What most brands still get wrong about consumer-centricity

Every brand says they are consumer-centric. It signals the right intention, but often obscures the reality. Most organizations are still structured around internal priorities, legacy processes, and short-term pressures, not around the lived experience of the people they serve.

And that tension shows up. It's in the gap between what brands say and what consumers feel, and in the disconnect between insight and action.

So instead of redefining consumer-centricity, I thought it'd more useful to challenge the assumptions that keep it stuck. Time to do some myth busting! 🧨

Myth #1:

Consumer-centricity means listening attentively to the consumer

🙅 Obviously listening is necessary. But it is not sufficient.

Brands are already collecting more feedback than ever before. In fact, organizations today are gathering more customer data than at any point in history. Yet, according to a McKinsey report, only about 20–30% of executives say they are effective at turning insights into action. The breakdown isn’t in listening. It’s in what happens next.

Consumer-centricity, in practice, is less about listening systems and more about decision systems.

Myth #2:

If we understand consumers deeply the right answers will be obvious

🙅 There’s comfort in believing more insight leads to clarity. But increasingly, it leads to more tension.

Consumers are contextual. They want value and premium, convenience and control, personalization and privacy - and of course, all at the same time. This is reflected in data as well: according to Salesforce, over 70% of consumers expect personalized experiences, yet a similar proportion express concern about how their data is used.

The role of insight is not to eliminate ambiguity, but to frame trade-offs more intelligently. The most consumer-centric organizations are the ones most comfortable making decisions within that complexity.

Myth #3:

Consumer-centricity is solely a function of the insights team

🙅 It should concern everyone in the organization. Really.

Insights teams are often positioned as the voice of the consumer. But if one team “owns” the consumer, everyone else is one step removed. True consumer-centricity is not a function. It shows up in how decisions are made across the organization, including product, marketing, experience, and yes, even top leadership.

The goal is not to be the only voice of the consumer. It is to make that voice unavoidable in every room.

Myth #4:

Consumer-centricity means hyper-personalization

🙅 Personalization has become the visible proxy: the right message, right moment, right channel. And it matters but it’s only one layer.

But a brand can be highly personalized and still feel disconnected. Because consumer-centricity is not just about relevance. It is about resonance or understanding the broader context of someone’s life, the pressures they’re navigating, the trade-offs they’re making.

Myth #5:

Consumer-centricity is the key that will unlock growth 

🙅 That’s an incomplete starting point.

Consumer-centricity is a discipline of alignment between what a brand promises and delivers, between internal decisions and external realities, between short-term actions and long-term trust. And trust is increasingly fragile: only 42% of consumers say they trust brands to do what is right, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer.

When growth pressure becomes the primary lens, consumer-centricity can quickly become performative.

---

Consumer-centricity is not something you build once. It is a set of choices you make repeatedly. It means acting on insight, even when it’s inconvenient. Making decisions within ambiguity, not waiting for perfect clarity. Embedding the consumer into every function, not isolating it within one team. Moving beyond personalization toward true contextual understanding. Prioritizing alignment, even when it’s harder operationally.

The brands that will feel most relevant in the years ahead will not be the ones who talk the most about the consumer but rather the ones who are consistently willing to act on what they already know.