Chapter One | The Expiration Date of the Word “Customer”
Marketing textbooks say “understand your customer.” Draw personas, design customer journeys, optimize touchpoints. The methodology itself is not wrong. But in 2026, we must recognize that the word “customer” itself is diminishing the relationship between brand and people.
“Customer” ultimately means “a person who pays money.” Customer, Consumer, Buyer — no matter which English word you use, they all smell of nothing but commercial transaction. “Target” goes further, as if the person were in the crosshairs of a sniper. Within this language, the inequality between brand and people becomes visible. Brand as “seller,” customer as “buyer.” This asymmetry lies at the foundation of all marketing initiatives.
But is your relationship with the brands you truly love really such a one-way street? Probably not. What exists there is resonance, conspiracy, a sense of being “comrades” of sorts. We call this a “complicity.” It may sound dangerous, but it is precisely the heat and resolve in this word that accurately describes the relationship between brands and people going forward.
Chapter Two | The Structure of Complicity — Why “Fans” Are Not Enough
“Fan” and “community” are already worn-out words. In an era where every brand touts “fan-base management” and every D2C claims to be “community-driven,” these terms no longer hold the power of differentiation. And there is a more fundamental problem: a fan is essentially a “spectator.”
Fans cheer. They praise. They consume. But fans do not share in a brand’s fate. When the team loses, the fan’s life doesn’t change. They can cheer for a different team tomorrow. In other words, there is a decisive “safe distance” between fan and brand.
Accomplices are different. Accomplices stake their own credibility on a brand’s gamble. The person who changes their own consumption behavior because they resonate with Patagonia’s environmental activism. The person who pays top dollar for Tesla’s still-imperfect product because they believe in its vision, and personally argues against skeptics around them. They are not mere purchasers. They embed the brand’s philosophy into their own lives and stake their own identity on its success or failure. This is complicity. The sharing of risk. That is the decisive difference from fans.
Chapter Three | The Conditions for Accomplices to Emerge — “Sharing Secrets”
So how do accomplices emerge? The answer is surprisingly simple: by “sharing secrets.”
The depth of human relationships is proportional to the density of shared secrets. With strangers, we talk about the weather. With friends, we confide our worries. With best friends, we reveal truths we tell no one else. Brands are the same. Advertising aimed at everyone is just weather talk. To create accomplices, you must speak from a much deeper place.
Apple’s early users shared the secret of “a tool that changes the world.” In an era when nobody else believed, they had the feeling that only they knew its potential. This generated a sense of belonging that was almost religious. Supreme creates lines not because of product quality, but because of the complicit awareness that “only we understand this value.”
In other words, to create accomplices, a brand must abandon the desire to “be understood by everyone.” On the extension of the “courage to be disliked” discussed in our third issue lies an even more radical resolve: “it’s fine if those who don’t get it don’t get it.” That resolve strengthens the bonds of those on the inside.
Chapter Four | Designing Participation — Not “Involving” but “Unleashing” Accomplices
Another critical element of complicity is the courage for a brand to relinquish “control.” Many brands run UGC (User Generated Content) and ambassador programs, but most are merely “managed participation.” They specify hashtags, prepare templates, and set posting guidelines. That is not participation — it is mobilization.
True complicity happens in places that exceed the brand’s intentions. IKEA hackers modified furniture in ways the company never intended, and it became a culture. Minecraft players built worlds the developers never imagined. What these phenomena share is that the brand left “white space.” The concept of white space discussed in our second issue is alive here too. Not just white space in communication, but white space in the product itself — space where users can inscribe their own meaning — becomes the breeding ground for complicity.
You don’t “involve” accomplices. You “unleash” them. The brand’s role is to prepare the stage, not to write the script. When accomplices spin their own narratives, create their own meaning, and push the brand’s horizons outward on their own — only then does a brand transform from personal property into a “shared movement.”
Chapter Five | The Economics of Complicity — Why Accomplices Are the Most Valuable “Asset”
Let us speak in business terms. Accomplices are marketing’s most efficient asset. Because they function not as a brand’s “second sales force” but as its “second founders.”
Ordinary customers consume products. Fans recommend products. But accomplices expand the “meaning” of products. They translate the brand’s philosophy in their own words and redefine the brand’s value in their own context. This is organic brand expansion that no advertising budget can buy.
Even more importantly, accomplices are the most reliable presence in a brand crisis. When a product has problems, when a firestorm erupts, when competitors attack — ordinary customers leave, fans go silent. But accomplices defend the brand at the cost of their own credibility. Because a brand’s failure is also a threat to their own identity. This “loyalty in crisis” is more valuable than any insurance.
Chapter Six | Contour, White Space, Attitude, and Complicity — Making a Brand an “Ecosystem”
Let us look back at this series. In the first issue, we discussed “contour” — how to define a brand’s shape. In the second, “white space” — techniques for giving a brand breath. In the third, “attitude” — the resolve to give a brand will. And in this fourth issue, “complicity” — redefining the relationship between brand and people.
These four concepts are not independent tools. They form a single ecosystem. Without contour, a brand has no shape to identify. Without white space, there is no room for breath or participation. Without attitude, there is no reason for people to follow. And without accomplices, contour, white space, and attitude all end as a brand’s monologue.
In 2026, we are in the midst of reinventing the concept of “brand.” It is no longer something a company unilaterally constructs. A brand is a “movement” — where like-minded people gather, take risks together, and create meaning together. ASTER takes on the design of that movement. Carve the contour, leave white space, show attitude, and welcome accomplices. That is our vision for the future of branding.
