The New Equation: Make a Combination of Expertise Easier to Understand

Read the campaign story

PwC unveiled The New Equation on 15 June 2021, describing a strategy linking trust with sustained outcomes. The launch is a statement of organisational intent, not proof of either result. A creator’s account of the associated campaign describes portraying people and technology together. The film production listing names R/GA, director Eliot Rausch, Stink Films, Radioaktive Film and cinematographer Jared Fadel.

Stephen Icardi’s portfolio also credits photographer Danielle Levitt for images of groups in varied settings. The strategy announcement, film and photographic expressions are treated as one family. The June date belongs to the platform announcement; the opened production listing does not establish an exact film premiere day. Planned investments and the sponsor’s claims of industry leadership are not adopted as completed outcomes or independent market assessments.

Editorial interpretation: the equation metaphor implies that a useful result depends on a relationship between parts. That can help a broad services firm move beyond a catalogue of departments, but only if the audience can see what each part contributes. A group photograph communicates multiplicity more readily than collaboration. The narrative needs a decision, a handoff or a question that makes the combination necessary rather than merely showing many people in one place.

Editorial interpretation: pairing trust with outcomes also creates a productive communication tension. A result achieved without credible process may be difficult to rely on, while a reassuring process without useful delivery may not solve the client’s problem. The campaign can introduce that tension, but it cannot resolve it through a slogan. The next layer should explain evidence, responsibilities and limits in terms relevant to a particular engagement.

Show a relationship rather than a list of disciplines

Choose one bounded problem and describe the distinct contributions needed to address it. Identify where one person’s work changes another’s decision, and avoid using diversity of job titles as a substitute for that connection. A small team can demonstrate collaboration with a simple before-and-after brief: what information became available, who interpreted it and what remained uncertain. This is more useful than claiming seamless teamwork without showing a handoff. Keep the example fictional unless the client has approved both the facts and their intended public use.

Treat trust as a claim that needs an observable basis

The word can refer to accuracy, transparency, reliability or a relationship, and those meanings require different evidence. Ask which meaning matters in the situation and what a client could inspect. A clear scope, a review process or an explanation of uncertainty may support a narrower claim than a broad promise of trustworthiness. Avoid implying that brand familiarity guarantees professional quality or removes conflicts of interest. The communication should help a prospective client ask more precise questions, not discourage scrutiny through a confident abstract assurance.

Separate a strategic announcement from delivered change

A new operating model, investment plan or brand platform can describe what an organisation intends to do. It does not establish that every team, market or service already works that way. Date the statement and distinguish commitments, implementation evidence and independently assessed results. For a smaller organisation, pilot the described collaboration before making it the centre of a campaign. If a service depends on another provider or a particular contract, make that dependency visible rather than allowing the umbrella message to suggest universal availability.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: a small design-and-research studio could create two private proposal explanations for the same fictional website brief. One lists specialist roles; the other shows how a researcher’s finding changes a designer’s choice and a reviewer’s acceptance question. Keep the scope, price illustration and limitations identical. Use synthetic material and adult volunteers, without client names, financial advice or claims about actual project results.

Measure whether volunteers can explain the collaboration, identify the evidence supporting a claim and recognise the unresolved decision. Separate perceived confidence from accurate understanding and do not predict contract wins.

Stop if the example implies guaranteed outcomes, conceals a dependency or uses confidential client work without the required permission.

• Name one contribution and one dependency for each role.
• Show a question the team cannot yet answer.
• Distinguish the proposed process from an achieved outcome.