It's great to reprise these 3 excellent articles - thank you Nick for re-posting them. They deserve a Cannes gong, not sure which category, though ;) I agree with almost everything in your thesis. But ... I had an uneasy feeling at the end. Reflecting on the Evan Davis ('Bottom Line'?) discussion with Ian Leslie and Sharon White of JLP, I think there is a difference between brand doing 'Big Purpose' vs companies having purpose/s, ie purpose with a lower case is about proper values, doing things right, but not shying away from values. As opposed to hubris, flag-waving, 'look-at-me' Purpose in glossy comms. I wonder if your quite brilliant takedown of Big Purpose has coloured your view of any company trying to do the right thing?
Out with my trumpet for a quick fanfare! Thanks - this is not just food for thought, it’s a whole bloody banquet! So much of this resonates with me, particularly the “human” not “corporate” thought. I find the corporate “we” sinister rather than friendly. Your point that all employees have their own individual views, causes, battles, communities, politics, enthusiasms - and trying to conscript all into a top-down purpose can be counter to that is a powerful one.
loved this Nick. what a really enjoyable read that resonated with everything i have witnessed in last 15 years of strategy, brand and business consulting
Nick, thanks for posting your talk, good to read a condensed version of your writing on purpose framed in a presentation. Like most people here in broad agreement, a couple of things you wrote struck me; that no one has really made the case for purpose, nor provided a model that aligns good with well. Also I think there is something to add in terms of the roots of purpose.
Beyond the individual companies and campaigns you’ve assiduously covered I thought I’d have a closer look at purpose-driven agencies, if anyone has made the case and got a model, or at least an approach, they must have. Perhaps there are lots of small budget for-profit campaigns and initiatives that measure up against your critique.
Rather than a survey, which I don’t have the time for, I closely read the website and work of one agency, the first ad agency I heard of about ten years ago, based in NYC, which explicitly set up to service purpose driven businesses. (Back then I thought purpose might have some role in the design of a post-carbon green economy, and many people do in the start-up/social enterprise space)
The agency’s pitch is greedy, extractive, corporate capitalists have trousered all the money and we’ve got the remedy - “constructive capitalism” - making products and services and creating value that are good for people, planet, profit. All in all, “making good money”. While you’ve covered the primacy of commercial over social outcomes lets just see where it leads here. In terms of anything that could be considered a model, in a blog post they offer a definition of for-profit purpose as; “make product improvements”, lean into “brand equity and legacy to reach new consumers” and the importance of “real conversations”. Doesn't sound unique to me, basic bits of brand strategy.
Then I read the case studies of five randomly chosen for-profit clients; Thinx, Uber, OkCoin (crypto!!), Strong Roots (frozen veggie burgers & sides), and Union Savings (a community bank). Only the latter could be said to fall superficially within their criteria of “constructive capitalism” and even then some lefty greens would argue otherwise. As for Uber and OkCoin I could really let rip if I had the space here. Looking at your points; sameness, weak foundation, centering brand, sanctimonious moralizing, I don’t think the work necessarily fails on these measures but it is for the most part unremarkable, forgettable and cheap. I don’t think there is any evidence they are breaking extractive capitalism, more building its tax avoiding regulation dodging ally.
Funny coincidence, they flipped the exact same Bernbach quote to complement “doing well by doing good”, in that, yes, a principle does cost money, yours! The foundation they’re building purpose on is a classic definition of brand, something people will pay a premium for, in this case it’s some form of (arbitrary, agency/client defined, self-regulated) “societal benefit”. Never mind the Uber “safety feature” campaign was necessitated by Uber circumventing employee and consumer protection laws, nor the dubious ethics of having Saudi investors, we’ll make an ad featuring a woman driver and a trans woman (in drag) as her passenger.
Since reading the piece I’ve been turning that Bernbach quote over, and re-read your piece on it. Perhaps this is simplistic but part of me thinks, why should a principle cost you money, shouldn’t it be the other way round? Whether it’s the company or the consumer shouldn’t unprincipled behavior be the thing thats costs you money. Why are principles sacrificial? I’d be interested to hear formally trained philosophers and theologians expound on that. When I first got here 23 years ago a planning director said to me “never forget America is Protestant and pragmatic”. Thinking about that, especially Weber’s essay, how accumulating wealth through hard work & the spiritual work of moral improvement were conveniently combined, the more money you make the more blessed you are. (Weber was aware of the intolerance this ethic could engender, dogma prohibits skepticism, unbeliever’s are to be cast out, this also rings true in the contemporary purpose debates.)
Purpose is a sales pitch that goes to the antediluvian heart of the American psyche and disintegrates on contact with contemporary finance capital.
Like you, I think its the exaggerated moral claims that really set me on edge, as much as privatization of politics (& they don’t have the monopoly on that), and yet Nick, it’s the old advertisers trick. Did those feet in ancient times walk upon England’s mountains green? I very much doubt it, but pretending they might have cast a shroud of divinity over the whole enterprise and provides cover for all sorts of unpleasantness.
If purpose-driven agencies, brands, and their self-serving awards schemes won’t hold them to account, nor provide the rigor of objective analysis, then we should and I suspect it’s going to give you something to write about for a while yet.
All best!
(apologies for any spelling/grammar mistakes, written on the fly w/out grammarly)
Great to read the 5 objections and your refutations (counter-counter arguments?) Two things occurred to me as to why it might be hard for "purpose waverers to get more confident about rejecting the p-word". 1. It sounds right. It sounds active, strong, demonstrable - walking purposefully etc - viz, companies now 'drive down prices' rather than reducing them. See also 'uptick' - an uptick is an increase you can see (hence more significant). 2. It can mean almost anything, and its slipperiness is surely useful to help brands slide into an appealing area where making money and doing good are harder to separate.
But I am (still) struck by objection 3. What Do People Want. I don't think that consumers 'demand' purpose from brands. But I do think they (ie we) like to think that we can hold companies to account in some small way, vote with our pockets etc. The trouble is, most opinion-measuring mechanisms are flawed (I am in the research game). It is VERY hard to know exactly what people want. The very large-scale studies you quote (Trump, Brexit etc) are responses to options provided, rather than reflecting desired worlds (I think).
All of which is to say how much Im looking forward to the follow-up. 'Purpose schmurpose: here's how it should be done!'
It's great to reprise these 3 excellent articles - thank you Nick for re-posting them. They deserve a Cannes gong, not sure which category, though ;) I agree with almost everything in your thesis. But ... I had an uneasy feeling at the end. Reflecting on the Evan Davis ('Bottom Line'?) discussion with Ian Leslie and Sharon White of JLP, I think there is a difference between brand doing 'Big Purpose' vs companies having purpose/s, ie purpose with a lower case is about proper values, doing things right, but not shying away from values. As opposed to hubris, flag-waving, 'look-at-me' Purpose in glossy comms. I wonder if your quite brilliant takedown of Big Purpose has coloured your view of any company trying to do the right thing?
An excellent three-parter. Thank you!
Out with my trumpet for a quick fanfare! Thanks - this is not just food for thought, it’s a whole bloody banquet! So much of this resonates with me, particularly the “human” not “corporate” thought. I find the corporate “we” sinister rather than friendly. Your point that all employees have their own individual views, causes, battles, communities, politics, enthusiasms - and trying to conscript all into a top-down purpose can be counter to that is a powerful one.
loved this Nick. what a really enjoyable read that resonated with everything i have witnessed in last 15 years of strategy, brand and business consulting
Nick, thanks for posting your talk, good to read a condensed version of your writing on purpose framed in a presentation. Like most people here in broad agreement, a couple of things you wrote struck me; that no one has really made the case for purpose, nor provided a model that aligns good with well. Also I think there is something to add in terms of the roots of purpose.
Beyond the individual companies and campaigns you’ve assiduously covered I thought I’d have a closer look at purpose-driven agencies, if anyone has made the case and got a model, or at least an approach, they must have. Perhaps there are lots of small budget for-profit campaigns and initiatives that measure up against your critique.
Rather than a survey, which I don’t have the time for, I closely read the website and work of one agency, the first ad agency I heard of about ten years ago, based in NYC, which explicitly set up to service purpose driven businesses. (Back then I thought purpose might have some role in the design of a post-carbon green economy, and many people do in the start-up/social enterprise space)
The agency’s pitch is greedy, extractive, corporate capitalists have trousered all the money and we’ve got the remedy - “constructive capitalism” - making products and services and creating value that are good for people, planet, profit. All in all, “making good money”. While you’ve covered the primacy of commercial over social outcomes lets just see where it leads here. In terms of anything that could be considered a model, in a blog post they offer a definition of for-profit purpose as; “make product improvements”, lean into “brand equity and legacy to reach new consumers” and the importance of “real conversations”. Doesn't sound unique to me, basic bits of brand strategy.
Then I read the case studies of five randomly chosen for-profit clients; Thinx, Uber, OkCoin (crypto!!), Strong Roots (frozen veggie burgers & sides), and Union Savings (a community bank). Only the latter could be said to fall superficially within their criteria of “constructive capitalism” and even then some lefty greens would argue otherwise. As for Uber and OkCoin I could really let rip if I had the space here. Looking at your points; sameness, weak foundation, centering brand, sanctimonious moralizing, I don’t think the work necessarily fails on these measures but it is for the most part unremarkable, forgettable and cheap. I don’t think there is any evidence they are breaking extractive capitalism, more building its tax avoiding regulation dodging ally.
Funny coincidence, they flipped the exact same Bernbach quote to complement “doing well by doing good”, in that, yes, a principle does cost money, yours! The foundation they’re building purpose on is a classic definition of brand, something people will pay a premium for, in this case it’s some form of (arbitrary, agency/client defined, self-regulated) “societal benefit”. Never mind the Uber “safety feature” campaign was necessitated by Uber circumventing employee and consumer protection laws, nor the dubious ethics of having Saudi investors, we’ll make an ad featuring a woman driver and a trans woman (in drag) as her passenger.
Since reading the piece I’ve been turning that Bernbach quote over, and re-read your piece on it. Perhaps this is simplistic but part of me thinks, why should a principle cost you money, shouldn’t it be the other way round? Whether it’s the company or the consumer shouldn’t unprincipled behavior be the thing thats costs you money. Why are principles sacrificial? I’d be interested to hear formally trained philosophers and theologians expound on that. When I first got here 23 years ago a planning director said to me “never forget America is Protestant and pragmatic”. Thinking about that, especially Weber’s essay, how accumulating wealth through hard work & the spiritual work of moral improvement were conveniently combined, the more money you make the more blessed you are. (Weber was aware of the intolerance this ethic could engender, dogma prohibits skepticism, unbeliever’s are to be cast out, this also rings true in the contemporary purpose debates.)
Purpose is a sales pitch that goes to the antediluvian heart of the American psyche and disintegrates on contact with contemporary finance capital.
Like you, I think its the exaggerated moral claims that really set me on edge, as much as privatization of politics (& they don’t have the monopoly on that), and yet Nick, it’s the old advertisers trick. Did those feet in ancient times walk upon England’s mountains green? I very much doubt it, but pretending they might have cast a shroud of divinity over the whole enterprise and provides cover for all sorts of unpleasantness.
If purpose-driven agencies, brands, and their self-serving awards schemes won’t hold them to account, nor provide the rigor of objective analysis, then we should and I suspect it’s going to give you something to write about for a while yet.
All best!
(apologies for any spelling/grammar mistakes, written on the fly w/out grammarly)
Great to read the 5 objections and your refutations (counter-counter arguments?) Two things occurred to me as to why it might be hard for "purpose waverers to get more confident about rejecting the p-word". 1. It sounds right. It sounds active, strong, demonstrable - walking purposefully etc - viz, companies now 'drive down prices' rather than reducing them. See also 'uptick' - an uptick is an increase you can see (hence more significant). 2. It can mean almost anything, and its slipperiness is surely useful to help brands slide into an appealing area where making money and doing good are harder to separate.
But I am (still) struck by objection 3. What Do People Want. I don't think that consumers 'demand' purpose from brands. But I do think they (ie we) like to think that we can hold companies to account in some small way, vote with our pockets etc. The trouble is, most opinion-measuring mechanisms are flawed (I am in the research game). It is VERY hard to know exactly what people want. The very large-scale studies you quote (Trump, Brexit etc) are responses to options provided, rather than reflecting desired worlds (I think).
All of which is to say how much Im looking forward to the follow-up. 'Purpose schmurpose: here's how it should be done!'