By Matt Buckle, Partner/ Managing Director, Transmission
Disruption is a tempting strategy for brands. It’s bold, attention-grabbing, and, if done right, often leads to market dominance. Richard Branson built an empire by challenging the status quo, whether in aviation, music, or space travel. Tesla didn’t just sell electric cars, it redefined what consumers expected from the automotive industry. The appeal of being the maverick, the game-changer, or the cool new challenger brand is undeniable.
But what if disruption isn’t always the best move?
Some industries thrive on consistency and reliability. Not every consumer wants their experience upended, and not every sector benefits from radical transformation. Brands must ask themselves: are we solving a problem, or just disrupting for the sake of it? The difference between strategic evolution and reckless disruption can mean the difference between long-term success and a costly failure.
Disruption for disruption’s sake doesn’t work
Some industries are ripe for change.
Outdated processes, customer frustrations, and technological advancements create opportunities for new players to step in and shake things up. But others rely on trust and stability, meaning radical change isn’t always welcome.
Take the property sector. Buying a home is one of the biggest financial commitments a person will make. While modernisation is useful, such as virtual viewings or AI-powered mortgage applications, buyers don’t want an unfamiliar, experimental experience. Developers like Barrat Homes understand this. They don’t need to “disrupt” homebuilding, they need to reassure buyers that what they’re purchasing is reliable, high quality, and built to last.
The best disruptors don’t create confusion, they create clarity and new opportunities within existing consumer behaviour.
Understanding when (and how) to nudge consumers
For brands, the goal shouldn’t be to force changes in consumer behaviour, but to nudge people toward better alternatives. The brands that do this well don’t demand change, they present it as an exciting, viable, and logical next step.
Tesla is the ultimate example. It didn’t set out to convince people that they should just drive electric cars, it made them want to. By positioning Tesla vehicles as aspirational, high-performance machines rather than just “eco-friendly options,” the company flipped the script on what electric cars represented. Tesla’s disruption worked because it tapped into existing consumer desires, like status, speed, and cutting-edge technology, rather than forcing an unwanted change.
This is where brands often get it wrong.
They assume that if they shout loudly enough about their big, disruptive idea, consumers will simply fall in line. But customers aren’t waiting to be told what to do. A lifelong Mercedes driver won’t suddenly switch to a Kia just because an ad tells them it’s the future. However, if that driver is already concerned about sustainability, a well-placed message about Kia’s EV range, highlighting performance, affordability, and environmental impact, can gently guide them toward reconsidering their choices.
People won’t move unless they see a reason that fits their existing needs and beliefs.
Right place, right time, right message
Understanding when and where to engage consumers is just as critical as the message itself. People aren’t always in the right mindset to make a purchase or embrace a new idea, so timing is everything.
Look at Octopus Energy, which has built its brand around sustainability while ensuring customers feel in control of their decisions. Many people care about the planet but don’t actively seek out information on green energy tariffs. If Octopus tried to disrupt by bombarding people with ads while they were shopping or commuting, it wouldn’t work because they aren’t in the right headspace. Instead, the brand carefully places messaging where customers are most open to considering change, such as during financial planning or discussions about household bills (usually around billing dates).
The mistake many brands make is trying to force urgency where there is none. People don’t want to feel bullied into a choice.
The best advertising doesn’t push, it guides. It allows the consumer to feel like they’re making the decision themselves, rather than being pressured into it. This is the difference between a brand that influences and a brand that alienates.
Evolution over disruption
The brands that thrive aren’t always the loudest or the most aggressive in their innovation claims. They are the ones that deeply understand their audience, identify where real change is needed, and introduce solutions that feel natural rather than forced.
For many brands, the real challenge is balancing the desire to disrupt with the need to be relevant. Disruption for its own sake rarely leads to long-term success. Instead, brands should focus on making meaningful improvements, understanding consumer readiness, and choosing the right moments to introduce change.
So, before chasing the next hype-driven industry shake-up, brands need to ask themselves: Is disruption truly what our audience needs, or are we simply making noise? Because in many cases, the best way to stand out isn’t to disrupt, but to evolve.
