36 Comments

This is such a well-researched and well-argued piece Nick.

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

Very well-argued. In addition, the issue about why everyone ignored the source/funder comes back to another tendency today - the obsession with “fact-based” evidence. I see graphics and statistics hurled around the internet with gay abandon with little thought given to the age or source of the data, or the reason that it was gathered in the first place.

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

Ok, the research is flawed, and, from CSR to triple bottom line to stakeholder capitalism to the canonization of purpose to whatever comes next, it all gets co-opted, debased and diluted by corporate forces from Davos to Danone to Wall St.

Even so, there’s an argument ‘purpose’ is an attempt to counterbalance the dominant effect on our social lives of business maximizing shareholder value. In a post-08 world it appears to have had a broader effect than previous incarnations.

“It’s about the dangers of businesses exercising political and cultural influence far beyond their remit, and getting in the way of real societal progress as result.”

What’s their remit? Was there a time when business didn’t exercise political and cultural influence? Where’s the evidence it’s getting in the way?

Why the hints at a return to Friedman?

In Capitalism and Freedom (1962) Friedman wrote, ‘there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud’.

In 1970, he wrote ‘the social responsibility of business is to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom’.

“The actual argument was subtler than that, but this is how it was received”

Received, enthusiastically seized and implemented in practice, so that wealth creation within the financial markets has become an end in itself, & business has enjoyed enormous influence on the ‘rules of the game’ with no shortage of scandal.

Friedman’s nod to ‘ethical custom’ is interesting, something Lessig’s framework later recognized. Lessig suggests 4 interacting overlapping forces that have a regulating mechanism to constrain and guide behavior; markets, law, ‘architecture’, and social norms. There are no bright lines.

Brands are social relations, advertising is about creating social norms and ‘saleability’. I doubt Field’s research is the best case purpose can muster. Elsewhere Cadbury’s won a Gold APG award addressing old age loneliness.

Maybe the question we need to keep asking is how to keep making it better?

Expand full comment
Oct 26, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

absolutely superb

Expand full comment
Oct 27, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

“Or maybe I am being naïve.“ is the new gold standard way to end a blog post.

Expand full comment
Oct 27, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

Thank you for writing such an articulate and thoughtful piece and for raising our attention to the sponsorship of the study. The sceptic in me wonders whether the story in the data was exactly what they didn't want to hear - that on average, non-purpose campaigns generate 1.6 ‘very large’ business effects, while purpose campaigns generate only 1.1. You can imagine sitting at that first presentation of the research findings ...and the tumbleweed.... I wonder if Peter Field was then urged to 'explore' the data in a different way to ensure it told the story they wanted it to tell. Which is of course, conjecture, and I appreciate your professionalism in avoiding a headline that screamed this reading between the lines.

Expand full comment
Oct 27, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

Sharp thinking, as always. Look forward to reading the poem version of this...

Expand full comment
Oct 27, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

"It is the Davos-backed, corporate-political consensus that progressives need to kick against – the establishment, not the insurgent." Exactly. Are you for change or not? Making unrestrained capiltalism seem cuddly through "purpose" isn't radical. It's out and out collaboration.

Expand full comment
Oct 27, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

Hi Nick,

A fantastic read! thank you.

Many people forget that a brand has an internal and external role to play (purpose, values, behaviours vs. positioning, proposition, personality) - 'Purpose' originally (i believe) was not developed to be advertised.

Last week in Forbes, Burger King’s CEO explained their lack of performance down to a struggle to find the right value narrative – if ever in doubt it reaffirms the importance of capturing the right consumer value proposition, the ‘what’s in it for me?’ in order to win.

again a great read.

Remi Couzelas

Expand full comment

Beautifully considered article.

Expand full comment
Oct 28, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

Congratulations on an informative article, I think you're right, but I also think we're way beyond the tipping point. Keep up the good work and I hope to be prove wrong.

Expand full comment
Oct 28, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

I really enjoyed reading this - thanks.

Expand full comment

The large majority of companies/brands do not exist, primarily to heal society or the environment. So they would be better off not to use that as an ad claim and risk getting ‘found out’. But that does not mean that most brands do/could not have a purpose that goes beyond making profits and which can give them meaning in the hearts and minds of important stakeholders (customers, employees, influencers, etc) that triggers purchase - maybe even loyalty. Think of Airbnb making us feel like we Belong, Red Bull letting us dream of gaining super-human powers, Vanguard Investments stands up for the small investor trough education and low fees, while Hermès brings us social status and prestige at a premium price, guided by creativity, craftsmanship and high quality materials. These brands are not claiming to save the world (though most companies sure try avoid being perceived as messing it up, as you point out). But they promise more than ‘superior products at a good value,´ as well. They give their brand meaning beyond the material. And meaning is something most if us are seeking un this (post-)modernist and consumerist-critical world. Are we not?

Expand full comment

The large majority of companies/brands do not exist, primarily to heal society or the environment. So they would be better off not to use that as an ad claim and risk getting ‘found out’. But that does not mean that most brands do/could not have a purpose that goes beyond making profits and which can give them meaning in the hearts and minds of important stakeholders (customers, employees, influencers, etc) that triggers purchase - maybe even loyalty. Think of Airbnb making us feel like we Belong, Red Bull letting us dream of gaining super-human powers, Vanguard Investments stands up for the small investor trough education and low fees, while Hermès brings us social status and prestige at a premium price, guided by creativity, craftsmanship and high quality materials. These brands are not claiming to save the world (though most companies sure try avoid being perceived as messing it up, as you point out). But they promise more than ‘superior products at a good value,´ as well. They give their brand meaning beyond the material. And meaning is something most if us are seeking un this (post-)modernist and consumerist-critical world. Are we not?

Expand full comment
Oct 31, 2021Liked by Nick Asbury

Super well argued..I agree with your ethical problem..I had the same issue. Corporate interest ( well meaning as they may be) and not elected political leadership or cultural consences driving views of society . There is risk associated with that kind of power..Havingvsaid that we should not take away the enormous good companies can do( specially in the developing world) by adopting rwal purpose.

Expand full comment

Thank you for sharing this. However, I think that we bludgeon purpose for things it was never meant to do and do not understand or laud it for what it does. For one, purpose is not about ads - it is about direction and inspiring people who work there. It will exist irrespective of whether it is advertised or not. As someone famously said: "Profit and growth are to business are what breathing is to life. But the purpose of life ain't breathing". Maybe, we stop this correlation with ads. Maybe, marketing should not own purpose - because then it becomes a gimmick or is reduced to it. The second aspect is time: purpose endures or no. relieve purpose from the shackles of demand-supply cycles and comps - read "The Living Company" - a book that traces reasons for some brands/enterprises lasting more than 300 years. The world's oldest beer brand is 1000 years old. Third, purpose is about inspiring and aligning ALL internal actions. From the work done in Brand consulting, one has seen Purpose having objectives like winning Innovation awards in 2-3 years not at Cannes but in industry and scientific innovation forums. Last, purpose is not about making money - it is about what you are willing to lose money for. What do you do when no one is looking. In fact, having purpose is probably the only hope where avarice and greed seem the only dominant motivations. I believe in purpose whether you advertise it or not - provided you act on it. Have one if you are an advertiser or not. We need purpose for exactly the same reason you mention we should not have it.

Expand full comment