In the volatile world of cancel culture, who holds the power to make amends? Mistakes are bound to happen now and again; some are more forgivable than others. Recently, soda brand Poppi faced a lawsuit alleging its gut health claims are falsely advertised. The brand is trying to make a comeback from the allegations, saying in a statement that the claims are “baseless.”

Too often when controversy strikes, we still see brands pump out insincere corporate statements attempting to make reparations. But the truth is, this is not enough for today’s consumers. These types of generic, faceless messages don’t resonate.

So the question is—how do you make it resonate? The answer is authenticity and advocacy. Both of these attributes are bred in a brand’s communities, with creators sitting at the center.

The current state of cancel culture and advertising

A brand community built on devoted fans and authentic creator partnerships is a solid one. But why does it work? Because it’s not the brand saying what it wants or needs; it’s an authentic message coming from consumers who believe it themselves.

When criticism strikes, the community’s grassroots support not only backs the brand, but it also boosts its credibility in the eyes of consumers who crave realness. When Cetaphil launched its Super Bowl ad that faced backlash for seemingly copying a creator’s content idea, the controversy was quickly tamed after the creator announced the brand formed a partnership with her. Her community loved it and paid kudos to the brand.

The more voices that speak for the brand, the better the situation will be. And what better way to round the troops than through authentic creator partnerships? It’s low in volume, but the tactic arguably has the biggest swaying power.

Why? Because they sit center stage and act as the heartbeat of some of the biggest communities.

Creators have a lot more power than they realize

Brands often experience a type of “pseudo control” where they think they can and should control the narrative. This is the beauty of using creators; it’s their voice, not the brand’s.

But is it the creator’s responsibility to defend a brand when they’re not being paid or told to? The first step should be to evaluate the facts. There may be contractual obligations at play, as well as whether any allegations hold truth.