This is episode 21 of Making Moves, a weekly mini-podcast where Ne-Lo co-founders Ross Hastings and Kieran Antill pick a company making an interesting strategic move and interrogate it. Unscripted, unedited, under 15 minutes. The Boots episode was recorded on 11 September 2026.

This week: Boots.

The platform, and the timing

Boots has launched Give It Some Boots, a unified brand platform pulling health, beauty, and pharmacy together under one idea. By their account it is the first time the divisions have been brought together this way in the company's modern history.

The context matters more than the campaign. Sycamore took Walgreens Boots Alliance private in 2025 and carved Boots out as a standalone within the group. Since then the signals have all pointed the same way: a loyalty programme spanning all three divisions, and a personalisation play built on the data that generates. A London IPO was openly on the table. Then private sale interest appeared, reportedly fairly well advanced, before one party withdrew and the remaining bid was dropped and rejected. Sycamore is now regrouping and looking again at an IPO next year.

The brand platform, and a new CEO, land about three weeks after that sale stalled.

Three weeks is not enough time to build a platform, so this was clearly in train already. But three weeks is also not enough time to decide to sell a company. These things were happening alongside each other, not in sequence. The open question is whether the platform was built for the IPO, paused during the private sale talks, and revived when they fell over. We cannot know. The dynamic is worth naming either way.

Brutiful, and what it actually says

The creative idea sits on the observation that life is both beautiful and brutal. Beauty on one side, the pharmacy and the illness on the other. As a platform thought it works, because it gives you a genuine reason to hold the divisions together rather than a commercial one dressed up as a customer one.

There is a business narrative here that potential buyers like. Consolidated divisions, cross sell, upsell, synergies across the portfolio. The brutiful insight is what makes that integration make sense to a shopper rather than just to a spreadsheet.

The execution is where it thins out. The film is good. There is a re-record of a well known Boots-adjacent track in there, and that plus the production is not cheap and not fast. Beyond the film, though, there is not much showing up. It is early, so that may change. Right now it has some hallmarks of something pushed out the door, which is a shame, because the platform idea is stronger than what is currently carrying it.

One aside worth a thought. Growing up in the UK, Boots was the pharmacy for a prescription and a toothbrush, and the place you bought most of your aftershave. It was also a default lunch stop for the meal deal, and it had a decent confectionery run. That convenience behaviour does not fit neatly into health, beauty, or pharmacy, but it is a real part of why people walk through the door. Footprint plus impulse is a big share of lifetime value.

Who the campaign is actually for

This is where the performance versus brand argument falls apart.

A share market listing is not bought on click through rates. It is bought on perception, on the hypothetical of the future. Traders and analysts are still people, and when they sit down to value a brand it is as basic as whether it feels present and powerful right now. That does not show up in performance metrics. It shows up in the multiplier someone types into a spreadsheet.

Which explains why, at this exact moment, a campaign would be built to say Boots, Boots, Boots. The platform line has the brand name inside it, and that is doing real work. Look at what the campaign promises the customer and it is largely a set of life moments. What it delivers to the market is a recent, vivid memory of the brand.

You can imagine the internal conversation. Why spend this on brand marketing? Because a buyer who was at one number has come back at a lower one, and closing that gap is worth vastly more than the campaign costs. That logic holds for an IPO too. It might also explain the timing, if the read is that a strategic buyer purchasing for synergies does not pay for brand investment, while the retail share market very much does. Back to the IPO, back to brand spend.

Is this for the customer or for the sale? Both, obviously. But they are happening in the context of each other, and pretending otherwise misses the point.

Credit where it is due

One thing here is genuinely admirable. Since taking Boots private, Sycamore has been assembling the pieces of the proposition before announcing it. Loyalty across divisions. Cross divisional value. Personalisation. The promise was largely in place before the platform went public.

The legacy perception of private equity is come in, strip the asset, capture the value, sell or float. That is changing, but it is still worth applauding when an owner invests in value creation instead, so that what gets passed on at sale or listing has real upside rather than being a hollowed out vessel. On that count Sycamore has done it the right way round.

Not a move, an amplification

So is this repositioning? Not really. It reinforces where Boots already is rather than changing where it sits. Nobody's mind is being changed about Boots. They are being reminded it exists and that it is part of life, whether their association is a prescription or a packet of crisps.

That is fine. It is just worth being honest about what it is. The takeaway is the useful bit: sometimes the target audience is not the target audience. Sometimes it is a different market entirely, and the people you most need to move are the ones holding the valuation.

Making Moves is a weekly mini-podcast from Ne-Lo, Australia's repositioning consultancy. New episodes every Friday.