Executive Summary

Context: Why This Question Matters Now

A. Consumer Trust in Corporations is at Historic Lows

Corporate trust has been declining for years, but recent data reveals the depth of the crisis. According to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, business remains the most trusted institution globally at 53%, yet this represents fragile trust built largely on competence rather than ethical foundations. More revealing is the sharp divide: only 53% of the general population trusts business, while 67% of the informed public does—a 14-point trust gap that highlights deep skepticism among everyday consumers.

The reasons for this erosion are clear. Corporate scandals, data breaches, perceived prioritization of profits over people, and perceived indifference to social issues have created an environment where consumers approach brands with suspicion rather than confidence. According to Pew Research Center, only 17% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in large corporations—a figure that has remained stubbornly low for decades.

For businesses, this trust deficit has tangible consequences. When consumers don't trust a company, they're less likely to buy, less forgiving of mistakes, and more prone to switch to competitors. In cybersecurity specifically, where trust is the fundamental product being sold, this crisis of confidence creates both risk and opportunity.

B. The Rise of "Voting with Your Wallet"

Consumers are increasingly using purchasing decisions as a form of values expression. Deloitte's 2024 Global Marketing Trends report found that purpose-driven brands grow 2.5 times faster than those without clear values positioning. More strikingly, 83% of millennials believe it's important for companies to align with their values, and 76% have boycotted or considered boycotting a brand due to values misalignment.

This shift represents more than simple preference—it's a fundamental change in how consumers relate to brands. The rise of social media has amplified this dynamic, enabling rapid mobilization of consumer sentiment. A single corporate misstep can spark viral backlash within hours, while authentic values alignment can generate powerful word-of-mouth advocacy.

Generational differences amplify this trend. Gen Z and Millennials have grown up in an era of corporate accountability expectations that would have seemed radical a generation ago. For them, corporate citizenship isn't optional—it's expected. This creates pressure on brands to articulate values clearly, even as it creates risk when those values don't resonate universally.

C. The "No Politics" Paradox

Perhaps the most challenging dynamic facing modern brands is what might be called the "no politics paradox": in many contexts, staying silent is increasingly interpreted as taking a position.

When major social events occur—whether protests, policy changes, or cultural flashpoints—consumers increasingly expect brands to respond. Silence is no longer interpreted as neutrality; it's often read as complicity or indifference. During the 2020 social justice protests following George Floyd's murder, companies that remained silent faced criticism for failing to acknowledge the moment, while those who spoke faced scrutiny over authenticity.

This creates an impossible bind: speak and risk alienating segments who disagree; stay silent and risk alienating segments who expect engagement. There is no longer a "safe" option.

D. Why This Matters for Cybersecurity and Tech

The trust crisis and values-alignment trends have particular resonance for technology and cybersecurity companies.

First, tech companies face unique scrutiny. The past decade has revealed the profound social implications of digital platforms, from data privacy violations to misinformation spread to algorithmic bias. Consumers have become sophisticated about the ways technology companies collect, use, and monetize personal information. For cybersecurity brands specifically, trust isn't just nice-to-have—it's the core product. If customers don't trust you to protect their data, the product itself becomes worthless.

Second, cybersecurity operates in an inherently values-laden space. Protection, safety, privacy, security—these aren't merely technical features but deeply human concerns. A mission like "cybersecurity reimagined for humans" already implies a values stance: that technology should serve people, not the other way around.

Finally, the cybersecurity industry serves populations who are often vulnerable: elderly individuals targeted by scams, immigrants navigating unfamiliar digital systems, low-income families without sophisticated technical knowledge. The industry has an opportunity—perhaps even an obligation—to position itself as protector of the vulnerable, not just seller of software.

The Spectrum of Values-Driven Positioning

Not all values-driven positioning is created equal. The approaches companies take vary dramatically in risk profile, resource requirements, and potential impact. Understanding this spectrum is critical for making strategic choices rather than reactive ones.

Level 1: Transparent Operations

At the most fundamental level, values-driven positioning can simply mean communicating clearly and honestly about what a company already does. This includes operational practices around data handling, environmental impact, labor conditions, supplier relationships, and corporate governance.

Example: Apple's Privacy Positioning - Apple has built significant brand differentiation around privacy, consistently communicating its data handling practices and contrasting them with competitors. The "What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone" campaign exemplifies this approach.

Risk Profile: Low - The primary risk is failing to live up to stated practices. However, if operations genuinely reflect stated values, risk remains minimal.

Impact Potential: Moderate - Transparency can build trust and differentiation, particularly in industries where such openness is rare.

Level 2: Cause Alignment (Universal Values)

The next level involves aligning corporate support with broadly accepted causes—education, health, disaster relief, or similar areas where consensus exists across most demographic and political segments.

Example: Microsoft's Digital Skills Initiative - Through partnerships with nonprofits and community colleges, Microsoft provides free training aimed at closing the digital skills gap. This aligns with their core business while supporting a broadly valued cause.

Risk Profile: Low-Moderate - Risk remains relatively low because these causes enjoy broad support. The main risks are execution failure or accusations of "cause washing."

Impact Potential: Moderate - Cause alignment can enhance brand perception and build goodwill, though it typically doesn't generate strong emotional bonds.

Level 3: Advocacy on Industry-Relevant Issues

At this level, companies take public positions on issues directly related to their industry or business model. This goes beyond operational transparency to active advocacy—supporting legislation, partnering with advocacy groups, or speaking publicly on policy matters.

Example: DuckDuckGo's Privacy Advocacy - DuckDuckGo actively advocates for stronger privacy legislation and regularly publishes research criticizing competitors' data practices. The advocacy authenticates the product positioning while advancing the broader ecosystem they need to thrive.

Risk Profile: Moderate - Risk increases because advocacy means taking positions that not everyone supports. However, risk is contained by the clear connection to core business.

Impact Potential: High (within target segments) - For customers who care about the issue, industry-relevant advocacy can create powerful loyalty.

Level 4: Proactive Cause Campaigns

This level involves launching branded campaigns around social issues that may not directly relate to products but connect to broader brand purpose. These are typically sustained, multi-year initiatives with dedicated creative, partnerships, and often product integration.

Example: Dove's "Real Beauty" Campaign - Launched in 2004, Dove's Real Beauty campaign challenged narrow beauty standards by featuring women of diverse ages, sizes, and ethnicities. The campaign sparked conversation, generated massive media coverage, and fundamentally repositioned Dove's brand identity.

Risk Profile: Moderate-High - Social issues are inherently more contested than industry-specific advocacy. Branded campaigns invite scrutiny of authenticity.

Impact Potential: High - When executed well, cause campaigns can create cultural moments that transcend traditional marketing. Dove's work helped grow the brand from $2.5 billion to over $5 billion in ten years.

Level 5: Activist Brand Positioning

At the highest level of risk and impact, some brands build their entire identity around social, environmental, or political activism. These companies don't just support causes—they define themselves by their values.

Example: Patagonia - Patagonia represents the purest form of activist brand positioning. The company has sued the U.S. government over environmental policy, urged customers not to buy its products to reduce consumption, and ultimately transferred all ownership to environmental trusts.

Risk Profile: Very High - Activist positioning almost guarantees controversy. Patagonia has explicitly chosen mission over market size, accepting that significant market segments will never become customers.

Impact Potential: Very High - For those who share the values, activist brands inspire fierce loyalty. Patagonia has grown dramatically (5x revenue over a decade) despite controversial positioning.

Case Studies: What Others Have Done

The Risks and Trade-offs

The case studies reveal that values-driven positioning is neither inherently good nor bad—it's a strategic choice with predictable risks and trade-offs. Understanding these dynamics allows organizations to make informed decisions rather than reactive ones.

Risk 1: The Authenticity Gap

The most dangerous risk in values-driven positioning is the gap between stated values and operational reality. When companies claim to stand for something but their actions contradict those claims, the backlash is severe—often worse than if they'd never taken a position at all.

Why It Matters: Consumers and employees have become sophisticated at detecting performative values. Social media amplifies scrutiny, and investigative journalism exposes gaps. The higher you position on values, the more intensely your operations will be examined.

How to Mitigate:

• Operational audit before positioning—examine all operations through the lens of stated values
• Acknowledge imperfection—no company is perfect; transparent acknowledgment builds credibility
• Make costly commitments—structural commitments signal authenticity
• Sustained investment—values positioning requires continuous investment in operations, not just marketing

Risk 2: Customer and Stakeholder Alienation

Taking positions on values means some people will disagree with you. This is inevitable. The question isn't whether you'll alienate some segments—it's whether the loyalty gained from aligned segments justifies the alienation of others.

The Mathematics: Values positioning is fundamentally about trading breadth for depth. You're accepting a smaller addressable market in exchange for stronger loyalty, higher pricing power, and word-of-mouth advocacy within your target segment.

How to Mitigate:

• Know your target market deeply—invest in research about what your core customers actually value
• Model the economics—calculate whether loyalty gains offset customer losses
• Communicate clearly who you're for—be explicit about your target
• Accept the trade-off consciously—make strategic choice rather than hoping to avoid alienating anyone

Risk 3: Execution Complexity and Operational Constraints

Values commitments create real operational constraints. They narrow vendor options, limit strategic flexibility, constrain marketing approaches, and often increase costs. These aren't hypothetical—they're daily operational realities.

Specific Constraints:

• Supply Chain: Sustainable materials limit supplier options and increase costs
• Product Development: Privacy commitments may make certain features impossible
• Marketing: Values positioning limits which partners and channels are appropriate
• Financial: Philanthropic commitments affect bottom line

Risk 4: Reputational Vulnerability and Escalation Dynamics

Values positioning raises standards permanently. Once you've claimed to stand for something, every decision is evaluated through that lens. A misstep that would be forgiven for other companies becomes a crisis for values-positioned brands.

The Escalation Dynamic: Social media creates rapid escalation of controversies. What begins as isolated criticism can become viral outrage within hours. Values-positioned brands face higher risk because you've invited evaluation on values grounds.

Risk 5: Opportunity Cost and Resource Allocation

Every dollar and hour spent on values initiatives is a dollar and hour not spent on product development, customer acquisition, or operational efficiency. This is straightforward opportunity cost, but it's often overlooked in discussions of values positioning.

When Opportunity Cost Is Justified:

• Values positioning generates measurable ROI
• Values constraints create competitive moats
• Employee engagement and retention gains offset direct costs
• Brand differentiation enables premium pricing
• Long-term strategic positioning justifies short-term costs

The Strategic Trade-Off Framework

To help organizations think systematically about these risks, consider this framework:

1. Authenticity Alignment: Do our stated values genuinely reflect how we operate today?
2. Market Fit: Does our target market care about these values? Do we have data?
3. Competitive Context: Does values positioning create defensible differentiation?
4. Resource Commitment: Are we prepared to invest sustained resources?
5. Risk Tolerance: Can we withstand customer alienation and heightened scrutiny?
6. Measurement: How will we know if values positioning is working?

What This Might Mean for Cybersecurity Brands

The Unique Context of Cybersecurity

Trust Is the Product, Not a Feature

Unlike consumer goods where trust enhances product appeal, trust is the product in cybersecurity. When customers purchase antivirus software, identity protection, or privacy tools, they're not buying code—they're buying confidence that their data, identity, and digital life are protected.

This creates both opportunity and vulnerability for values positioning. Values alignment can reinforce the core product promise. However, any values misstep doesn't just damage brand perception—it undermines the core value proposition.

The Threat Landscape Has Become Human-Centered

As Malwarebytes' own strategic analysis reveals, the cybersecurity threat landscape has fundamentally shifted. Traditional malware now represents only 11% of consumer losses (and shrinking), while cyber-enabled fraud—scams, social engineering, identity theft—accounts for 83% of the $16.6 billion in annual consumer losses.

When the primary threat is human manipulation—elderly individuals scammed out of savings, immigrants targeted by fake government sites, low-income families falling for predatory schemes—cybersecurity becomes as much a social problem as a technical one. This creates natural alignment between cybersecurity business models and human-centered values.

The Spectrum Applied to Cybersecurity

Level 1: Transparent Operations

What it looks like: Clear communication about data handling practices, transparency reports on government data requests, honest disclosure of limitations and risks, accessible privacy policies.

Why this level makes sense: Directly addresses trust deficit in tech industry, differentiates in market where many competitors lack transparency, relatively low risk if operations genuinely reflect stated practices.

Level 2: Cause Alignment (Universal Values)

What it looks like: Partnerships with consumer protection organizations, support for digital literacy and safety education, resources for vulnerable populations, free or reduced-cost products for nonprofits and at-risk populations.

Why this level makes sense: Addresses real social problem (cyber fraud victimization), aligns with business mission (protection), low controversy, creates community goodwill.

Level 3: Industry Advocacy

What it looks like: Public advocacy for stronger consumer protections against cyber fraud, support for privacy legislation, criticism of industry practices that harm consumers, research and thought leadership on threat landscape.

Why this level makes sense: Clear connection to business mission, cybersecurity companies have credibility on these issues, differentiates from competitors who avoid controversial positions.

Level 4: Proactive Cause Campaigns

What it looks like: Multi-year initiatives addressing social issues connected to digital safety, partnerships with nonprofits and educational institutions, campaigns that generate conversation beyond product features.

The challenges: Requires significant sustained investment, risk of being perceived as exploiting vulnerable populations for marketing, must be sustained for years not launched and abandoned.

Level 5: Activist Brand Positioning

Why this is unlikely for most cybersecurity brands: Requires founder/owner control, limits addressable market significantly, creates operational constraints that may limit competitiveness, invites constant controversy.

The Central Insight for Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity brands have a unique opportunity: their core business mission (protecting people) naturally aligns with human-centered values. Unlike many tech sectors where business incentives and consumer welfare diverge, cybersecurity companies make money when users are safe.

This alignment means values positioning isn't a stretch—it's articulating what should already be true. The challenge isn't creating new values but making existing ones explicit, consistent, and credible.

Open Questions & Considerations

This research has explored the landscape of values-driven brand positioning—the spectrum of approaches, case studies of real implementations, risks and trade-offs, and specific implications for cybersecurity brands. However, comprehensive research raises as many questions as it answers.

Strategic Questions: Defining the Foundation

1. What values does your organization genuinely hold, not just aspirationally? Values aren't what sounds good in marketing copy—they're what the organization actually prioritizes when choices must be made.
2. How do these values connect to your core business and mission? The strongest values positioning occurs when values and business strategy point in the same direction.
3. What does your target market actually value? Do you have data, or are you assuming? Many values-positioning failures stem from assumption rather than evidence.
4. Are you willing to lose some customers to deepen loyalty with others? This is the central trade-off in values positioning.

Operational Questions: Executing Authentically

5. Do your internal operations reflect stated values? Authenticity requires operational alignment. Before making public commitments, audit ruthlessly.
6. Do you have leadership alignment for long-term commitment? Values positioning fails when it's marketing initiative without leadership buy-in.
7. What's your tolerance for controversy and risk? Different organizations have different risk profiles. Match the level of values positioning to actual risk tolerance.
8. How would you measure success beyond revenue? Values positioning requires metrics beyond traditional business KPIs.

Tactical Questions: Navigating Implementation

9. Where on the risk spectrum should you operate? Not all organizations should pursue the same level of values positioning.
10. What would a pilot program look like? Rather than launching fully formed values positioning, test and learn.
11. How do you ensure authenticity and avoid performative activism? Do before saying. Sustain over time. Make material investments. Acknowledge imperfection.
12. What's your response plan if there's backlash? Values positioning invites controversy. Prepare for it.

Ongoing Questions: Sustaining Over Time

13. How do you maintain consistency while remaining flexible? Values positioning requires both consistency (for credibility) and flexibility (to remain connected to reality).
14. How do you avoid "values drift" over time? Build values into governance, compensation, decision frameworks. Regular auditing. Public accountability.
15. When should you exit or pivot your values positioning? Sometimes values positioning doesn't work. Know when to adjust.

The Meta-Question: Is This Right for You?

Underlying all these specific questions is a meta-question: Should you pursue values-driven positioning at all?

The answer isn't universally yes or no. It depends on who you are as an organization, what your market values, what resources you can commit, what risks you can tolerate, and what genuine alignment exists between your values and your business.

For some organizations, values positioning is natural extension of existing reality. For others, it's forcing something that doesn't fit. The wisdom is knowing the difference.

Conclusion

The future of brand positioning in an era of declining corporate trust and rising consumer expectations for values alignment is neither simple nor uniform. What this research reveals is that values-driven positioning is fundamentally a strategic choice—one with predictable trade-offs, measurable risks, and significant opportunities when executed authentically.

The companies that succeed in this landscape share common characteristics: they align stated values with operational reality, they commit for years rather than quarters, they accept that narrower appeal can create deeper loyalty, and they recognize that perfection isn't required—but authenticity is non-negotiable.

For cybersecurity brands specifically, the opportunity is particularly acute. In an industry where trust is the product, where threats have become human-centered rather than purely technical, and where vulnerable populations disproportionately suffer harm, values positioning isn't tangential to business strategy—it can reinforce the core reason customers choose you.

However, the risks are equally significant. Any gap between values claims and operational reality undermines the fundamental promise: if customers can't trust what you say you stand for, why would they trust you to protect them?

The question, then, isn't whether to position on values. It's whether you can do so authentically, strategically, and sustainably. Whether your operations genuinely reflect what you claim to believe. Whether your target market cares enough to reward that positioning. Whether your leadership has conviction to maintain commitments under pressure. And whether the business case—measured not just in revenue but in loyalty, differentiation, and long-term strategic position—justifies the investment and risk.

Organizations that approach these questions with clear eyes, honest assessment, and willingness to commit authentically can build meaningful competitive advantage through values positioning. Those who pursue it naively—assuming it's purely upside, ignoring operational gaps, treating it as marketing campaign rather than strategic commitment—will face painful lessons.

The choice, ultimately, is yours. But it must be an informed choice, grounded in reality rather than aspiration, and sustained through action rather than words alone.