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.
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.
Thanks for reading, Nick. Of course, the stakeholder capitalism debate is a big one and I don't pretend to have given a comprehensive rebuttal here. But I'd definitely challenge the idea of it offering an answer to tax avoidance, environmental damage and mental health problems. The real answers to those systemic issues come from beyond business—external regulation that changes the rules of the game. Much of the ESG movement is a way of obfuscating the real answers—if you have 15 minutes, Tariq Fancy does a better job than I will of making that case: https://youtu.be/FwvfMeUkAxA
The point about How Brands Grow is interesting. I'm not sure the logic totally runs through— rather than 'meaningless distinction' I think purpose represents a kind of meaningful sameness: lots of brands saying big things in similar ways. But I agree there may be an element of brands & agencies casting around for something new to talk about—Simon Sinek was very effective at tapping into that disillusioned spirit and giving people a new hook.
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
Thanks Terry, I will check that out
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.
Thank you, really appreciate that. And I know what you mean – the conversation can so easily descend into cynicism and tribalism on both sides.
We need more people to wake up to the groupthink. I have slightly more cynical view on this too https://activisms.substack.com/p/compliance-with-vibes-is-the-primary
"Purpose" toward the end...
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.
Thanks for reading, Nick. Of course, the stakeholder capitalism debate is a big one and I don't pretend to have given a comprehensive rebuttal here. But I'd definitely challenge the idea of it offering an answer to tax avoidance, environmental damage and mental health problems. The real answers to those systemic issues come from beyond business—external regulation that changes the rules of the game. Much of the ESG movement is a way of obfuscating the real answers—if you have 15 minutes, Tariq Fancy does a better job than I will of making that case: https://youtu.be/FwvfMeUkAxA
The point about How Brands Grow is interesting. I'm not sure the logic totally runs through— rather than 'meaningless distinction' I think purpose represents a kind of meaningful sameness: lots of brands saying big things in similar ways. But I agree there may be an element of brands & agencies casting around for something new to talk about—Simon Sinek was very effective at tapping into that disillusioned spirit and giving people a new hook.
Thanks, Nick. I'll check out the video.