My collected case against purpose, the movement that took over the business and branding world in the 2010s, and continues to lead nowhere good. This is part one: what it is and where it came from.
Jun 20, 2023·edited Jun 20, 2023Liked by Nick Asbury
I've been reading quite a bit around this topic in recent months, but you consistently provide the most thought-provoking and well-argued thinking I've seen so far. It can be difficult to broach this subject without coming across as callous or overly cynical, but you somehow manage to avoid all of that and give a lot of people in this industry a collective sigh of relief.
Hey. I read all three before coming back here to comment. A great series of articles, and I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions. However, your brief dismissal of stakeholder capitalism in this post seems out of place, given that properly implemented at a business rather than marketing level, it would resolve some of the later tensions you identify: Tax avoidance, environmental damage, and mental health problems. Concepts like accounting for ecological externalities are, though not perfect, a step towards making a profit without breaking the world more. Hellman's doesn't need to make the world better to sell mayonnaise, but it would be nice if they stopped making it worse. Stakeholder capitalism offers a conceptual framework for that conversation.
As an aside to your point on the shift to brand purpose in 2010, I've often wondered whether the impact of How Brands Grow in Ad-land might have also contributed. Suddenly we were all told consumers didn't see any difference between brands. Meaningful differentiation was out, and meaningless distinction was in. Perhaps that played a role in us disillusioned ad people looking for something else to put our efforts into.
Interesting that your post suggests that we should end with ‘Why?’ rather than start with it.
I present what I believe to be a balanced view of ‘purpose’ in my textbook ‘Brand Fusion: Purpose-driven brand strategy.
Read on https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110718638/html @degruyter_pub
Cheers, Nick.
I've been reading quite a bit around this topic in recent months, but you consistently provide the most thought-provoking and well-argued thinking I've seen so far. It can be difficult to broach this subject without coming across as callous or overly cynical, but you somehow manage to avoid all of that and give a lot of people in this industry a collective sigh of relief.
Hey. I read all three before coming back here to comment. A great series of articles, and I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions. However, your brief dismissal of stakeholder capitalism in this post seems out of place, given that properly implemented at a business rather than marketing level, it would resolve some of the later tensions you identify: Tax avoidance, environmental damage, and mental health problems. Concepts like accounting for ecological externalities are, though not perfect, a step towards making a profit without breaking the world more. Hellman's doesn't need to make the world better to sell mayonnaise, but it would be nice if they stopped making it worse. Stakeholder capitalism offers a conceptual framework for that conversation.
As an aside to your point on the shift to brand purpose in 2010, I've often wondered whether the impact of How Brands Grow in Ad-land might have also contributed. Suddenly we were all told consumers didn't see any difference between brands. Meaningful differentiation was out, and meaningless distinction was in. Perhaps that played a role in us disillusioned ad people looking for something else to put our efforts into.