Identity, brand, future (II)

A discussion with AI as an experiment.

The discussion with the Chinese AI chatbot DeepSeek is the second part of an exploration of questions of identity, brands and their potential future development.

(PV) Once again, we are talking about identity, brand, and the future. Before we continue our discussion, I would like to summarize what we have discussed so far: We have established that society must make a fundamental decision about how much technology it wants to allow and how we want to tackle environmental issues. As far as companies are concerned, they will tend to develop in the direction of networks, new forms of organization will emerge, and their function will be determined more by direct dialogue with the various target groups. Identity will become more process-oriented, and trust will be achieved through transparency. Overall, we note that the function of identity (trust) and brand (orientation) are tending to become more important. How do you see it?

(deepseek) Your summary accurately captures the essence of our discussion – and I would add a slight emphasis:

Societal decisions about technology and the environment shape our identity

The question of how much technology we allow becomes a cultural boundary: Not “whether” but “how”: The debate is shifting from blanket hostility toward technology vs. belief in progress to concrete ethical frameworks (e.g., Should AI systems be allowed to simulate religious rituals?). The environment as an identity marker: Sustainability is evolving from a political issue to an individual act of self-identification (I only buy from brands whose CO2 data I can track live).

Companies as networks: from monoliths to “living systems”

Your point about the network economy can be taken even further. Brands as temporary hubs: Instead of rigid companies, dynamic alliances emerge. For example, an AI startup, a craft cooperative, and an influencer collective might form an ad hoc brand for an eco-project, which then disbands once the project is complete. Dialogue becomes value creation: Customers are no longer target groups, but co-producers, for example through AI-supported co-design platforms (your sneaker design, generated with our brand DNA).

Identity and brand: The new “fluidity with anchor points”

I see a dialectic here. Process-oriented, yes, but with fallback options. People will change identities like outfits (e.g., different avatars in the metaverse vs. professional LinkedIn profiles), but crises will reinforce the need for stability. Brands that offer both will win (our company purpose is fixed, but your interaction shapes us). Trust through radical transparency and conscious blind spots: Full disclosure of supply chains or algorithms will become standard, but at the same time a market for “mysterious” premium identities will emerge (similar to how luxury brands consciously use myth today).

The paradoxical future

The more technological the world becomes, the stronger the longing for human connection. The most successful brands will therefore use technology to enable hyper-personalization (AI that adapts products in real time) or showcase humanity to create meaning (e.g., handmade elements despite 3D printing). The question is whether this is a contradiction or whether a synthesis can be achieved. And who will actually still be the “owner” of a brand in this world if it is constantly being influenced and shaped by users?

I look forward to continuing the discussion – your perspectives always bring new facets to the table!

(PV) Since we have been dealing with the social and economic context so far, I would now like to delve deeper into the topic of identity and brand development and focus on the creative processes involved. Based on my conviction and experience, I believe that the identity of a company or institution cannot be developed by consultants; they can only provide methods and tools and moderate the process. The content must come from the beliefs of the various players within and outside the organization itself. At the same time, it is clear that the broader this process is, the more meaningful the concepts that emerge. I can imagine that this is precisely where opportunities arise to actively involve virtually all target groups, depending on their function.

(deepseek) Your observation hits a nerve, because identity development is not a top-down design, but a collective meaning-making process, and the future will both radicalize and democratize this dynamic through technology. Here is a more in-depth perspective:

From a consulting approach to an ecosystem approach

Your skepticism toward traditional consulting is justified, because identity cannot be prescribed. The future belongs to collaborative platforms that empower internal stakeholders. Tools such as AI-supported workshops not only analyze opinions, but also reveal latent beliefs (e.g., through NLP (Natural Language Processing) analysis of employee interviews or social media discourse). External target groups should be involved as co-authors. Instead of passive surveys, customers, suppliers, or communities are directly involved in identity formation via generative interfaces. Example: A brand uses an AI platform that extrapolates “purpose variants” live from customer dialogue data, and the community then judges the core values.

The new role of moderation: AI as a catalyst

A paradigm shift is taking place here. AI moderators translate different target group languages (e.g., an algorithm filters the emotional needs of employees from Slack discussions and presents them to the sober finance team as “impact scores”). Playful processes are replacing rigid workshops. Gamification (e.g., metaverse role-playing games where executives experience their own brand as customers) or generative scenario tools are also emerging (how would our brand react to climate collapse?).

Broadness does not mean arbitrariness: it's all about the framework

The more diverse the participation, the more crucial it is to set smart limits, but algorithmic guard rails are needed. AI could ensure that, despite all the co-creation, the brand DNA does not become fragmented (You suddenly want vegan luxury? Does that fit with your production data?). Crises can become catalysts. True participation only becomes apparent under pressure, e.g., when a supply chain breaks down and all stakeholders must negotiate priorities live via a blockchain logbook.

The risk: identity overload

Not every target group should determine everything. It's about segmented co-creation. The worker may shape production ethics, but not Instagram branding. AI can create role-specific spaces for participation here. The core idea is non-negotiable. Even in fluid systems, something immutable is needed, otherwise identity becomes an inflation of meanings.

Provocative thesis:

The identity of the future is a living contract not between consultants and CEOs, but between people, machines, and markets. The question is no longer “What are we?”, but “How do we negotiate what we can be tomorrow?”

(PV) I see participation as input, but at the beginning there is a basic idea and a set of values and a vision of the direction in which the whole process should go.

(deepseek) Exactly! Participation is the nutrient-rich soil, but the basic idea, values, and vision are the seedling from which everything grows. Without this core, identity development becomes arbitrary; with it, it becomes a coherent, living process.

The basic idea as the genetic code of identity

Not rigid, but structuring. Like DNA, it contains the essentials (e.g., We make technology human) but leaves room for interpretation. Identity often arises from a crisis or passion. Example: Patagonia Yvon Chouinard's mountaineering ethos (Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm) became a guiding star and all subsequent discussions (sustainable supply chains, activism) were derived from it. Example: OpenAI the original vision (AI for everyone, but safely) still shapes the balance between open source and commerce today.

Values as rules for participation

They define how the dialogue proceeds, not just what comes out of it: “We listen to everyone, but we make evidence-based decisions” (e.g., through AI-supported weighing of target group inputs). “Experimentation yes – but never at the expense of our core ethics” (e.g., a bank that allows chatbot testing but never risks customer data).

The vision as a magnetic field

It ensures that the many voices have a direction, even if the path remains flexible. Tesla's vision of “accelerating the energy transition” allows for radical changes of course (from luxury electric cars to mass-market cybertrucks), but prevents detours into fast fashion, for example. Red Bull's “pushing the limits” applies to extreme athletes and office workers—the target groups participate differently, but in the same universe.

The big challenge

How do you keep the core alive without becoming dogmatic? One solution may be that the vision must be translatable – into new technologies, generations, markets. For example, an NGO with the original value of “helping people help themselves” could today use participatory AI tools without betraying its core.

Your question about authority

Yes, there needs to be an authority that protects the core (e.g., through algorithmic guardian AI that checks suggestions for compatibility with values) or orchestrates the process—be it a charismatic founder, an ethics council, or a decentralized DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) community with veto rights.

Provocative thesis:

The best identity is like a jazz piece. The theme and rhythm are clear (vision, values), but every musician (interest group) is allowed to play their solo as long as it fits the groove. It's a balancing act between core and openness, but the question remains: Can AI ever replace the emotional authority of a founding figure?

(PV) In this discussion or dialogue, we discussed the processes of identity development and the possible consequences for the future, with a particular focus on the relationship to AI. In the next episode, I would like to focus on the topic of communicative implementation and design. Thank you again for the interesting and stimulating ideas and concepts.

This discussion arose in dialog with DeepSeek Chat, https://www.deepseek.com (May 2025 version) on June 14 and 15, 2025 - as a thought experiment on the future of identity and brand.

Note: DeepSeek's statements have not been edited for language or content. The statements made here are entirely consistent with the AI version of this discussion.