Another great read and important distinction between ethics and efficacy, particularly for those who are so bothered about the latter (or at least any more).
Very good. I would be harder on Ritson though. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. For Ritson to merrily embrace this cynical crap is disappointing. But if it all hastens the end of this trend then maybe it serves a purpose.
Thanks Brian. I imagine Ritson would say he’s not embracing it, just recognising the reality – the game is the game etc. But I do think there’s an air of nihilism about it, even though he takes strong moral positions at other times (Ukraine etc)
1. Great headline and beautifully written perspective.
2. As someone who has worked in a purpose agency for 15 years, under the leadership of a Ph.D. in change management (and specifically corporate social responsibility), this article was like a kick in the gut. And one that I needed. There is absolutely a danger in “purpose-washing,” which illuminates all the more need for increased transparency, accountability and authenticity.
One of the issues I’ve seen is that agencies, who traditionally come from a comms background, don’t fully understand that purpose goes beyond the media mix and messaging. It affects how businesses and organizations are managed and led, operationally—from the top to the bottom. This is the danger when marketing agencies get into the business of purpose, and even more dangerous when their clients are egocentrics focused on achieving celebrity than affecting change.
I’m looking forward to hearing more of your perspectives on the issue, and challenging my thinking in the process.
Thanks for reading Kris. I agree cutting out the superficial purpose washing is a step in the right direction, but really my critique goes deeper — I see purpose as a misguided way to think about for-profit businesses in general, even (or especially) when it's done with greater conviction. I won't rehearse the whole case here, but feel free to dig through the previous posts if it's of interest! (Starting here: https://nickasbury.substack.com/p/purpose-wins-who-loses)
Awesome thought-provoking post, thank you for sharing. I'm a big fan of Will Macaskill and his work, but hadn't caught the recent effective altruism controversy
Wow...I think this is the first thing I've read that succinctly demonstrates what is so draining and infuriating about ads like BrewDog's...I think another aspect is the sheer frequency of this kind of advertising, rendering it yet more exhausting by constant exposure, and the sense that we are being "instructed" on how to be charitable, compassionate, etc. I'm sure there are people qualified to instruct others in how to be a virtuous person, but I don't think they write ad campaigns. Thanks for this, great piece.
Thanks for reading. And yes, totally agree – each brand creates its own individual rationalisations for doing this stuff, but collectively it ends up being a hugely exhausting phenomenon.
Another great read and important distinction between ethics and efficacy, particularly for those who are so bothered about the latter (or at least any more).
Cheers Justin, thanks for reading
sorry meant to say for those NOT so bothered.
Yes, I mentally autocorrected it :)
One of the best things I have read on purpose for a long time. Inspired a new (qualitative) formula : Outrage = hypocrisy x hubris ?
Thanks Andy – may need to keep the formula secret as so many brands actively want to create outrage
Very good. I would be harder on Ritson though. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. For Ritson to merrily embrace this cynical crap is disappointing. But if it all hastens the end of this trend then maybe it serves a purpose.
Thanks Brian. I imagine Ritson would say he’s not embracing it, just recognising the reality – the game is the game etc. But I do think there’s an air of nihilism about it, even though he takes strong moral positions at other times (Ukraine etc)
Excellent dissection, thanks Nick
Thanks for reading, appreciated
Nick,
1. Great headline and beautifully written perspective.
2. As someone who has worked in a purpose agency for 15 years, under the leadership of a Ph.D. in change management (and specifically corporate social responsibility), this article was like a kick in the gut. And one that I needed. There is absolutely a danger in “purpose-washing,” which illuminates all the more need for increased transparency, accountability and authenticity.
One of the issues I’ve seen is that agencies, who traditionally come from a comms background, don’t fully understand that purpose goes beyond the media mix and messaging. It affects how businesses and organizations are managed and led, operationally—from the top to the bottom. This is the danger when marketing agencies get into the business of purpose, and even more dangerous when their clients are egocentrics focused on achieving celebrity than affecting change.
I’m looking forward to hearing more of your perspectives on the issue, and challenging my thinking in the process.
Thanks for reading Kris. I agree cutting out the superficial purpose washing is a step in the right direction, but really my critique goes deeper — I see purpose as a misguided way to think about for-profit businesses in general, even (or especially) when it's done with greater conviction. I won't rehearse the whole case here, but feel free to dig through the previous posts if it's of interest! (Starting here: https://nickasbury.substack.com/p/purpose-wins-who-loses)
Awesome thought-provoking post, thank you for sharing. I'm a big fan of Will Macaskill and his work, but hadn't caught the recent effective altruism controversy
Wow...I think this is the first thing I've read that succinctly demonstrates what is so draining and infuriating about ads like BrewDog's...I think another aspect is the sheer frequency of this kind of advertising, rendering it yet more exhausting by constant exposure, and the sense that we are being "instructed" on how to be charitable, compassionate, etc. I'm sure there are people qualified to instruct others in how to be a virtuous person, but I don't think they write ad campaigns. Thanks for this, great piece.
Thanks for reading. And yes, totally agree – each brand creates its own individual rationalisations for doing this stuff, but collectively it ends up being a hugely exhausting phenomenon.
Great read. Thanks for sharing!