There is a strange thing happening in business.
Brands are spending more time talking about community while people are becoming increasingly selective about which communities they actually want to be part of.
Everywhere you look, there are membership programmes, loyalty clubs, private groups, events, ambassador programmes, Discord servers, WhatsApp groups and brands talking about “building a movement”.
Some of them work.
A lot of them are just customer databases wearing a community costume.
South Africa makes this particularly easy to see.
We have never needed a brand to tell us how to find our people.
We have stokvels, church groups, running clubs, soccer supporters, alumni networks, neighbourhood WhatsApp groups, beauty contests, car clubs, gaming communities, braais, taxi-rank networks, professional networks and countless informal systems of exchange that exist without a marketing department anywhere near them.
Community is not a new consumer behaviour here.
And that should make South African businesses particularly sceptical of the idea that community is something you can simply build because the latest marketing deck says you should.
People do not belong to brands. They belong to each other.
That is the bit businesses often miss.
We did not invent community because the internet gave us a platform
A runner does not need a sportswear brand to decide that running matters.
A beauty enthusiast does not need a cosmetics company to tell her that beauty is a shared interest.
Developers were exchanging knowledge long before software companies started calling their users a “community”.
South Africans have been doing versions of this forever.
People organise around what they have in common because, in many cases, they have had to.
Sometimes community is social. Sometimes it is cultural. Sometimes it is economic. Sometimes it is simply practical.
A person knows someone who knows someone who can solve the problem. A friend recommends the salon. A cousin knows where to find the sneakers. A running club becomes a source of accountability. A WhatsApp group becomes the fastest way to understand what is happening in the neighbourhood.
These networks are not marketing channels.
They are relationships.
The internet did not create that behaviour. It simply gave it more places to happen.
Which changes the role of the business.
The opportunity is not necessarily to create a community.
It is to recognise one, contribute something useful to it and earn a legitimate place inside it.
That is a much harder job.
It requires listening before speaking. It requires understanding the norms of a group rather than immediately trying to monetise them. It requires accepting that the community does not exist for the brand’s benefit.
And, occasionally, it requires the brand to shut up.
South Africa has a particular allergy to manufactured belonging
There is another reason this matters here.
South African consumers are accustomed to navigating institutions that do not always work perfectly.
So we build workarounds.
We ask people.
We find someone.
We share information.
We organise ourselves.
We create informal systems around formal ones.
This has produced a particular kind of social intelligence: people are often very good at figuring out who they can trust.
That makes belonging commercially valuable.
But it also makes the performance of belonging easier to detect.
A brand putting “community” on a campaign brief does not make it part of the community.
A corporate event with a DJ, free food and a few influencers is not a community.
A WhatsApp group with 4 000 members is not necessarily a community.
And putting a township location into a campaign does not automatically make the campaign culturally relevant.
South African audiences are not short of culture.
They are short of brands that know how to participate in it without making themselves the main character.
A community is not a loyalty programme
Businesses have traditionally thought about loyalty in fairly transactional terms.
Buy more. Get more points.
Spend more. Get a better tier.
Refer a friend. Get R100.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Loyalty economics matter. Retention matters. Repeat purchase matters.
But transactional loyalty and belonging are not the same thing.
You can be loyal to a supermarket because it is convenient. You can be loyal to an airline because of its rewards programme. You can be loyal to a software product because migrating your data would be a nightmare.
None of this means you feel that you belong.
Belonging is more interesting because it changes the relationship between the individual and the group.
A person who belongs does not simply consume something. They identify with something.
That distinction has commercial consequences.
When a brand becomes part of a meaningful community, the community can do things traditional media cannot easily buy: explain the product to newcomers, establish norms, create content, provide feedback, defend the brand when criticism arrives and make participation itself desirable.
But there is a catch.
You cannot buy your way into belonging.
You can buy reach. You can buy sponsorship. You can buy media.
You cannot buy legitimacy.
The best communities have something to lose
This is where many corporate communities go wrong.
They are designed around the brand rather than the people.
The company creates a Facebook group. Nobody posts.
It launches a Discord server. The only regular messages are from the social media manager.
It hosts an event. Everyone has a great time. Nobody talks about it again.
The problem is not necessarily execution.
The problem is that there is no real reason for the community to exist.
A functioning community usually has something at stake.
A shared ambition. A shared identity. A shared problem. A shared passion. A shared language. Sometimes even a shared enemy.
South Africa gives us plenty of examples of this without needing to manufacture them.
Think about what happens around football.
The club is the formal object, but the belonging is often much bigger than the fixture. It travels through family, friendship, neighbourhood, music, language, memory and identity.
Or think about running.
The shoe is a product. The club is a community. The Saturday morning run becomes a ritual.
Or beauty.
The product might be lipstick, haircare or skincare. But the conversation around beauty can carry knowledge, aspiration, identity, status, humour and cultural codes that no product page can contain.
The commercial opportunity is not simply to sell into these spaces.
It is to understand what people are actually getting from them.
The uncomfortable part: the community does not belong to you
There is a useful thought experiment for any business claiming to have a community:
If the brand disappeared tomorrow, would the community continue?
If the answer is yes, you might actually have something.
If the answer is no, you may simply have an audience list.
This distinction is increasingly important in tech.
Software companies have spent years building user bases and then calling them communities. But having thousands of customers in a Slack workspace does not automatically create a community.
The real question is whether those people are gaining value from interacting with one another.
Can a developer solve a problem because another developer answered a question? Maybe something stickier than Stack Overflow?
Can a founder find someone who has already dealt with the problem they are facing? Cue Paul Graham.
Can a designer discover a new approach through another designer’s work?
Can users influence the evolution of the product?
If so, the business is no longer simply managing customers. It is facilitating relationships.
That is a fundamentally different proposition.
South Africa’s startup ecosystem has another interesting version of this problem.
We have become increasingly comfortable importing the language of Silicon Valley: ecosystems, communities, networks, founders, builders, movements.
But language can make something sound more sophisticated than it actually is.
Sometimes “community” is simply what we used to call people helping each other.
The technology may be new.
The behaviour isn’t.
Belonging can become part of the product
This is where community gets commercially interesting.
The strongest brands increasingly understand that the product is not always the complete experience.
For some businesses, community becomes a form of product value.
In fashion and beauty, identity and participation can make the difference between a product being purchased once and becoming part of someone’s self-expression. Absolutely proud of the work being done by the Dove team on raising Breast Cancer Awareness.
In health and fitness, accountability can make a service more useful than the underlying programme alone.
In technology, peer knowledge can make software easier to adopt and harder to leave.
In all three cases, the community creates something the company cannot simply manufacture internally.
It creates network value.
The more useful the relationships become, the more valuable participation becomes. And the more valuable participation becomes, the stronger the reason to stay.
This is one reason communities can be commercially powerful.
Not because everyone in the group becomes a customer.
Because the group can make the overall proposition more valuable.
And in a market like South Africa, there is an additional opportunity: businesses can build products and services that recognise the communities people already have rather than assuming the company needs to invent new ones.
That is a very different approach to growth.
But brands should be careful with the word “community”
“Community” has become one of those business words that can mean almost anything.
Employees are a community.
Customers are a community.
Followers are a community.
A WhatsApp broadcast list is apparently a community.
So is a loyalty programme.
At this point, the word risks becoming meaningless.
A useful definition is simpler:
A community exists when people have a meaningful relationship with each other around something they care about.
The brand may be involved.
It may even be essential.
But the brand is not the definition of the community.
This is why some of the most valuable communities are only partially controlled by the brands that participate in them.
That can make executives uncomfortable.
Good.
If the community has no sense of agency, it is probably just an audience list.
The danger of turning community into another advertising channel
There is a particularly South African trap here.
We are good at making culture commercially useful.
Our music, fashion, sport, food, slang, creators and social rituals have become increasingly visible to brands.
That is not necessarily a bad thing.
But there is a difference between participating in culture and extracting from it.
A community notices when a brand arrives only when there is budget attached.
It notices when the brand disappears once the campaign ends.
It notices when its language is borrowed but its concerns are ignored.
It notices when a local community becomes a backdrop for a global campaign.
This is why community cannot simply be another targeting mechanism.
If your entire community strategy can be explained in terms of audience segments, reach and conversion, you are probably describing a media plan.
Community asks different questions.
Who are these people to one another?
What do they value?
What do they do together?
What do they need?
What would make their lives or participation better?
And what can the business contribute without making the relationship entirely about itself?
The commercial value of letting go
There is a deeper shift underneath all of this.
For decades, marketing has largely been about controlling the message.
Brands created campaigns. Media distributed them. Consumers received them.
Community turns that model inside out.
People create the meaning.
They interpret the product.
They decide what is worth sharing.
They decide who belongs.
They create the rituals.
They sometimes change the language.
And occasionally they take the brand somewhere the brand never intended to go.
That sounds messy because it is.
Maybe culture is messy.
South Africa is especially good at reminding us of this.
Our culture is not neatly segmented. It is hybrid, layered and constantly negotiated. People move between languages, identities, neighbourhoods, platforms and social worlds without asking a brand strategist for permission.
Brands that want the commercial benefits of community without accepting the unpredictability of community are asking for something that does not exist.
You cannot have genuine participation with total corporate control.
At some point, you have to give people enough room to make the thing their own.
Belonging is valuable precisely because it cannot be faked
This is probably the most important point.
The future of community-led business is not about creating more branded communities.
It is about becoming more useful to the communities that already exist.
That could mean funding the thing.
Giving people a place to meet.
Building better tools.
Making expertise accessible.
Creating opportunities.
Connecting people.
Protecting a culture.
Giving a group better infrastructure.
Or simply making participation easier.
In South Africa, some of the strongest commercial opportunities may come from recognising that many of these behaviours already exist informally.
The question is not always how to create community.
Sometimes it is how to build a business around the value people are already creating for each other.
That is a much more interesting proposition.
The commercial question should therefore not be:
“How do we build a community around our brand?”
It should be:
“What community already exists around something we genuinely care about, and what can we contribute that makes it stronger?”
That changes everything.
Because belonging is not a marketing tactic.
It is a relationship.
And relationships become commercially valuable not when you extract value from them, but when you become valuable to them.
Leave a Reply