The myth of brand community in the age of data agency

Dirty data damaged marketing — not because it was messy or incomplete, but because it trained systems to misunderstand people with confidence. Partial signals were treated as truth. Inference replaced intent. Surveillance masqueraded as insight. And an entire economy was built on the comforting lie that activity equals meaning.

Clean data makes something different possible. It restores context. It requires consent. It reconnects signals to real human motivation. It replaces extraction with permission and replaces guesswork with verification. In theory, this should change everything. In practice, it doesn’t.

Even when organizations clean the inputs, making data permissioned, emotionally grounded and more accurate, accuracy improves, but the relationship doesn’t. People don’t suddenly feel seen. Loyalty doesn’t form. Trust doesn’t regenerate on its own.

Why clean data doesn’t restore relationships

That realization has been impossible to ignore this month as I’ve been building the Clean Data Alliance’s certification and training program. The work has been deeply practical: defining standards, codifying best practices and teaching organizations how to collect and use data responsibly across zero-, first-, second and third-party systems. The goal is clear — stop harming, reduce risk and restore integrity to the data supply chain.

However, as I worked through the material, a deeper conclusion kept surfacing: even when best practices are followed perfectly, the outcomes that many organizations expect still don’t materialize. What’s missing isn’t better data. It’s belonging and mutual commitment — things data was never designed to create in the first place.

Dig deeper: Why brand-owned communities are the future of growth

Dirty data doesn’t just distort decisions — it creates debt. Long-term consequences compound quietly over time and don’t disappear simply because the inputs improve. Clean data can prevent that debt from growing further, but it cannot erase the balance that already exists. In the course of the certification work, we began naming those debts explicitly:

• Behavioral debt forms when inferred behavior persists longer than the actual choices would suggest.
• Opportunity debt accumulates when inaccurate or unchallengeable data shapes access to jobs, credit, education and care.
• Identity debt emerges when a person’s digital self is constructed by systems they don’t control and cannot correct.
• Trust debt builds when no one owns the consequences of being wrong.

These debts explain why better inputs don’t automatically revive relationships and why so many modern institutions, platforms and brand communities feel hollow. They collect signals but don’t share power, invite participation without responsibility and optimize engagement while avoiding commitment. 

You see it in workplaces that ask for culture while maintaining total control. In civic platforms that solicit feedback but never change outcomes. In media systems that track attention while eroding trust. In schools, healthcare systems and public services that measure behavior without acknowledging lived experience. The result is a society full of participation without ownership, visibility without voice and connection without obligation.

Clean data helps systems better understand people. It reduces misinterpretation and limits harm. But it doesn’t restore the human contracts those systems quietly replaced. It doesn’t rebuild reciprocity, create belonging or generate trust on its own. Until power, accountability and shared risk are designed into our systems, not just cleaner input, relationships will continue to decay, no matter how accurate the data becomes.

Community is not a feature, it’s an outcome

A few years ago, I sat in a meeting where a brand team unveiled its new community strategy. The intent was genuine. They weren’t chasing vanity metrics or trying to bribe people into advocacy. They believed they were building a place people would want to gather. 

Early signals looked promising — signups surged, content flowed, engagement charts went up and to the right. Then the decay set in. A small core remained, the same handful of superfans every brand eventually finds. Everyone else drifted away quietly.

A year later, the community still existed, but only structurally. The platform was live. The energy was gone. It felt less like a gathering and more like an abandoned mall. Community isn’t something you install. It’s something that emerges. It’s an outcome, not a feature.

Dirty data helped marketing believe comforting lies about relationships. Clean data is now stripping those lies away. The first mistake was building a worldview from distorted inputs — over-attributing meaning to clicks, opens and accounts. The second mistake is assuming that once the data gets cleaner, the worldview becomes true. 

Clean data can tell the truth more accurately, but it can’t turn a one-time discount seeker into a participant. It can’t turn a loyalty ID into belonging. That assumption creates a quiet trap. As performance drops and opt-outs rise, teams do the right things: better data hygiene, sharper segmentation and communities to stop renting attention. But underneath sits the belief that if we finally understand customers clearly, they’ll want more from us. They won’t. Not automatically.

Dig deeper: Unlocking growth: The power of user communities for B2B SaaS companies

What better data actually does is force honesty. It reveals something marketing has avoided for years: many people don’t want a relationship with brands at all. They want utility. They want to pass through, get what they need and move on without being followed, managed or absorbed into something they didn’t ask for. Clean data doesn’t change that reality. It just makes it impossible to ignore. And that’s where the real work begins.

When I first encountered “catch and release” marketing a few years ago, I recognized it as smart, but I didn’t yet see its full weight. Only now, through this deeper reckoning with data and trust, does its importance come into focus. 

Jacob Sanders deserves credit for naming and articulating the idea, but what gives it urgency is the broader realization behind it: trust isn’t rebuilt by holding tighter. It’s rebuilt by letting go. Respecting the pass-through. Designing for clarity, usefulness and consent — then stepping back. 

In a marketplace exhausted by surveillance, manipulation and forced intimacy, this isn’t just a better strategy. It’s the posture marketing has to adopt if it wants to earn respect again.

The Lululemon boundary: Intimacy versus scale

Lululemon was, for years, the gold standard for a brand community. It was relationship-driven: local ambassadors, in-store classes, managers who knew names. People didn’t just buy leggings — they belonged to something. 

Then, the company grew rapidly and globally. To scale, Lululemon had to systematize what used to be personal. You can’t rely on intuition alone when you have millions of customers. They invested in data, built cleaner customer profiles and formalized loyalty. The product remained strong, but something subtle shifted. The relationship stopped feeling local and began to feel managed. Participation became optional rather than magnetic.

Clean data helped Lululemon understand its customers better at scale. What it couldn’t do was preserve the intimacy that made the community feel real in the first place. That’s not a failure — it’s a boundary. Lululemon didn’t lose its community because it did something wrong. It encountered the same reality every growing brand eventually does: People want brands in their lives, just not that much. They want the product and the value. They don’t necessarily want a demanding relationship.

Dig deeper: Why now is the time to pay attention to micro-communities

We’re not in the loyalty economy. We’re in the discernment economy.

Marketers still describe consumers using language from an earlier era — loyalists, advocates and lifetime value assets. These labels made sense when life was more stable and choices were fewer. But consumers aren’t behaving that way anymore.

Today, people act like situational buyers, utility shoppers and dabblers — people who opt in temporarily and opt out cleanly. They don’t want brand belonging — they want agency. This behavior is not cultural noise — it’s economic adaptation. 

When life already feels over-obligated by subscriptions, alerts and economic pressures, the last thing most people want is another relationship that demands maintenance — another login, another community. They are trying to keep their lives from being colonized, so they adapt. They borrow value without committing. They resist being captured. This is why brand communities feel hollow. Customers were never trying to belong in the first place. They just wanted respect.

Clean data doesn’t reverse this. It reveals it. Engagement is often provisional, not relational. “Joined” doesn’t mean “committed.” It means “for now.”

Why retention and LTV are structurally breaking

Retention models were built for an economy that assumed continuity — that familiarity becomes habit and relationships compound. That’s no longer the world we’re in.

When consumers are under constant economic and attention pressure, continuity becomes the exception rather than the rule. What marketers experience as a collapse in retention is often just consumers exercising agency in a fluid system. Churn isn’t necessarily a failure signal — it’s normal behavior.

Dirty data allowed marketers to pretend continuity existed where it didn’t. It padded engagement and filled in gaps with inference. Clean data removes that illusion. When the data is permissioned, you see the truth: shorter relationships, longer gaps and more silence, not because the brand failed, but because the customer’s life no longer supports long-term attachment by default. 

Martech broke because it kept optimizing for permanence in an economy built on impermanence. Clean data doesn’t fix retention on its own. It forces a more honest question: “What does value look like when relationships are temporary by design?”

Dig deeper: Acquisition gets the attention, but loyalty drives the results

The resolution and the way forward

Clean data is essential, but until we change our mindset, our martech systems will continue to make three fundamental mistakes:

• Confusing continuity with consent: Treating a one-time opt-in as durable access. Consent must be explicit, revocable and treated as a living contract.
• Measuring presence, not participation: Member counts are not community. Open rates are not belonging. Community dashboards report access, not aliveness. Clean data just makes your reporting more precise about the wrong proxy.
• Tracking behavior and calling it intent: The industry keeps treating “what happened” as “why it happened.” Strategies built around automation triggers “If they clicked X, send Y” are not indicators of a valued relationship. They are manifestations of noise.

The shift for martech is simple: stop asking how to get customers to join your community. Start asking what would make someone choose to engage today, with full control and still feel respected after. This requires transforming the operating model to reflect the discernment economy:

• Replace member growth with trust growth: Measuring the willingness to share, revoke and re-share permissions over time.
• Replace personalization with situational relevance: Earning attention through immediate usefulness, accepting impermanence.
• Replace engagement with participation: Acknowledging that true participation requires value, safety and dignity.
• Replace ownership with partnership: Treating consumers not as inputs, but as counterparties in a value exchange.

Your dashboards can be clean, and your data can be permissioned, verified and anonymized, yet your community can still be dead because the collapse of brand community isn’t primarily a data problem. It’s a meaning problem, a trust problem and an agency problem. 

Clean data doesn’t bring community back. It tells you whether it was ever real. Once you see that clearly, you can stop building community-shaped funnels and start building something harder but true: marketing systems that treat people with dignity, give them control and earn participation instead of assuming it.

The post The myth of brand community in the age of data agency appeared first on MarTech.