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."
Yes, the private sector response to Russia has been fascinating – almost wrote a separate post on it. I saw some calling it a triumph of Purpose – proof of businesses putting the greater good ahead of profit. But it seems increasingly clear the most consequential parts of the withdrawal were those effectively imposed on business by govt as a direct effect of the sanctions, and the most counter-productive parts have been the performative extra steps (Sainsbury’s removing vodka etc) that businesses took it upon themselves to take. Also notable that Unilever and Danone were two of the most exposed global businesses, with extensive operations in Russia. But then I should be wary of my own confirmation bias!
Someone's raising the stakes! (It would be very interesting to be able to research the financial and psychological effects amongst ordinary Russians of Western business withdrawal, by sector and segments, and also the process of substitution)
“These brands represented a pathway to global harmony. They were a symbol of freedom and democracy. Levi Strauss and Pepsi, and, later, Starbucks, were more than just fun goods. It was more than just a fad or style. There was a political statement attached to those brands.”
“When companies want to do the right thing, their critics often say, ‘This is a private corporation, not a government entity. We’re not in business to solve all the problems in the world,’ ” Sonnenfeld said. “This is the excuse for cowardice.”
Ah, that Sonnenfeld quote is exactly the kind of take I was fearing. The idea that businesses withdrew from Russia through some collective moral awakening is crazy post-rationalisation. Almost all of it is down to the impossibility of conducting business there anyway (tricky without SWIFT etc), plus a simple cost-benefit analysis, where Russia represents a pretty small market and it's not worth risking the global brand.
I'd say recent events have been a reminder of how salvation won't come from the corporations. For better or worse, our fates lie in the hands of nation states and international institutions – and we really need them to work better.
A silly comment that handed the journalist a neat ending. I see the French businesses have maintained ties (WSJ today) I don't know how that works w/out Swift. Cash is king baby?!
"I consider sanctions that inflict damage on entire populations and their economic life to be morally fraught, and the essential reason is this: If we embark on policies premised on the idea that bad governments and their people are one, then we have bought into a way of thinking that comes perilously close to how ultranationalists and fascists see the world."
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.
Thanks Sue – yes, almost everyone I know uses Twitter less than they used to (including me), and some have withdrawn altogether. For all its faults, I still find it useful as a news source – it's good to see what articles interesting people are reading. But you have to wade through a lot of promoted tweets to get there...
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?
Thanks Matt – yes, great points. The idea of conversations needing 'leaders' is itself pretty strange.
"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!
Yes, the private sector response to Russia has been fascinating – almost wrote a separate post on it. I saw some calling it a triumph of Purpose – proof of businesses putting the greater good ahead of profit. But it seems increasingly clear the most consequential parts of the withdrawal were those effectively imposed on business by govt as a direct effect of the sanctions, and the most counter-productive parts have been the performative extra steps (Sainsbury’s removing vodka etc) that businesses took it upon themselves to take. Also notable that Unilever and Danone were two of the most exposed global businesses, with extensive operations in Russia. But then I should be wary of my own confirmation bias!
Someone's raising the stakes! (It would be very interesting to be able to research the financial and psychological effects amongst ordinary Russians of Western business withdrawal, by sector and segments, and also the process of substitution)
https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-consequences-of-the-unprecedented-rush-of-companies-leaving-russia
“These brands represented a pathway to global harmony. They were a symbol of freedom and democracy. Levi Strauss and Pepsi, and, later, Starbucks, were more than just fun goods. It was more than just a fad or style. There was a political statement attached to those brands.”
“When companies want to do the right thing, their critics often say, ‘This is a private corporation, not a government entity. We’re not in business to solve all the problems in the world,’ ” Sonnenfeld said. “This is the excuse for cowardice.”
Ah, that Sonnenfeld quote is exactly the kind of take I was fearing. The idea that businesses withdrew from Russia through some collective moral awakening is crazy post-rationalisation. Almost all of it is down to the impossibility of conducting business there anyway (tricky without SWIFT etc), plus a simple cost-benefit analysis, where Russia represents a pretty small market and it's not worth risking the global brand.
I'd say recent events have been a reminder of how salvation won't come from the corporations. For better or worse, our fates lie in the hands of nation states and international institutions – and we really need them to work better.
A silly comment that handed the journalist a neat ending. I see the French businesses have maintained ties (WSJ today) I don't know how that works w/out Swift. Cash is king baby?!
Nick Mulder seems to be the go-to sanctions expert here, this in Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/russia-sanctions-economic-policy-effects/627009/
"I consider sanctions that inflict damage on entire populations and their economic life to be morally fraught, and the essential reason is this: If we embark on policies premised on the idea that bad governments and their people are one, then we have bought into a way of thinking that comes perilously close to how ultranationalists and fascists see the world."
great read Nick, thank you.
Thanks Miles, appreciate the comment
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.
Thanks Sue – yes, almost everyone I know uses Twitter less than they used to (including me), and some have withdrawn altogether. For all its faults, I still find it useful as a news source – it's good to see what articles interesting people are reading. But you have to wade through a lot of promoted tweets to get there...