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 the 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
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”?
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 the 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 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”?