Really thoughtful analysis here Nick. It shouldn’t be a surprise that many of the brands seeking to lead with purpose are in the FMCG space. Their very nature means they seek to appeal to wide bases of audiences, and too often their need to differentiate from competitors puts them down what is increasingly a contrived creative path.
I would actually like a moratorium on “conversations”. I am reminded of that Theodore Zeldin’s definition of conversation requires its participants “being willing to emerge a slightly different person” and how difficult it is for corporate entities to change.
Many conversations end up being monologues. Perhaps some generative questions are: what does a good conversation look like and what would it take for an entity like a corporation or a government to have one?
"I wonder if Accenture Interactive paused to reflect on how it feels to be erased as a creator."
haha!
The NYT conversation was interesting, esp. the different reactions on Twitter (disastrous self-sabotage!) vs LinkedIn (*amazing* congrats!). Initially I was a bit on the fence, then Jemima Kelly/FT said she didn't think it would have got made if it had been 'pro-JKR', and that provided some clarity, for me. Likewise at time I was wondering about the conversations they must have had, it made me think there must be something off with corporate DEI, I know the initial event/JKR letter was a huge scandal in UK, I think less in US, but then a day later the rolling inferno scrolled on to something else, and the conversation ended.
And now this brutal war, a raft of unprecedented private sector sanctions, I've seen brands both ridiculed for waxing purpose on and also called out for "where's your brand purpose now then?" Initially I reacted emotionally too, "pull the plug on Russia" now I'm having second thoughts, why punish ordinary Russians, except we def should stop buying Putin's oil now, and gas asap. But, Sainsbury's removing Russian vodka, Netflix putting Anna Karenina on hold, expressions of identity and 'values', hmm.
This interview quote in Spiegel was interesting. "The world of globalization and free trade, in which the economy was only interested in bottom lines and not in politics, will be over."
I have always been queasy about the possessiveness of brands (or at least, the people behind them) wanting to “own” territories, values, colours, emotions and in the last few years conversations, blah, blah. It shows a lack of awareness comparable to that when marketing people blab on about “our consumers” which is (I assume) meant to sound friendly, but doesn’t.
You’ve made so many good points in an intelligent and thoughtful article - and of course in addition to those 75% of Twitter users who only chip in occasionally, there are masses of people who have never signed up to Twitter or who have withdrawn from the snake-pit. There always have been loudmouths who love the sound of their own voices and unfortunately quoting a few of their spoutings seem to count as journalism these days.
Really thoughtful analysis here Nick. It shouldn’t be a surprise that many of the brands seeking to lead with purpose are in the FMCG space. Their very nature means they seek to appeal to wide bases of audiences, and too often their need to differentiate from competitors puts them down what is increasingly a contrived creative path.
👏👏👏
Super stuff
I would actually like a moratorium on “conversations”. I am reminded of that Theodore Zeldin’s definition of conversation requires its participants “being willing to emerge a slightly different person” and how difficult it is for corporate entities to change.
Many conversations end up being monologues. Perhaps some generative questions are: what does a good conversation look like and what would it take for an entity like a corporation or a government to have one?
"I wonder if Accenture Interactive paused to reflect on how it feels to be erased as a creator."
haha!
The NYT conversation was interesting, esp. the different reactions on Twitter (disastrous self-sabotage!) vs LinkedIn (*amazing* congrats!). Initially I was a bit on the fence, then Jemima Kelly/FT said she didn't think it would have got made if it had been 'pro-JKR', and that provided some clarity, for me. Likewise at time I was wondering about the conversations they must have had, it made me think there must be something off with corporate DEI, I know the initial event/JKR letter was a huge scandal in UK, I think less in US, but then a day later the rolling inferno scrolled on to something else, and the conversation ended.
And now this brutal war, a raft of unprecedented private sector sanctions, I've seen brands both ridiculed for waxing purpose on and also called out for "where's your brand purpose now then?" Initially I reacted emotionally too, "pull the plug on Russia" now I'm having second thoughts, why punish ordinary Russians, except we def should stop buying Putin's oil now, and gas asap. But, Sainsbury's removing Russian vodka, Netflix putting Anna Karenina on hold, expressions of identity and 'values', hmm.
This interview quote in Spiegel was interesting. "The world of globalization and free trade, in which the economy was only interested in bottom lines and not in politics, will be over."
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/ivan-krastev-on-russia-s-invasion-of-ukraine-putin-lives-in-historic-analogies-and-metaphors-a-1d043090-1111-4829-be90-c20fd5786288
Cheers for now!
great read Nick, thank you.
I have always been queasy about the possessiveness of brands (or at least, the people behind them) wanting to “own” territories, values, colours, emotions and in the last few years conversations, blah, blah. It shows a lack of awareness comparable to that when marketing people blab on about “our consumers” which is (I assume) meant to sound friendly, but doesn’t.
You’ve made so many good points in an intelligent and thoughtful article - and of course in addition to those 75% of Twitter users who only chip in occasionally, there are masses of people who have never signed up to Twitter or who have withdrawn from the snake-pit. There always have been loudmouths who love the sound of their own voices and unfortunately quoting a few of their spoutings seem to count as journalism these days.