Nick thanks for the thoughtful response. Unsurprisingly I disagree with quite a few of your points - and I’ll post a fuller response on substack when time allows. But I just wanted to flag what I think is the central issue in your argument.
I like the motte-and-bailey concept by the way, it’s new to me and useful - but I don’t think it applies here. I’d argue your reply shows a repeated blurring of two quite different things: 1) purpose as business/brand strategy, and 2) purpose as marketing activation.
As I said in the piece, in most corporate decks, and at the centre of most brand wheels, you’ll find a strategic statement about the emotional benefit the product/service brings to people’s lives: joy, belonging, generosity, connection, etc. That purpose guides and aligns everything from internal culture and innovation to design, advertising and CSR.
You can absolutely debate how well a business or brand lives up to their purpose. But the key point is that, aside from the few outliers (Patagonia, Dove, old Unilever etc) most companies use purpose as a strategic organising idea, one expression of which is “for good” work.
You might argue that without the social dimension, it’s nothing new - just a proposition or emotional benefit by another name. But it’s distinct because it captures what drives the business - and, crucially, its people - beyond profit alone. As I lay out in the piece, most employees want their work to mean more than money, and want to see their company back up what they say with action. And when done, purpose brings real internal benefits (see the Deloitte research I reference) https://callumjtowler.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-brand-purpose
Just reposting my reply from LinkedIn yesterday, for anyone interested in following the debate:
* * *
Thanks Callum. On the Deloitte research, it's from 2019 and opens with a huge claim:
"Purpose-driven companies witness higher market share gains and grow on average three times faster than their competitors, all the while achieving higher employee and customer satisfaction."
The source... Jim Stengel.
It goes on to say "Purpose is a core differentiator. Purpose-oriented companies have higher productivity and growth rates, along with a more satisfied workforce who stay longer with them."
The source, again.... Jim Stengel.
As I've argued, all this is long after Byron Sharp, Richard Shotton and others had pointed out clearly fatal flaws in the methodology and received no answer.
The rest of the report is based mainly on Deloitte's 'customer pulsing survey', where customers are asked to assess what makes them buy brands. This is notoriously weak information compared to the revealed preferences of what customers actually buy. We might all say that we prefer buying from ethical brands, but it doesn't mean we do. Fast-fashion Shein has been the biggest Gen Z / Millennial brand of the purpose years.
I think the motte & bailey analogy helps un-blur what purpose has blurred from the start, but we can continue disagreeing on that!
I clearly used the word "literally" in my piece to make the point that a brand’s purpose is rarely carved on the company’s headstone from day one. In my view that doesn’t make it cosmetic or inauthentic. Most purpose statements are attempts to articulate what drives the business today, not what was in the founder's head at birth.
You critique “bothism” as fence-sitting between traditional marketing and purpose-led marketing. But I use it to make the very different point that two motivations can co-exist. In my experience, most purpose-led work is driven both by a desire to do good and a desire to drive business benefits, inside and out.
On whether or not businesses should communicate the good they do: I was careful to focus on reputation, not financial gain. When businesses, like people, talk about the good they're doing, it burnishes their reputation. For people, that might mean more opportunities and influence. For brands, that might translate to more trust and mental share. If that encourages them to keep doing it, and inspires others to follow suit, surely that’s a good thing.
On the YSL example: without their resources, reach and fame, the charity partners wouldn’t have educated 2 million people about the warning signs of abuse. That’s impact at scale - enabled by the brand. To me, that is a purposeful. Dismissing that feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of how these collaborations work.
And finally, on “old-school, fame-first thinking.” I clearly wasn’t dismissing fame, I was making the point that it needs to serve impact. The kind of vague wishy washy purpose work you hold up as representative of most purpose work usually comes from agencies starting with the wrong question: “How can we dramatise our POV on a social issue in a creative way?” Instead of asking “How do we create measurable impact on a social issue in a creative way that leads to fame”?
I would say an organisations's purpose is carved in stone at the beginning, in the legal sense that the first crucial decision is for the founder to decide what the organisation is for, with the answers being either 'for profit' or 'not for profit'. This might sound trite, but the distinction is at the heart of the epic battles over OpenAI's future that have been taking place recently. The 'purpose' doctrine suggests there's an easy answer – just go for-profit, but have a purpose and really, really mean it! That suits people like Sam Altman very well.
On businesses communicating the good they do.... reputation essentially cashes out as financial gain, so I don't think it's a major distinction. And I just don't agree that people talking about the good they do burnishes their reputation, let alone businesses. We're more likely to think of them as vain or morally grandstanding, which is why people like Sam Harris have to tread incredibly carefully around that perception and emphasise they're not personally making any money from mentioning these causes.
On YSL, I think it's perfectly possible for businesses to give to charity without claiming it somehow makes *them* the purposeful one. They did it for decades before purpose came along. For me, one of the really distasteful things about the purpose years has been seeing businesses centring themselves in these purpose ads, with the charity appearing in small print at best.
And I think that goes to the fame point too – YSL has built fame and reach through creative branding and advertising, and that puts them in a position to give money to charity and amplify their cause. That's great - it's all we need. But when they build fame for their own brand by leveraging a social cause, and when countless other brands play the same game, I argue it has the effect of creating cynicism and suspicion around otherwise perfectly good causes. I think this has been one of the sad effects of the purpose years.
Will stop there! Thanks again for being open to the conversation.
Love the motte-and-bailey analogy, and glad that it gives young folk a chance to learn about Norman fortifications.
Indeed – essential information
Rereading and loving this knowledge
Nick thanks for the thoughtful response. Unsurprisingly I disagree with quite a few of your points - and I’ll post a fuller response on substack when time allows. But I just wanted to flag what I think is the central issue in your argument.
I like the motte-and-bailey concept by the way, it’s new to me and useful - but I don’t think it applies here. I’d argue your reply shows a repeated blurring of two quite different things: 1) purpose as business/brand strategy, and 2) purpose as marketing activation.
As I said in the piece, in most corporate decks, and at the centre of most brand wheels, you’ll find a strategic statement about the emotional benefit the product/service brings to people’s lives: joy, belonging, generosity, connection, etc. That purpose guides and aligns everything from internal culture and innovation to design, advertising and CSR.
You can absolutely debate how well a business or brand lives up to their purpose. But the key point is that, aside from the few outliers (Patagonia, Dove, old Unilever etc) most companies use purpose as a strategic organising idea, one expression of which is “for good” work.
You might argue that without the social dimension, it’s nothing new - just a proposition or emotional benefit by another name. But it’s distinct because it captures what drives the business - and, crucially, its people - beyond profit alone. As I lay out in the piece, most employees want their work to mean more than money, and want to see their company back up what they say with action. And when done, purpose brings real internal benefits (see the Deloitte research I reference) https://callumjtowler.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-brand-purpose
Just reposting my reply from LinkedIn yesterday, for anyone interested in following the debate:
* * *
Thanks Callum. On the Deloitte research, it's from 2019 and opens with a huge claim:
"Purpose-driven companies witness higher market share gains and grow on average three times faster than their competitors, all the while achieving higher employee and customer satisfaction."
The source... Jim Stengel.
It goes on to say "Purpose is a core differentiator. Purpose-oriented companies have higher productivity and growth rates, along with a more satisfied workforce who stay longer with them."
The source, again.... Jim Stengel.
As I've argued, all this is long after Byron Sharp, Richard Shotton and others had pointed out clearly fatal flaws in the methodology and received no answer.
The rest of the report is based mainly on Deloitte's 'customer pulsing survey', where customers are asked to assess what makes them buy brands. This is notoriously weak information compared to the revealed preferences of what customers actually buy. We might all say that we prefer buying from ethical brands, but it doesn't mean we do. Fast-fashion Shein has been the biggest Gen Z / Millennial brand of the purpose years.
I think the motte & bailey analogy helps un-blur what purpose has blurred from the start, but we can continue disagreeing on that!
Just a few other counterpoints/clarifications…
I clearly used the word "literally" in my piece to make the point that a brand’s purpose is rarely carved on the company’s headstone from day one. In my view that doesn’t make it cosmetic or inauthentic. Most purpose statements are attempts to articulate what drives the business today, not what was in the founder's head at birth.
You critique “bothism” as fence-sitting between traditional marketing and purpose-led marketing. But I use it to make the very different point that two motivations can co-exist. In my experience, most purpose-led work is driven both by a desire to do good and a desire to drive business benefits, inside and out.
On whether or not businesses should communicate the good they do: I was careful to focus on reputation, not financial gain. When businesses, like people, talk about the good they're doing, it burnishes their reputation. For people, that might mean more opportunities and influence. For brands, that might translate to more trust and mental share. If that encourages them to keep doing it, and inspires others to follow suit, surely that’s a good thing.
On the YSL example: without their resources, reach and fame, the charity partners wouldn’t have educated 2 million people about the warning signs of abuse. That’s impact at scale - enabled by the brand. To me, that is a purposeful. Dismissing that feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of how these collaborations work.
And finally, on “old-school, fame-first thinking.” I clearly wasn’t dismissing fame, I was making the point that it needs to serve impact. The kind of vague wishy washy purpose work you hold up as representative of most purpose work usually comes from agencies starting with the wrong question: “How can we dramatise our POV on a social issue in a creative way?” Instead of asking “How do we create measurable impact on a social issue in a creative way that leads to fame”?
I would say an organisations's purpose is carved in stone at the beginning, in the legal sense that the first crucial decision is for the founder to decide what the organisation is for, with the answers being either 'for profit' or 'not for profit'. This might sound trite, but the distinction is at the heart of the epic battles over OpenAI's future that have been taking place recently. The 'purpose' doctrine suggests there's an easy answer – just go for-profit, but have a purpose and really, really mean it! That suits people like Sam Altman very well.
On businesses communicating the good they do.... reputation essentially cashes out as financial gain, so I don't think it's a major distinction. And I just don't agree that people talking about the good they do burnishes their reputation, let alone businesses. We're more likely to think of them as vain or morally grandstanding, which is why people like Sam Harris have to tread incredibly carefully around that perception and emphasise they're not personally making any money from mentioning these causes.
On YSL, I think it's perfectly possible for businesses to give to charity without claiming it somehow makes *them* the purposeful one. They did it for decades before purpose came along. For me, one of the really distasteful things about the purpose years has been seeing businesses centring themselves in these purpose ads, with the charity appearing in small print at best.
And I think that goes to the fame point too – YSL has built fame and reach through creative branding and advertising, and that puts them in a position to give money to charity and amplify their cause. That's great - it's all we need. But when they build fame for their own brand by leveraging a social cause, and when countless other brands play the same game, I argue it has the effect of creating cynicism and suspicion around otherwise perfectly good causes. I think this has been one of the sad effects of the purpose years.
Will stop there! Thanks again for being open to the conversation.
Another banger as always! This has me wanting to study all the argument techniques out there.
Yes, many more where that came from!
This line made me snort
"Even braver than arguing with Jesus Christ, this section is arguing with Mark Ritson."