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?
Thanks Kevin—and just to say, the articles are all new, but draw on some points I've made in more depth elsewhere!
I understand the uneasy feeling—I suspect many people think 'But if we reject purpose, aren't we're going back to an amoral free-for-all?' But really that’s the most hubristic claim of all—this idea that everything that's good in the world somehow depends on a 15-year-old movement that has caused moral mayhem everywhere you look.
What I'd really like to do is separate the idea of 'purpose' from the ideas of ethics, values and generally being a decent corporate citizen. And they are entirely separable—purpose (big or lower-case p) is simply the wrong word for framing the important debate about ethics, and it continually nudges businesses to think about it in the wrong way.
But I do try to separate that from automatically thinking all attempts to do good must be bullshit, because they’re not. It's just that a lot of the really good things are the kind of day-to-day activities that don't make headlines—paying your people fairly, paying your taxes, supporting charities and local communities, all that unheroic but brilliant stuff. It would be nice to write a follow-up at some point telling some of these positive stories (including Newman's Own that I mention at the end). But I'd love purpose waverers to get more confident about rejecting the p-word. It's not necessary, and it actually takes the spotlight away from the people who are more serious about ethics.
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.
Thanks for highlighting that point Sue – I do think it's one of the key ones. And for anyone who missed it, I wrote more about We vs I in this earlier post: https://nickasbury.substack.com/p/i-heart-creativity
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)
On the agency case studies – your analysis sounds about right to me. I wouldn't claim my three measures are a perfect diagnostic tool – hardest thing is working out what even qualifies as a 'purpose' campaign in the first place... If an agency says their Uber campaign is purpose-driven, is it even possible to have a sensible conversation about it? 😅
On the Bernbach quote – agree it gets pretty philosophical once you dig into it. The extremely amateur moral philosopher in me would say a principle is a rule to guide behaviour when you're faced with a choice. And if everything already aligns with making a profit, then there's no choice to make and no need to invoke principles – you can just let profit be your guide. But the moment a choice comes up between profit and principle, then it's meaningful to talk about principles. Which I guess is the less catchy version of what Bernbach meant.
More widely, I do think it's possible for win-win scenarios to exist (big fan of Robert Wright's book Non-Zero). But they're unlikely to be the norm inside the framework of competitive markets. The real win-wins to seek out are those between the business sphere and the other spheres of society, which involve keeping business in a more realistic place.
I do find the religious dimension in all this pretty compelling – I like what you say about protestantism and pragmatism. Funnily enough, when I talk about 'spheres', I'm vaguely nodding to the idea of Sphere Sovereignty, which I believe has neo-Calvinist roots. If I had time to do a PhD, I might do it on religion and business 💰🧎♂️
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!'
Cheers Kevin – very quick thoughts on those thoughts:
'It sounds right' – I kind of agree and it's close to the point I was trying to make. I just think non-social purpose people need to ask themselves *why* it sounds so right to them. I think it's because it smuggles in this sense of higher calling even when they say they mean it purely functionally / commercially. Which relates to your point 2 – purpose is a slippery word, hence 'The ambiguity is strategically useful'. You can call yourself a purpose agency and then tell different clients you mean different things by it. Maybe a smart business tactic (which is why I can't exactly blame people for doing it), but not an intellectually consistent position.
On consumers wanting to hold companies to account – weirdly it seems the right have got better at doing it than the left (Bud Light has been staggering to watch). But I do think there's an easily provable truth – the idea that consumers are pushing mass-market brands to embrace progressive causes just can't be reconciled with half of consumers voting Trump / Brexit. Yes, some brands can target a more progressive demographic (usually the more affluent one), but most want to appeal to everyone if they possibly can.
I'm very, VERY late to this party, but the fact that someone on LinkedIn sent me here in May 2024 means the party itself is far from being over. And I'm so glad I've found this. (I'd seen your work before, of course — just not your blog.)
I quit a big-and-famous, big-on-purpose London agency just before the pandemic. I remember making a list of all the reasons I had to get out – because I was bricking it a little. I'd spent five years there, it was considered the best place to be at the time, etc., etc. And one of the reasons was that I no longer felt that I could be intellectually honest there. That was a biggie. I've been working for myself since then, and refuse to go back to perm — largely for the same reason.
So this was the end of 2019. A big worthy brief came in, and I was one of the all-female team of strategists, account people, and creatives. Some shocking stats were presented: stats about gender inequality within a specific settting I won't name. A daughter of two journalists (honest ones — a rarity, I know), I smelt bullshit and decided to investigate the stats, only to find out some had been heavily manipulated, and others were created through embarrassingly bad and unmistakably biased methodology. I shared my findings with the CD. Her reaction? 'Yes, I can see the numbers aren't right. But c'mon Olga, whose side are you on?'
Within the same week, I stumbled upon two very senior creatives pondering the new brand purpose for one of our potential new clients. It was a paper towel brand. I couldn't resist some deadpan humour. 'Well, that stuff is always used in the kitchen, and that's where so many family fights happen... So how about domestic violence?' I joked. They laughed... eventually. But for a moment, I saw them CONSIDERING it. That was one of the moments that solidified my decision to GTFO.
As a P.S. — there is one brand mentioned in your brilliant piece that I'm on the fence about, and that's Bodyform with their #BloodNormal and Womb Stories and Viva la Vulva. To me, they don't belong in the same category as all the others, because what they've dedicated themselves to, in my opinion (aside from selling feminine hygiene products), isn't necessarily changing the world, but changing the marketing approach within their category. Naturally, that's not what they themselves would say, but that's what I think it really is. They pushed feminine hygiene advertising from weird blue liquid, white trousers and 'that time of the month' to places no other such brand had gone before, and while they weren't the first to do this in culture as a whole, they were the first big business to show those things and say those words in their marketing. That took plenty of courage and caused plenty of outrage, including complaints to the ASA. And of course, this purpose couldn't have been more justified or more closely tied to the product itself — as opposed to, say, Snickers standing against testicular cancer, because nuts. (Oh dear. I'm glad that didn't happen in the end.) To me, that puts Bodyform and their marketing in a different class: a brand that actually did make a choice to make its marketing purposeful, putting their money where their mouth was.
Thanks Olga, so great to get these thoughtful comments and interesting stories on here. (And if you enjoyed the three-parter, I hope you'll enjoy the imminent book... https://amzn.eu/d/iFjZjo8)
"I no longer felt that I could be intellectually honest there" – that rings SO true to me, and feels like a big indictment of the purposeful ad industry. I think it's largely what drove me to start writing about all this in 2017 – the sense that we were all having to pretend to be idiots in order to get by in the prevailing industry climate.
"Yes, I can see the numbers aren't right. But c'mon, whose side are you on?'" – again, such a sad indictment. And I find this 'whose side are you on?' approach often comes from people who then bemoan the 'culture wars' and claim not to be the ones starting or perpetuating them.
The kitchen towel brand – wow. I can totally see how they'd take that joke seriously. Not much more of a stretch than Vanish and autism, or Malteser's and maternal mental health.
With Bodyform, I appreciate the distinction you're making between spurious purpose marketing and something much more closely related to the product and how you choose to market it. For me, the word 'purpose' is still a misleading one in that case, because it really falls under what you might call responsible marketing, or even just finding a point of difference in the old-fashioned sense. And on a related point, I do feel like I've seen so many 'breaking the taboo' ads and marketing stories over the past 15 years that it's hard to work out how or why there are any taboos left!
Seriously, thanks again for the comment – glad you found you way here eventually.
Thank you Nick, and huge congratulations on your book! Just a week left — wow.
I had no idea about Vanish and autism. Or, rather, I think I've seen that ad once, but my brain must have blocked that memory as too traumatising, on account of the utter cynicism of it. Un-bloody-believable. The good news is, 'It's a Tide ad' won more awards than Vanish, despite the fact they were judged by adland jurors rather than the public.
Your point about responsible marketing is so important — it might even be the crux of the matter. I think a lot of people are very confused about the difference between these two: responsible marketing and brand purpose. One is conscientious, the other cynical. One is desirable, the other destructive. One garners respect, the other, mainly rudicule. (Fine, fine, I'll stop with the alliteration now.) And I still suspest that Nike did more for the inclusion of women in sports — on every level, from amateur to professional — through their classic ad that simply read 'Just do it' (which people reportedly ripped out of magazines and stuck on their walls, with results ranging from spontaneous jogging sessions to long-overdue escapes from abusive relationships), than most brands who are now claiming to be 'championing women in sports' ever will.
"Underclaim and over-deliver" exactly. Though I sense that sometimes this is less than possible in the nonprofit world because they are lining up for donor money (and often propagandizing their own specific audiences with that money) - as the non-market based world abides by entirely different dynamics than "propositional" free-markets.
Agree wholeheartedly on creativity and idiosyncratic differentiation. I feel the ad industry has paid the price for not focusing on this.
Thank you so much Nick. As a budding entrepreneur, I truly appreciate your voice and brilliant writing and these clear, well-articulated, lifechanging ideas.
Nick, this is really wonderful. What’s interesting to me in this third piece is the political dimension. I think what would be interesting to explore is how a philosophy of place underpins the arguments of the right on purpose/woke capitalism. There’s this fascinating history, which you’ve written about, around how mid-century capitalism rooted in towns and cities gets undone by these market-fundamentalists, aka shareholder capitalists/corporate raiders who go on to win the 80s. They steamroll the unions, beat back government control of capital and knock down global barriers to trade under the WTO.
But as that happens, those same corporations who come to dominate global capitalism, adopt the cosmopolitan ideologies of social liberalism, rather than be perhaps apolitical or conservative. (Although I suppose you can spell neo-liberal without liberal.)
And as that happens, those same corporate raider-types, the asset managers and investment bankers, seem to then flip back to a mid-century model of corporate values. They want their capital rooted in a place. James Goldsmith has that famous video of him saying as much - and of course created a kind of proto-UKIP in the Referendum Party. The current symbol of this exact thing would be Nigel Farage, while events like Brexit and Trump utilise this argument to great effect.
So now, you’ve got this interesting set up. The right, spearheaded by these globe-trotting financial elites, want a capitalism rooted in place and agitate around this point. Leaving the left to align with global corporations because they feel compelled to defend so-called woke values. Bizarre!
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?
Thanks Kevin—and just to say, the articles are all new, but draw on some points I've made in more depth elsewhere!
I understand the uneasy feeling—I suspect many people think 'But if we reject purpose, aren't we're going back to an amoral free-for-all?' But really that’s the most hubristic claim of all—this idea that everything that's good in the world somehow depends on a 15-year-old movement that has caused moral mayhem everywhere you look.
What I'd really like to do is separate the idea of 'purpose' from the ideas of ethics, values and generally being a decent corporate citizen. And they are entirely separable—purpose (big or lower-case p) is simply the wrong word for framing the important debate about ethics, and it continually nudges businesses to think about it in the wrong way.
But I do try to separate that from automatically thinking all attempts to do good must be bullshit, because they’re not. It's just that a lot of the really good things are the kind of day-to-day activities that don't make headlines—paying your people fairly, paying your taxes, supporting charities and local communities, all that unheroic but brilliant stuff. It would be nice to write a follow-up at some point telling some of these positive stories (including Newman's Own that I mention at the end). But I'd love purpose waverers to get more confident about rejecting the p-word. It's not necessary, and it actually takes the spotlight away from the people who are more serious about ethics.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and sorry I didn't realise the articles were new!
Would be v interested in any follow-up on who is doing it well/right ie not purpose-washing.
An excellent three-parter. Thank you!
Thanks David, appreciated
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.
Thanks for highlighting that point Sue – I do think it's one of the key ones. And for anyone who missed it, I wrote more about We vs I in this earlier post: https://nickasbury.substack.com/p/i-heart-creativity
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
Great to hear Simon, thank you
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)
Thanks Rupert, fascinating thoughts as usual.
On the agency case studies – your analysis sounds about right to me. I wouldn't claim my three measures are a perfect diagnostic tool – hardest thing is working out what even qualifies as a 'purpose' campaign in the first place... If an agency says their Uber campaign is purpose-driven, is it even possible to have a sensible conversation about it? 😅
On the Bernbach quote – agree it gets pretty philosophical once you dig into it. The extremely amateur moral philosopher in me would say a principle is a rule to guide behaviour when you're faced with a choice. And if everything already aligns with making a profit, then there's no choice to make and no need to invoke principles – you can just let profit be your guide. But the moment a choice comes up between profit and principle, then it's meaningful to talk about principles. Which I guess is the less catchy version of what Bernbach meant.
More widely, I do think it's possible for win-win scenarios to exist (big fan of Robert Wright's book Non-Zero). But they're unlikely to be the norm inside the framework of competitive markets. The real win-wins to seek out are those between the business sphere and the other spheres of society, which involve keeping business in a more realistic place.
I do find the religious dimension in all this pretty compelling – I like what you say about protestantism and pragmatism. Funnily enough, when I talk about 'spheres', I'm vaguely nodding to the idea of Sphere Sovereignty, which I believe has neo-Calvinist roots. If I had time to do a PhD, I might do it on religion and business 💰🧎♂️
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!'
Cheers Kevin – very quick thoughts on those thoughts:
'It sounds right' – I kind of agree and it's close to the point I was trying to make. I just think non-social purpose people need to ask themselves *why* it sounds so right to them. I think it's because it smuggles in this sense of higher calling even when they say they mean it purely functionally / commercially. Which relates to your point 2 – purpose is a slippery word, hence 'The ambiguity is strategically useful'. You can call yourself a purpose agency and then tell different clients you mean different things by it. Maybe a smart business tactic (which is why I can't exactly blame people for doing it), but not an intellectually consistent position.
On consumers wanting to hold companies to account – weirdly it seems the right have got better at doing it than the left (Bud Light has been staggering to watch). But I do think there's an easily provable truth – the idea that consumers are pushing mass-market brands to embrace progressive causes just can't be reconciled with half of consumers voting Trump / Brexit. Yes, some brands can target a more progressive demographic (usually the more affluent one), but most want to appeal to everyone if they possibly can.
I'm very, VERY late to this party, but the fact that someone on LinkedIn sent me here in May 2024 means the party itself is far from being over. And I'm so glad I've found this. (I'd seen your work before, of course — just not your blog.)
I quit a big-and-famous, big-on-purpose London agency just before the pandemic. I remember making a list of all the reasons I had to get out – because I was bricking it a little. I'd spent five years there, it was considered the best place to be at the time, etc., etc. And one of the reasons was that I no longer felt that I could be intellectually honest there. That was a biggie. I've been working for myself since then, and refuse to go back to perm — largely for the same reason.
So this was the end of 2019. A big worthy brief came in, and I was one of the all-female team of strategists, account people, and creatives. Some shocking stats were presented: stats about gender inequality within a specific settting I won't name. A daughter of two journalists (honest ones — a rarity, I know), I smelt bullshit and decided to investigate the stats, only to find out some had been heavily manipulated, and others were created through embarrassingly bad and unmistakably biased methodology. I shared my findings with the CD. Her reaction? 'Yes, I can see the numbers aren't right. But c'mon Olga, whose side are you on?'
Within the same week, I stumbled upon two very senior creatives pondering the new brand purpose for one of our potential new clients. It was a paper towel brand. I couldn't resist some deadpan humour. 'Well, that stuff is always used in the kitchen, and that's where so many family fights happen... So how about domestic violence?' I joked. They laughed... eventually. But for a moment, I saw them CONSIDERING it. That was one of the moments that solidified my decision to GTFO.
As a P.S. — there is one brand mentioned in your brilliant piece that I'm on the fence about, and that's Bodyform with their #BloodNormal and Womb Stories and Viva la Vulva. To me, they don't belong in the same category as all the others, because what they've dedicated themselves to, in my opinion (aside from selling feminine hygiene products), isn't necessarily changing the world, but changing the marketing approach within their category. Naturally, that's not what they themselves would say, but that's what I think it really is. They pushed feminine hygiene advertising from weird blue liquid, white trousers and 'that time of the month' to places no other such brand had gone before, and while they weren't the first to do this in culture as a whole, they were the first big business to show those things and say those words in their marketing. That took plenty of courage and caused plenty of outrage, including complaints to the ASA. And of course, this purpose couldn't have been more justified or more closely tied to the product itself — as opposed to, say, Snickers standing against testicular cancer, because nuts. (Oh dear. I'm glad that didn't happen in the end.) To me, that puts Bodyform and their marketing in a different class: a brand that actually did make a choice to make its marketing purposeful, putting their money where their mouth was.
Thanks again for the piece. So, so good.
— Olga
Thanks Olga, so great to get these thoughtful comments and interesting stories on here. (And if you enjoyed the three-parter, I hope you'll enjoy the imminent book... https://amzn.eu/d/iFjZjo8)
"I no longer felt that I could be intellectually honest there" – that rings SO true to me, and feels like a big indictment of the purposeful ad industry. I think it's largely what drove me to start writing about all this in 2017 – the sense that we were all having to pretend to be idiots in order to get by in the prevailing industry climate.
"Yes, I can see the numbers aren't right. But c'mon, whose side are you on?'" – again, such a sad indictment. And I find this 'whose side are you on?' approach often comes from people who then bemoan the 'culture wars' and claim not to be the ones starting or perpetuating them.
The kitchen towel brand – wow. I can totally see how they'd take that joke seriously. Not much more of a stretch than Vanish and autism, or Malteser's and maternal mental health.
With Bodyform, I appreciate the distinction you're making between spurious purpose marketing and something much more closely related to the product and how you choose to market it. For me, the word 'purpose' is still a misleading one in that case, because it really falls under what you might call responsible marketing, or even just finding a point of difference in the old-fashioned sense. And on a related point, I do feel like I've seen so many 'breaking the taboo' ads and marketing stories over the past 15 years that it's hard to work out how or why there are any taboos left!
Seriously, thanks again for the comment – glad you found you way here eventually.
Thank you Nick, and huge congratulations on your book! Just a week left — wow.
I had no idea about Vanish and autism. Or, rather, I think I've seen that ad once, but my brain must have blocked that memory as too traumatising, on account of the utter cynicism of it. Un-bloody-believable. The good news is, 'It's a Tide ad' won more awards than Vanish, despite the fact they were judged by adland jurors rather than the public.
Your point about responsible marketing is so important — it might even be the crux of the matter. I think a lot of people are very confused about the difference between these two: responsible marketing and brand purpose. One is conscientious, the other cynical. One is desirable, the other destructive. One garners respect, the other, mainly rudicule. (Fine, fine, I'll stop with the alliteration now.) And I still suspest that Nike did more for the inclusion of women in sports — on every level, from amateur to professional — through their classic ad that simply read 'Just do it' (which people reportedly ripped out of magazines and stuck on their walls, with results ranging from spontaneous jogging sessions to long-overdue escapes from abusive relationships), than most brands who are now claiming to be 'championing women in sports' ever will.
A great series of posts.
"Underclaim and over-deliver" exactly. Though I sense that sometimes this is less than possible in the nonprofit world because they are lining up for donor money (and often propagandizing their own specific audiences with that money) - as the non-market based world abides by entirely different dynamics than "propositional" free-markets.
Agree wholeheartedly on creativity and idiosyncratic differentiation. I feel the ad industry has paid the price for not focusing on this.
Thank you so much Nick. As a budding entrepreneur, I truly appreciate your voice and brilliant writing and these clear, well-articulated, lifechanging ideas.
Thank you, great to hear
Nick, this is really wonderful. What’s interesting to me in this third piece is the political dimension. I think what would be interesting to explore is how a philosophy of place underpins the arguments of the right on purpose/woke capitalism. There’s this fascinating history, which you’ve written about, around how mid-century capitalism rooted in towns and cities gets undone by these market-fundamentalists, aka shareholder capitalists/corporate raiders who go on to win the 80s. They steamroll the unions, beat back government control of capital and knock down global barriers to trade under the WTO.
But as that happens, those same corporations who come to dominate global capitalism, adopt the cosmopolitan ideologies of social liberalism, rather than be perhaps apolitical or conservative. (Although I suppose you can spell neo-liberal without liberal.)
And as that happens, those same corporate raider-types, the asset managers and investment bankers, seem to then flip back to a mid-century model of corporate values. They want their capital rooted in a place. James Goldsmith has that famous video of him saying as much - and of course created a kind of proto-UKIP in the Referendum Party. The current symbol of this exact thing would be Nigel Farage, while events like Brexit and Trump utilise this argument to great effect.
So now, you’ve got this interesting set up. The right, spearheaded by these globe-trotting financial elites, want a capitalism rooted in place and agitate around this point. Leaving the left to align with global corporations because they feel compelled to defend so-called woke values. Bizarre!