You’re right that the “quiet voice” questioning Brand Purpose has been around far longer than Jim Stengel implies. And it wasn’t just the well-known commentators. Plenty of people getting on with their work in strategy, creative and marketing felt uneasy about the idea. In a blog post from 2008, I wrote:
'For a good few years now, we've seen a lot of "Brand Aid" brands find their insight (no little piddly "product insight", this, but the huge holy grail of a "category insight"), pump it up into a Cause and go forth to Save the World with their Brand.’
As you say, a strange - and rather prolonged - fever dream.
Thanks Sue, totally true – I've heard from many people who've been driven to distraction by some of this stuff, including one who left the industry because they felt they couldn't continue while maintaining 'intellectual honesty'. You were clearly seeing it all very early – good on you.
I’ve often been tempted to call it a day, too. Thanks for this article as it has had me looking back on how my own thoughts on the topic developed. In the 2008 blog post, I mentioned being brought down to earth by comments and reactions to one of those “Brand Saves World” ideas from people in qual research. And I think that’s part of the problem with this - lack of talking with people outside the industry. And it worries me what might happen when market research moves to “synthetic sample” aka fake humans. Maybe that’s in your next book, too!
Really enjoyed the read, as always - excellent mix of humour and seriousness.
I've always felt that there was a correlation between profit and doing good, but the other way around. When companies are making a lot of money then it is easy to appear purposeful, as soon as difficult decisions have to be made the purpose vanishes.
Thanks Rich – and yes, that's a good way of putting it. The irony is that those companies often make all their money through decades of great non-purpose marketing, which then puts them in a position to indulge in the purpose stuff. Then a cost-of-living crisis comes along and it's back to 'unbelievable value!'
Thank you for writing this Nick. I felt like the conversation didn’t go far enough and I understand that Mark and Sarah did everything they could to make it clear how nonsensical this whole purpose talk is. But it seemed that the moral contortionism kept reaching new levels masked by conviction and inspirational speak. I hope these sorts of conversations keep taking place out in the open because for whomever was listening to it, it was clear how insane some of the arguments were getting.
Great critique, I was surprised during the conversation on JS's podcast with how much he pushes 'purpose' and how he was willing to keep adjusting his definition to make sure he couldn't be nailed down on linking what he talked about to commercial success. Honestly, I am surprised he was ever P&G's CMO, his dogmatic pursuit of fitting purpose into everything he talks about reflects really poorly on him IMO.
Looking forward to the next book!
You’re right that the “quiet voice” questioning Brand Purpose has been around far longer than Jim Stengel implies. And it wasn’t just the well-known commentators. Plenty of people getting on with their work in strategy, creative and marketing felt uneasy about the idea. In a blog post from 2008, I wrote:
'For a good few years now, we've seen a lot of "Brand Aid" brands find their insight (no little piddly "product insight", this, but the huge holy grail of a "category insight"), pump it up into a Cause and go forth to Save the World with their Brand.’
As you say, a strange - and rather prolonged - fever dream.
Thanks Sue, totally true – I've heard from many people who've been driven to distraction by some of this stuff, including one who left the industry because they felt they couldn't continue while maintaining 'intellectual honesty'. You were clearly seeing it all very early – good on you.
I’ve often been tempted to call it a day, too. Thanks for this article as it has had me looking back on how my own thoughts on the topic developed. In the 2008 blog post, I mentioned being brought down to earth by comments and reactions to one of those “Brand Saves World” ideas from people in qual research. And I think that’s part of the problem with this - lack of talking with people outside the industry. And it worries me what might happen when market research moves to “synthetic sample” aka fake humans. Maybe that’s in your next book, too!
It might be now!
Really enjoyed the read, as always - excellent mix of humour and seriousness.
I've always felt that there was a correlation between profit and doing good, but the other way around. When companies are making a lot of money then it is easy to appear purposeful, as soon as difficult decisions have to be made the purpose vanishes.
Thanks Rich – and yes, that's a good way of putting it. The irony is that those companies often make all their money through decades of great non-purpose marketing, which then puts them in a position to indulge in the purpose stuff. Then a cost-of-living crisis comes along and it's back to 'unbelievable value!'
The most discretionary line of a company's marketing budget...
Thank you for writing this Nick. I felt like the conversation didn’t go far enough and I understand that Mark and Sarah did everything they could to make it clear how nonsensical this whole purpose talk is. But it seemed that the moral contortionism kept reaching new levels masked by conviction and inspirational speak. I hope these sorts of conversations keep taking place out in the open because for whomever was listening to it, it was clear how insane some of the arguments were getting.
Keep it up, love your writing mate!
Thanks Pedro, that's good to hear. Glad the podcast landed in a similar way for you.
Too good, thanks again Nick. Not sure I’m thrilled to see your crusade coming to an end quite yet 😊. Thanks for fighting the good fight mate.
Thanks for the support Dean – you never know, I might be drawn back in when the Great Purpose 2.0 Gen Alpha Revival begins.
Great critique, I was surprised during the conversation on JS's podcast with how much he pushes 'purpose' and how he was willing to keep adjusting his definition to make sure he couldn't be nailed down on linking what he talked about to commercial success. Honestly, I am surprised he was ever P&G's CMO, his dogmatic pursuit of fitting purpose into everything he talks about reflects really poorly on him IMO.