Session purpose
This session explored how think tanks can build brands that generate trust, relevance and recognition over time. It challenged the idea that branding is mainly about logos, colours or visual identity. Instead, branding was presented as the set of thoughts, feelings and expectations that audiences associate with an organisation through every interaction they have with it.
The session focused on how a trusted brand helps a think tank claim a clear intellectual space, communicate more effectively with different audiences, and organise its internal communications work with greater discipline and consistency. It also linked branding to care: a trusted think tank brand is not only one that people care about, but one that shows it cares about its audiences through useful, clear and responsive communication.
Main conveners and contributors
This was convened by:
- John Schwartz, Soapbox,
- Annapoorna Ravichander.
The programme framed the session around the challenge of building trust in an AI-shaped information ecosystem, where think tanks need clear narratives, purposeful positioning and sustained strategic communications to signal credibility to different audiences.
The session included contributions from:
- John Schwartz, CEO of Soapbox, who introduced the main branding framework.
- Sonia Jafín (Espacio Público), who presented the “blue ocean” strategy through the example of GW Voices.
- Annapoorna, who shared practical experience from India on internal branding, editorial systems and social media use.
- Participants, who worked in small groups as “mini creative agencies” to design brand-building campaigns for fictional think tanks.
Main presentation and framing
John Schwartz opened by defining a trusted think tank brand as “an organisation that you care about and that cares back.” This framing positioned branding as a relationship, not a design exercise.
A brand was described as a collection of thoughts and feelings formed through repeated encounters with an organisation: its publications, events, website, staff, social media, tone of voice, visual identity, responsiveness and usefulness.
The central argument was that a strong brand allows a think tank to claim a piece of intellectual or cultural territory. This does not happen quickly. It requires persistence, consistency and a long-term commitment to making the organisation’s ideas recognisable and meaningful to its audiences.
The session also stressed that branding works from the inside out. A clear brand helps staff understand what the organisation stands for, whom it serves and how it should communicate. Editorial guidelines, templates, tone of voice and design systems are not superficial; they help make communications faster, more professional and more cost-effective.
Main debates
1. Branding is not a logo
A key theme was the need to move beyond a narrow understanding of branding. Logos, colours and fonts matter, but they are only part of the picture. A think tank’s brand is shaped by whether people understand its purpose, trust its judgement, find its work useful and feel that it speaks to their concerns.
This reframes branding as a strategic and relational function. It is about positioning, clarity, trust and care.
2. Think tanks need to claim intellectual territory
The session emphasised that think tanks operate in crowded policy environments. Many organisations publish on similar issues, target similar audiences and use similar language. To stand out, a think tank needs to define the intellectual space it wants to own.
This does not mean simplifying the organisation’s work to one slogan. It means being clear about the distinctive perspective, value or contribution that audiences should associate with the organisation over time.
3. Find the “blue ocean”
Sonia introduced the idea of finding a “blue ocean”: a distinctive niche where the organisation faces less competition and can be more easily recognised.
The example of GW Voices showed how mapping peer organisations helped identify a relatively open space at the intersection of gender and multilateralism. By focusing on this niche and using strong data visualisation — including the image of a “sea of men” in multilateral leadership — the organisation was able to gain influence in UN spaces within a few years.
The lesson was that distinctiveness is not always found by doing more. Sometimes it comes from narrowing the focus and turning up the volume on the most recognisable contribution.
4. Branding is also an internal discipline
Anna’s example from India highlighted the internal challenges of branding. Researchers may not immediately see why communications systems matter, especially when they are focused on producing research. Valuable work can remain “lying in the computer” if there is no clear process for turning it into public-facing outputs.
The response was to create stronger editorial guidelines, templates, writing standards and design consistency. Even practical decisions — such as whether to use British or American English — became easier when the organisation had agreed rules.
This showed that brand discipline can reduce friction, speed up production and improve quality.
5. Senior leadership needs to understand communications
The session also touched on the challenge of persuading conservative or sceptical senior leaders to engage with social media and public communication. The point was not to chase visibility for its own sake, but to use communications intelligently to increase the organisation’s intellectual presence.
Brand-building requires leadership buy-in. Without it, communications teams may struggle to make research visible, coherent and useful.
6. Think tanks are part of a service industry
One of the more provocative ideas was that think tanks should see themselves, at least partly, as part of a service industry. This means paying attention to the experience of their audiences.
Care is shown through clarity, usefulness, personalisation, timing, accessibility and openness to dialogue. A think tank that cares back does not simply broadcast outputs. It thinks about what different audiences need, how they consume information and how the organisation can help them act on knowledge.
7. AI and digital tools can support brand-building
The session recognised that AI and social media can help think tanks personalise communication, manage content, improve consistency and extend their reach. But tools are only useful if the organisation already understands its brand, audiences and value proposition.
AI can multiply communication capacity, but it cannot replace strategic clarity.
Main takeaways
- A trusted think tank brand is built through repeated encounters, not one-off campaigns.
- Branding is about trust, care, recognition and intellectual positioning — not only visual identity.
- Think tanks need to identify the intellectual territory they want to occupy and communicate it consistently over time.
- Distinctiveness matters. Finding a “blue ocean” can help organisations focus their message and avoid competing in overcrowded spaces.
- Strong editorial guidelines, templates and tone-of-voice rules are strategic tools. They make communications more efficient, coherent and professional.
- Brand-building begins internally. Staff and leadership need to understand what the organisation stands for before external audiences can.
- Think tanks need to communicate as if they care about their audiences: with clarity, usefulness, relevance and openness to dialogue.
- Digital tools and AI can help scale communication, but they work best when anchored in a clear brand strategy.
- The strongest brands are not just visible. They are useful, trusted, recognisable and emotionally meaningful to the audiences they seek to serve.