Why representation keeps failing organisations that take it seriously

With the rapidly shifting demographics of contemporary Britain, alongside ongoing attention on issues such as immigration, inequality and social mobility, representation has become more visible and more contested.

Communities are more willing to challenge how they are portrayed, while detractors frame these shifts as overreach on the battlegrounds of social media forums and pull the conversation into culture war territory, which makes the discussion itself quite loaded.

We saw this play out perhaps at its most flagrant last October with the Channel 4 “too much Black representation in ads” debate, where research intended to explore the quality of representation was quickly reduced to a headline about excess. The conversation moved away from how people were actually being portrayed and towards a much simpler argument about numbers.

Representation becomes the point of focus, while the conditions moulding it are left largely unexamined.

When organisations and brands talk to us about identity issues, they are usually trying to work through a problem of connection. Essentially meaning that certain groups are not engaging with, trusting them or responding in the way they expect and the question becomes what needs to change for that to shift.

What tends to happen quite quickly is that the conversation narrows.

The focus quickly goes to representation, because it feels like the most direct lever available. If different groups are more visible in campaigns, more present in the organisation and more reflected in leadership, then affinity with the brand should increase.

That logic makes sense, particularly because representation is one of the most visible and measurable expressions of identity, and because most public conversations tend to centre on gaps in seniority, progression and presence in high-status roles.

Where it becomes limiting is in what that logic assumes.

It assumes that visibility creates connection. In practice, visibility tends to reflect how underlying decisions have already been made. It shows how certain groups are positioned, whose perspectives are prioritised and how experiences are shaped within the organisation.

Which is why representation can shift under pressure, or drift into tokenism, without changing how the organisation is actually experienced. That distinction matters because connection is moulded less by representation itself and more by the conditions that produce it or prevent it.

Without that focus on what sits beneath representation, organisations tend to stall, even with strong intent. The following case studies show how we have approached this in practice, working beyond surface-level representation to improve the conditions behind it, from internal culture through to audience engagement and campaign development.

Representation becomes the focal point because it is visible and easier to act on. But it is also not the hill to die on.

Across our work, the same pattern shows up with surprising consistency

Diagnosing the system: Studiocanal

In earlier work with Studiocanal, the starting point was to understand how different identities were actually experiencing the organisation before moving into solutions.

At a surface level, the challenge appeared familiar, with questions centred on inclusion, representation and how different groups were showing up across the business. As the work progressed, it became clear that the issue was less about absence and more about alignment.

There was clear intent regarding inclusivity, though less clarity on how that intent translated into day-to-day experience. A range of perspectives were present, yet their influence on decision-making and how work progressed was uneven.

To explore this, we engaged employees across functions and levels of seniority through qualitative sessions, structured conversations and workshops. The focus extended beyond perception to examine how decisions were formed, how priorities were set and where perspective dropped out as work moved through the organisation.

What emerged was a pattern rather than a set of isolated issues. Implicit behaviours and structural dynamics were shaping which perspectives held weight and which did not, which in turn influenced both internal experience and external output.

At the time, this was framed through our inside-out inclusion model. This has since evolved into the Relevance Maturity Map, which looks at how an organisation aligns its vision, its people and its offer with the context it operates in.

Where organisations rely on inherited assumptions about how they connect with audiences, they tend to respond once issues become visible, rather than building from a grounded understanding of the people they are trying to reach. In this state, identity issues surface early because they expose where that understanding is limited.

By making these dynamics visible, the organisation was able to shift where intervention happened. Attention moved towards how decisions were shaped and how perspective was carried through the system.

Changes in representation followed from changes in how the organisation operated.

When behaviour points to structure: AMV BBDO

In our work with AMV BBDO, we were asked to explore the experience of racial microaggressions within US sport and generate insight to inform creative development for a sports brand. 

This involved working with athletes across different sports and levels, alongside experts who could situate those experiences within a broader context shaped by race, performance pressure and media scrutiny.

The initial focus was on behaviour, particularly how language and public narratives framed athletes of different racial identities. Through desk research and semiotic analysis, we examined recurring patterns in how athletes were described, compared and evaluated.

When we moved into the qualitative phase, these patterns were confirmed and deepened. Athletes described how microaggressions affected their confidence, mindset and performance, alongside frustration at the lack of recognition or support from the systems around them.

As these accounts accumulated, a more structural pattern became visible. Black athletes, in particular, were consistently read through narrow archetypes, where physicality was emphasised over intelligence, emotion was interpreted as aggression and leadership was granted selectively.

These framings were reinforced across commentary, coaching environments, media coverage and fan interpretation. Over time, they shaped how athletes were perceived and how they experienced their careers.

What began as a behavioural question pointed towards a system shaped by longer histories of racialised stereotyping. The impact of microaggressions could not be separated from those conditions.

This created a tension in how the insight could be used. Representing these experiences within a campaign risked reducing a structural issue to a creative execution. Athletes expressed appreciation at being consulted, alongside a clear sense that visibility alone would not address the underlying dynamics.

As a result, we explored how creative work could sit alongside broader forms of action, including mental health support and public education. This allowed the work to engage with the issue while remaining connected to the system that produces it.

In this context, identity provided a way of tracing how those conditions operate and where they are being reproduced.

Representation and relevance: Scouts

With Scouts, the initial brief focused on increasing participation from underrepresented communities.

As the work developed, it became clear that this framing was too broad to produce actionable insight, since it encompassed a wide range of experiences. The focus therefore narrowed to Black communities, supported by in-depth conversations with young people, parents, subject matter experts and those working within the organisation.

Awareness of Scouts was already high, which meant the issue did not sit in visibility.

Instead, it sat in how the organisation was experienced. For many, Scouts felt distant and not designed with them in mind, which made it difficult to see how their children would be understood, supported or safe within that environment.

The outdoors became a key focal point, with barriers linked to geography, access and socioeconomic context shaping how activities were perceived. Trust needed to be established before those barriers could be navigated.

Parents were looking for signals that extended beyond representation. They were looking for evidence of safety, understanding and belonging, which were communicated through local credibility, community endorsement and visible leadership.

These signals are shaped through how and where an organisation operates, which makes them difficult to generate through surface-level adjustments.

In this case, representation formed part of a broader picture, while connection depended on whether the organisation could demonstrate that it understood and could respond to the conditions shaping those experiences.

What this points to

Across these examples, identity does not operate as a standalone issue.

It points back to how organisations interpret the world, how decisions are made and how internal conditions translate into external impact.

When organisations are able to read context with accuracy, incorporate a broader range of perspectives and carry that through into their outputs, identity holds in a way that supports connection across communities.

When these capabilities are uneven, identity becomes one of the first areas where this is exposed, which leads to repeated cycles of adjustment without sustained progress. This has practical implications. Focusing on representation directs attention towards what is visible, while the factors shaping outcomes sit earlier in the system. Without addressing those factors, organisations continue to invest in adjustments that do not hold.

Addressing identity requires examining how decisions are formed, how perspective is included and how consistently intent is carried through into action. Across sectors and contexts, the specifics change, while the underlying pattern remains consistent.

When organisations are trying to understand why something is not landing, why trust is uneven or why progress does not hold, the answer sits in how the system is working.

That is where the work needs to begin.