On Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos, Noble Cause Corruption, why 'starting with why' is a charter for corporate self-delusion, and the importance of saying 'nay'.
One of the issues for companies/brands that blow their own trumpets loudly in one area of “social good” is that they draw attention to other areas of the company’s operations or brand portfolio where they may not be so virtuous - for example contributing to obesity with their food products
Nick - hello, first time caller. Re the rise of 'why' (and the door it opens to emotional guff) you might be interested to see this recently published study of language charting the rise of 'feel' and 'believe' and the demise of 'determine' and 'conclude'. Also tells a similar story with 'I' vs 'we'. https://phys.org/news/2022-01-rationality-declined-decades.html
It is easy to mock purpose. It is much harder to articulate why it is so pernicious. The best piece of clear thinking yet on why we should be skeptical of those who wave it about as their call to arms. Up there with Richard Shotton's early work to expose its vapidity. Brilliant - thanks Nick.
Good thinking and writing. I think the attractions of brand purpose for professionals - in both ad agencies and large corporations are manifold. It is different to the 80s when investment bankers did not pretend that their predatory behaviour had a higher purpose ("you're in the jungle, baby, you're gonna die" as Axl Rose so astutely opined at the end of that decade). I agree that a lot of this is only partially cynical.
My take is that many of us in these roles and industries would like to be doing something noble and good. But we also like money and the power and status that come with money. So we try to reconcile these conflicting desires. And we just hope that we never called on to explicitly chose purpose over profit because we might not like the outcome of that choice.
I would rather corporate executives were not openly racist , misogynist or homophobic (yes, that is the low bar that I choose to drink at). However I agree with you that Purpose is often used to obscure less noble actions and motives.
As Axl Rose also sang: "Delusions are numberless, I vow to extinguish them all" (oh, hang on, that might be one of the Bodhisttva Vows, I get confused).
My #1 facepalm moment reading Sinek was the point where he explains that starting with the why is easier for a start-up, and it's actually okay for other businesses to start with the what and work their way in the why. He then shows a side view of his onion diagram. Which is when it hit me - this actually has much in common with old fashioned brand pyramid. It's a pyramid "shot" from above. Onions are pyramids. Black is white. And sprinkled with brain science.
Very interesting read, but I think you've been overly extreme and used two very handy and topical companies to try and build an argument that lacks substance once inspected. Theranos and WeWork aren't the same and to try and say so, over simplifies their two situations. One perpetuated a massive fraud by lying about a product, denying scientific fact and creating a product that many were rightly skeptical of. Her use of purpose was an effective sales tool, that tricked many but it's not the sole reason she created the monster she did. She cost people their lives and is rightly facing the consequences for that.
WeWork built a good company, which currently holds a market cap of $5bn, their "crime" was over stating it and taking the investment world for a bunch of fools. As Marmite commentator Scott Galloway says they were guilty of "yoga babble" and a purpose that was frankly ridiculous. But this was openly mocked at the time by many in the media and that lead to Adam Neumann's rightful downfall. No one invested in the extension of human consciousness, but the valuation which is the stock of Soft Bank's of the this world. It was a vehicle of hype, which purpose played a role in, but it was perpetuated by an investment industry obsessed with unicorns. Is Elon Musk guilty of the same crime due to the over stating nature of self drive for Tesla?
Start With Why is everyone's favourite book on branding as it's very accessible. In a world of brand strategy and planner models that are often complex just to justify the work in the first place, here was an antidote that anyone with a college degree could take and use. It's a useful bridge for us in the brand world to help open people up to the power of a good brand. But a why is never on its own, even in his thin book. The codification of a what and how is always the partner to the why, it's just the why that can have the power. And I agree with that.
We see two types of founders come through our doors at Koto. Firstly the addressable market founder who see's the $1bn category and wants a piece of the action. The second is the passion founder who through personal experience knows something could be better. The latter is more often than not the more successful brand and therefore company. The skin they have in them makes them feel the pain and therefore strive to over come it. A good purpose is just often the simplification of this struggle.
Airbnb, who I have been lucky enough to work with since 2013, is a purpose driven company that understands the power of belonging to create transformational travel experiences. They have built an incredible travel company by being purpose led. They have challenges at a neighbourhood level, but the company's overall effect has been incredibly positive. Just ask the 100,000 displaced people they have housed in times of crisis since 2012.
I am all for questioning branding and the role it plays in the tech which is transforming our society, often for the worst, but I think you need much broader examples to create a coherent take down of purpose to convince me.
Purpose must die is a thought i can most definitely get behind
One of the issues for companies/brands that blow their own trumpets loudly in one area of “social good” is that they draw attention to other areas of the company’s operations or brand portfolio where they may not be so virtuous - for example contributing to obesity with their food products
Nick - hello, first time caller. Re the rise of 'why' (and the door it opens to emotional guff) you might be interested to see this recently published study of language charting the rise of 'feel' and 'believe' and the demise of 'determine' and 'conclude'. Also tells a similar story with 'I' vs 'we'. https://phys.org/news/2022-01-rationality-declined-decades.html
It is easy to mock purpose. It is much harder to articulate why it is so pernicious. The best piece of clear thinking yet on why we should be skeptical of those who wave it about as their call to arms. Up there with Richard Shotton's early work to expose its vapidity. Brilliant - thanks Nick.
Good thinking and writing. I think the attractions of brand purpose for professionals - in both ad agencies and large corporations are manifold. It is different to the 80s when investment bankers did not pretend that their predatory behaviour had a higher purpose ("you're in the jungle, baby, you're gonna die" as Axl Rose so astutely opined at the end of that decade). I agree that a lot of this is only partially cynical.
My take is that many of us in these roles and industries would like to be doing something noble and good. But we also like money and the power and status that come with money. So we try to reconcile these conflicting desires. And we just hope that we never called on to explicitly chose purpose over profit because we might not like the outcome of that choice.
I would rather corporate executives were not openly racist , misogynist or homophobic (yes, that is the low bar that I choose to drink at). However I agree with you that Purpose is often used to obscure less noble actions and motives.
As Axl Rose also sang: "Delusions are numberless, I vow to extinguish them all" (oh, hang on, that might be one of the Bodhisttva Vows, I get confused).
Hi Nick - thought this was very much up your alley. https://moneyweek.com/investments/investment-strategy/604356/shareholder-capitalism-return-power-to-company-owners
My #1 facepalm moment reading Sinek was the point where he explains that starting with the why is easier for a start-up, and it's actually okay for other businesses to start with the what and work their way in the why. He then shows a side view of his onion diagram. Which is when it hit me - this actually has much in common with old fashioned brand pyramid. It's a pyramid "shot" from above. Onions are pyramids. Black is white. And sprinkled with brain science.
Very interesting read, but I think you've been overly extreme and used two very handy and topical companies to try and build an argument that lacks substance once inspected. Theranos and WeWork aren't the same and to try and say so, over simplifies their two situations. One perpetuated a massive fraud by lying about a product, denying scientific fact and creating a product that many were rightly skeptical of. Her use of purpose was an effective sales tool, that tricked many but it's not the sole reason she created the monster she did. She cost people their lives and is rightly facing the consequences for that.
WeWork built a good company, which currently holds a market cap of $5bn, their "crime" was over stating it and taking the investment world for a bunch of fools. As Marmite commentator Scott Galloway says they were guilty of "yoga babble" and a purpose that was frankly ridiculous. But this was openly mocked at the time by many in the media and that lead to Adam Neumann's rightful downfall. No one invested in the extension of human consciousness, but the valuation which is the stock of Soft Bank's of the this world. It was a vehicle of hype, which purpose played a role in, but it was perpetuated by an investment industry obsessed with unicorns. Is Elon Musk guilty of the same crime due to the over stating nature of self drive for Tesla?
Start With Why is everyone's favourite book on branding as it's very accessible. In a world of brand strategy and planner models that are often complex just to justify the work in the first place, here was an antidote that anyone with a college degree could take and use. It's a useful bridge for us in the brand world to help open people up to the power of a good brand. But a why is never on its own, even in his thin book. The codification of a what and how is always the partner to the why, it's just the why that can have the power. And I agree with that.
We see two types of founders come through our doors at Koto. Firstly the addressable market founder who see's the $1bn category and wants a piece of the action. The second is the passion founder who through personal experience knows something could be better. The latter is more often than not the more successful brand and therefore company. The skin they have in them makes them feel the pain and therefore strive to over come it. A good purpose is just often the simplification of this struggle.
Airbnb, who I have been lucky enough to work with since 2013, is a purpose driven company that understands the power of belonging to create transformational travel experiences. They have built an incredible travel company by being purpose led. They have challenges at a neighbourhood level, but the company's overall effect has been incredibly positive. Just ask the 100,000 displaced people they have housed in times of crisis since 2012.
I am all for questioning branding and the role it plays in the tech which is transforming our society, often for the worst, but I think you need much broader examples to create a coherent take down of purpose to convince me.
Hi Nick I suspect this has reached your inbox already but if not - fascinating podcast series on business and purpose https://www.callingbullshitpodcast.com/hey-facebook-whats-that-smell/