Ask any company this question: who owns where your brand sits in culture? Not internal culture. External culture. The music, fashion, design, technology, and aesthetics that shape how your audience sees the world. The environment your brand either thrives in or suffocates in.

The answer is almost always: nobody. Or worse: everyone, a little bit, in passing.

Marketing owns campaigns. PR owns reputation. Social owns feeds. Brand owns guidelines. But the actual cultural positioning of the company? The instinct for which collaborations make sense, which communities to engage, which moments to join and which to sit out? That lives in the gaps between departments, if it lives anywhere at all.

The Pharrell lesson

When Pharrell Williams was appointed Men's Creative Director at Louis Vuitton, it wasn't a fashion hire. It was a cultural infrastructure investment. Pharrell connected the brand to communities, aesthetics, and energy that no campaign could manufacture. He brought a network of relationships, a fluency across music and design and streetwear, and an instinct for what felt current without being desperate.

Most brands can't hire a Pharrell. But every brand can create the role. A permanent position that owns cultural intelligence the way a CFO owns financial intelligence. Someone whose job is to know what's happening in culture, understand why it matters, and connect it to what the brand is doing.

Cultural intelligence is hard to measure, so performance marketing gets funded and brand relevance gets cut. But relevance is the foundation that performance is built on.

Nike's cautionary tale

Nike is the most instructive example. For decades, Nike's cultural positioning was untouchable. The brand understood sport, music, community, and aspiration in a way that felt instinctive. Then the people who held that instinct moved on. The cultural knowledge walked out the door because it lived in individuals, not in systems.

The lesson isn't that Nike hired the wrong replacements. It's that cultural intelligence was never codified, never operationalised, never treated as infrastructure. It was treated as magic. And magic doesn't survive personnel changes.

Make it a role, not a person. Make it a system, not a vibe.

Algorithms and taste are not opposites

There's a false dichotomy in how most companies think about culture. Either you're data-driven (performance marketing, attribution modelling, A/B testing) or you're culture-driven (editorial instinct, creative intuition, taste). As if these are opposing philosophies.

They're not. The best cultural intelligence combines both. Algorithms can surface signals at scale. They can tell you what's trending, what's growing, what's decaying. What they can't do is tell you what it means, whether it matters, or what your brand should do about it. That requires taste. That requires someone who understands the audience deeply enough to filter signal from noise.

🎯
The proof: I built three tools to demonstrate this. CultureTerminal scores cultural relevance algorithmically. The Pattern publishes a daily AI-synthesised culture briefing. The Relevance Index tracks where brands sit relative to culture. One person with taste and the right tools, producing what used to require an editorial team.

The budget problem

Cultural intelligence always loses the budget fight. It's hard to attribute, hard to measure in the short term, and easy to cut when quarterly targets tighten. Performance marketing has a spreadsheet. Culture has a feeling.

But the brands that maintained cultural investment through downturns are the ones people remember. The ones that cut it are the ones scrambling to buy relevance back at ten times the cost through influencer deals and sponsorship cheques. You can't buy your way into culture. You have to earn it, and earning it requires consistent, operational attention.

The solution isn't to make culture measurable in the same way as performance (it never will be). It's to treat it as infrastructure. The way you treat your tech stack, your supply chain, your legal compliance. You don't question whether you need a CTO. Stop questioning whether you need someone who owns cultural intelligence.

One person can do it now

Here's the part that makes this argument newly urgent. AI has made it possible for one person to produce cultural intelligence at a scale that previously required a team. Daily publishing. Real-time signal monitoring. Cross-source synthesis. Automated scoring. All the operational grunt work that used to justify a department can now be handled by one person with the right tools and the right taste.

The role is more achievable than ever. The question is whether companies will create it, or keep treating culture as a campaign add-on and wondering why their brand feels invisible.

I made the full argument in Culture Is Infrastructure, a 30-slide presentation on why every company needs someone who owns where the brand sits in culture.