Marketers spend billions trying to make people feel something. And rightly so. Emotional storytelling isn’t just the soft stuff – it’s the sales stuff. Campaigns that generate strong emotional responses are more likely to drive long-term profit, brand loyalty, and cultural traction.

We don’t bat an eye at briefs demanding “authenticity”, “vulnerability”, or “empathy”. In fact, we reward them – at Cannes Lions, at the IPA Effectiveness Awards, across every major creative benchmark.

But heaven forbid a woman in power gets emotional in real life.

Case in point: Rachel Reeves. A tear slid down her cheek during the most-watched session of the political week, and the internet pounced. Headlines sneered. The Telegraph asked, “What is wrong with Rachel Reeves?” The Daily Mail scorned her “waterworks”. Her authority, declared one commentator, was “melting away”.

We marketers know better than most that emotion drives memory and meaning. Surprise, delight, anger, tears – those are the hooks that anchor recall and shape reputation. So why, when those very tools are wielded in the boardroom rather than the storyboard, do many of us flinch?

Especially if those leaders are women.

When a campaign taps into vulnerability, we call it powerful. When a female leader does the same, we call it… unprofessional. Unstable. Too much.

Take any number of brand campaigns from recent years – from Nike’s ‘Nothing Beats a Londoner’, with its magnetism rooted in real insight, or Apple’s ‘The Greatest’ dripping with emotional authenticity. These campaigns succeeded not because they’re safe, but because they connect. Because they’re human.

I’m not suggesting we all cry at work. But I am suggesting we stop seeing occasional tears as antithetical to leadership.

Now imagine if the women central to one or other of those campaigns – and yes, some of the key roles were held by women – cried in a strategy meeting. Would she have been applauded for “being real”? Or quietly sidelined for lacking “resilience”?

Let’s not pretend this isn’t gendered. Study after study shows that women who display emotion at work are judged more harshly than men. A tearful man is seen as brave. A tearful woman? Possibly on the verge of burnout. Or worse, a liability.

Yet, in a world that increasingly demands emotionally intelligent leadership – where psychological safety, inclusion, and empathetic decision-making are the new table stakes – I can’t help worrying we continue to penalise the very traits our industry prizes in its brands.

If anything, this is where marketing has a responsibility to lead. We are architects of public sentiment. We shape how people see themselves, how they see each other, and how they experience moments of meaning. Why has no brand, female-focused or other, leant into the Rachel Reeves moment and shown up with a light-touch, warmth-filled, supportive post on social? The opportunity is there.

Empathy, resilience, stamina: What are the hallmarks of a great marketing leader?

There’s a reason so many brilliant women leave agencies or opt out of marketing leadership roles. There’s a reason emotional intelligence still doesn’t sit comfortably in many leadership KPIs. And there’s a reason why, in 2025, we still talk about “fixing the pipeline” rather than fixing the workplace.

To be clear: I’m not suggesting we all cry at work. But I am suggesting we stop seeing occasional tears as antithetical to leadership – and start recognising them as integral to the kind of leadership the future demands. The leadership we say we want.

So next time we write a brief asking for “vulnerability”, let’s ask ourselves: do we mean it? Do we value it in our teams as much as in the brand film?

Because if we don’t, we’re not just being hypocritical. We’re undermining the very values we claim to uphold. And frankly, we’re leaving growth on the table.

It’s time we stopped treating emotion as a brand asset but a leadership flaw. Because here’s the truth: power without empathy is obsolete. And brands that don’t walk their emotional talk? Consumers – and employees – see right through them.