Activity discourse is widely used by companies that want to demonstrate efficiency, commitment to results and technical competence.
A striking example of activity discourse is Toyota. The Japanese company is known for excellence in its production processes, particularly through the Toyota Production System and the philosophy of kaizen — continuous improvement.
In its communication, Toyota frequently highlights the quality and innovation of its production methods, while consistently emphasising efficiency and sustainability and drawing attention to its direct impact on the automotive industry.
By choosing activity discourse, Toyota reinforces its image as a reliable, highly competent and efficient brand, associating itself with concepts of precision and continuous dedication to quality.
3. Vocation discourse
Vocation discourse emphasises the company’s mission and purpose beyond profit, highlighting how it contributes to individuals, society and overall wellbeing. This type of discourse is particularly effective for brands that wish to be seen as socially responsible and committed to sustainable development and the common good.
Vocation discourse is especially suited to companies that want to anchor their commercial activities in a commitment to effort, dedication and unlimited service in pursuit of a broader objective that is valued by the customer.
For these brands, it is important that the customer understands that the entire organisation is aligned with the purpose of serving the wishes and interests of those to whom its commercial offering is directed and that, from this perspective, there will be no rule other than doing whatever is necessary to achieve that purpose.
A notable example of vocation discourse is the communication of Patagonia, the outdoor and adventure clothing company. The brand has built a strong identity based on environmentally sustainable practices and a clear purpose of protecting the environment. The slogan We’re in business to save our home planet summarises this commitment and its vocation-based positioning.
Patagonia does not merely sell products. The company encourages environmental conservation and recycling and even supports ecological causes with part of its profits. Patagonia’s vocation lies at the heart of all its communication strategies and business activities, demonstrating a mission that goes beyond its products and reinforcing a deep emotional connection with consumers.
4. Relationship discourse
Relationship discourse focuses on proximity to the customer, interaction and dialogue. This type of discourse is common among companies that want to build a close bond and a lasting relationship with consumers. Instead of speaking about the superiority or achievements of the brand, relationship discourse highlights the value of the customer experience and the brand’s commitment to meeting customer needs and expectations.
Within this type of discourse, companies very often use formulations that value “us” and “you” as parts of a mutually beneficial interaction, establishing a reciprocal, balanced and sustainable relationship.
Relationship discourse seeks to create a common platform between the company and the market that establishes a framework of prior agreement before the commercial relationship itself, as though both sides were developing something together, in partnership, that creates value within their respective areas of interest without being affected by the natural dialectic of an economy based on opposing interests.
A good example of a company that uses relationship discourse is Starbucks. The brand stands out for promoting a close relationship with its customers, offering a “third place” between home and work where people can relax and socialise.
Starbucks develops campaigns that encourage interaction with customers, from personalised orders to initiatives such as Starbucks Rewards, which reinforce loyalty and a sense of belonging to the company’s symbolic and emotional universe.
The brand also promotes social engagement initiatives and frequently adapts its messages to the local communities in which it operates. This discourse helps build a community of loyal and satisfied consumers who perceive Starbucks as a brand that cares about their preferences and experiences.
Comparison and long-term strategy
The choice of a type of discourse depends on the brand’s objectives, its sector of activity and the identity it wishes to build over the long term. For brands aspiring to leadership in innovation and market authority, sovereignty discourse is effective, but it needs to be supported by constant innovation and strategic positioning that justify that leadership.
For companies that value excellence in execution and tangible results, activity discourse is a natural choice. This type of discourse allows the brand to stand out through competence and efficiency, but requires it to maintain the high standards it promises.
Vocation discourse is more suitable for brands with a strong social or environmental mission that wish to be seen as agents of positive change. This discourse requires consistency and genuine commitment to causes that go beyond profit.
Finally, relationship discourse is ideal for companies seeking closeness and customer loyalty, valuing the consumer experience and promoting a personal bond. This type of discourse requires constant interaction and attention to customer needs.
When choosing a discourse, companies should consider not only its benefits but also the expectations it will create among the public. A well-implemented discourse strengthens brand identity and customer loyalty, whereas an inappropriate discourse or inconsistency between what the company says and what it does may result in a loss of credibility.
In summary, choosing the type of discourse that a brand will adopt over the long term is a strategic decision that directly affects its image, its relationship with consumers and its relevance in the market.
The question that may legitimately arise at this stage is whether the four types of discourse proposed by Weil exhaust all the possible variations in positioning in terms of what a company SAYS to the market and to its stakeholders.
More extensive and up-to-date research could probably support typologies that add further categories of discourse to those analysed here. However, for the purpose of establishing a rational and well-documented process for choosing your company’s discourse, I believe that understanding these four types already provides a useful analytical framework within which to organise ideas and support communication thinking.
The four types of discourse defined by Pascale Weil — sovereignty, activity, vocation and relationship — offer distinct approaches, each suited to different brand objectives and values. Companies such as Apple, Toyota, Patagonia and Starbucks are examples of brands that use these forms of discourse effectively, strengthening their identities and standing out within their respective sectors.
Choosing the right discourse, combined with consistent execution aligned with the company’s values and practices, makes it possible to build an authentic and respected brand with a lasting relationship of trust with its consumers.
Paulo Fidalgo
CEO of Marketividade
