Developing a Brand POV Exchange

Did you see the recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) article about how idea marketplaces help companies do more with the ideas they already have but might have overlooked?

That idea inspired me to expand the framework I used to call the point of view architecture into the POV exchange, a place where those shared positions are brought together and actually get used, shared, and mined across the organization.

While it's true that ideas often get buried or ignored, another gap runs even deeper. Many organizations not only fail to connect ideas, but they also fail to clarify their beliefs.

If the idea marketplace, as HBR describes it, is about surfacing potential solutions, then the POV exchange is about securing and socializing institutional beliefs. One is about how a company might solve problems; the other is about how a company decides what it stands for.

And just as idea marketplaces unlock innovation capacity, a POV exchange can unlock clarity, confidence, and the ability to innovate safely. It’s more than a complement to the idea marketplace; it might just be the foundation that makes it work.

Why brand points of view matter

An idea marketplace is about making sure creative sparks (half-formed thoughts from engineers, innovative suggestions from frontline employees, hidden prototypes in an R&D lab) don’t die in silos.

Related: Your Content Strategy Can Be Sexy Again

A POV exchange is about capturing and codifying the institutional truths and values that guide how the company interprets the world (its beliefs about customers, markets, social issues, and itself).

Without a structured approach to developing a brand POV exchange, I’ve seen three problems arise:

1. Strong personalities dominate. A CEO, CMO, or subject-matter expert ends up defining “what we believe” because no system exists to counterbalance their influence. Inevitably, when that leader leaves, the company scrambles to answer, “What do we believe now?”
2. Marketing and comms teams make things up. Without agreed-on positions, communications teams improvise, sometimes straying from brand strategy for the sake of performance. Sometimes, they push something provocative and get the brand into trouble.
3. The brand drifts to the mushy middle. Without a POV in place, the safest option often wins. The company defaults to vague, inoffensive language that satisfies no one and leaves teams hesitant to take bold steps.

When the moment comes to take a stand on a social issue a market/industry shift, or even a competitive move, the company either hides behind bland neutrality, lurches into a risky stance it can’t defend, or speaks in a fractured voice that erodes trust.

But the benefits of a structured approach to a brand POV are clear. Done well, it becomes:

• An innovation accelerator. Clarity of beliefs frees creative teams to push boundaries, knowing what is aligned and where the guardrails are.
• A risk reducer. Tough decisions are made upfront, not in the heat of a public moment or when there may be tension or pushback.
• A brand safety mechanism. Every team (from marketing to sales to product) has a trusted source of truth to work from.

Idea marketplaces unlock untapped solutions. A POV exchange unlocks untapped convictions. And when the two systems work together, they form a foundation that is innovative and unshakably coherent.

Making a POV exchange work: The arbiter of good

One common critique of a structured process like this is that it waters everything down. If the POV must accommodate every point of view across a brand, you end up with a lowest-common-denominator position that satisfies no one.

That’s why a POV exchange can’t be purely democratic. It shouldn’t be based on which opinions get the most votes. It also shouldn’t be a “whoever shouts loudest” exercise.

Ultimately, it must reflect what the business believes, not just what’s popular in the moment.

To make that possible, every organization needs what I call an “arbiter of good.” This individual (or small group) has the authority to finalize decisions about brand POVs.

The arbiter of good doesn’t create the POV in isolation (input can and should come from across the business). But it should have the responsibility to decide, codify, and close the loop.

Arbiters of good do three critical things. They:

• Filter input and focus priorities, separating signal from noise to ensure the POVs reflect the business rather than individual agendas.
• Finalize decisions by calling the moment when debates end and the official POV takes hold.
• Guard consistency by ensuring that the agreed-upon POVs are respected and reflected in communications, strategy, and execution.

This role separates a true exchange from a repository of opinions and provides the discipline to move beyond endless debate into actionable clarity.

How to build a POV exchange

Here’s some good news: You don’t need to reinvent your operating model to build a POV exchange. You just need to capture, codify, and circulate what the business already believes.

These five practices will help you create a healthy POV exchange:

1. Create a central repository

Establish a single source of truth where the agreed-on POVs live (a digital library, a shared knowledge base, or even a structured database). The key is accessibility: marketing, comms, sales, product, and leadership must all know where to find it.

In practice: A pharmaceutical company I worked with built a SharePoint-style hub where scientists log technical positions on new therapies. The comms team now pulls directly from it when drafting thought leadership

2. Curate, don’t collect

A POV exchange shouldn’t be a dumping ground for opinions. Every entry should be the product of debate and decision. Think of it like a constitution (carefully worded, reviewed, and ratified) rather than a suggestion box.

In practice: A financial services firm I worked with requires each POV (e.g., positions on Brexit, tariffs, or interest rates) to go through a short review process with its strategy group before being added to the repository.

3. Designate the arbiter of good

Identify the role or team responsible for finalizing decisions and codifying them as you would a brand or editorial guideline. It could be a small steering committee, strategy office, or brand council. What matters is that someone owns the authority to say, “This is the company’s position.”

In practice: At one global brand I know, the chief strategy officer acts as the arbiter of good. Teams can debate vigorously, but nothing gets included in the POV exchange until the strategy officer signs off.

4. Codify the POV and make it accessible

Once a POV is set, document it clearly and make it available to anyone who needs it. Marketing can build campaigns from it, sales can pitch from it, and product teams can innovate against it. The more it circulates, the more it becomes part of the company’s DNA.

In practice: A tech company I work with embeds its POVs directly into the editorial guidelinesand sales enablement decks. That way, whether it’s a product manager or an agency, everyone is drawing from the same language and logic.

5. Refresh regularly

Markets, customers, and cultural expectations shift. A POV exchange should evolve with them. Schedule regular reviews (quarterly or annually) to confirm and expand the POVs.

In practice: A professional services company I know revisits its security and technology POVs each quarter in a beliefs workshop, where leaders stress-test whether positions on things like market trends or risks still hold or need refining.

Traps to avoid

The HBR article surfaced the traps that can derail idea marketplaces. Interestingly, many of the issues mentioned have direct corollaries with POV exchanges.

Too many ideas, too little action

HBR notes that most employee ideas never get reviewed, and leaders often lack the capacity to act on them. The result is demoralizing. The same trap exists with a structured approach to POVs. If you allow too many to accumulate, the database becomes unwieldy and unusable.

People stop trusting it.

The reverse is also true. One of the most common pushbacks I hear is, “Do we really need to have a point of view on everything?”

The answer is no. But here’s the nuance: Choosing not to have a point of view is a point of view. Silence isn’t the absence of belief; it’s a deliberate stance that should be acknowledged and documented like any other.

Misaligned incentives

The HBR article points out that people hesitate to contribute if they don’t see recognition or follow-through.

In developing a POV exchange, the trap is different (but related). When someone’s personal POV isn’t adopted, they may sulk off and disengage. That’s why the culture around POVs must emphasize the business’s conviction, not the individual’s.

Disagreement is fine — healthy even — but the commitment to the final stance must be collective.

Weak leadership follow-through

Leaders who cheer for innovation but fail to sustain it kill idea marketplaces. The same is true for POV exchanges.

If leaders cave under pressure or refuse to stand behind POVs that are codified, the entire system loses credibility.

A POV exchange is only as strong as leadership’s willingness to back it.

From ideas to ideals

Idea marketplaces are a powerful way to surface solutions that already exist inside most organizations. But HBR’s research reminded me of something just as foundational: Solutions don’t mean much if you don’t know what problems are worth solving or what beliefs should guide the choices.

I see POV exchanges and idea marketplaces as co-ideas. They belong together. The marketplace ensures ideas don’t get lost; the exchange ensures beliefs don’t get muddled. One builds capacity for innovation, the other builds the compass for direction.

So, yes, invest in an idea marketplace. But consider building a POV exchange first.

Because when you know what you believe, you’re not just collecting ideas, you’re recognizing which ones matter.

Remember, ideas are plentiful. Beliefs are rare. The strongest companies build for both.

It’s your story. Tell it well.