I still think you summed it up best in that first article in 2017: Bill Bernbach said that a principle isn’t a principle until it costs you something. Today’s advertisers have turned that around — now it isn’t a principle until it makes you money.
Having said that, I do think there are company (as opposed to brand) principles that can be powerful – for differentiation and particularly for recruitment. And these can bleed into (but should not be the focus of) the brand advertising. One of P&G's core principles is never to release a product to market unless it is at least as good if not better than the existing best in that market. That drives their internal research and product teams, and informs their advertising, but it's never expressed directly to the public.
Cheers Rupert – yes, sometimes I think I should have left it at that first post. (I actually did for a few years and then returned to the fray.)
I think you're referring to a slightly different sense of 'principle' with P&G. You can have principles in the morally neutral sense of rules that govern you decide to operate – I guess 'never knowingly undersold' would be another example. And I don't think there's anything controversial or new about that idea – businesses have always needed a strategy. But Bernbach is obviously talking more about ethical principles, and that's where the whole Purpose idea has caused a lot of grief. (And to be clear, I'm certainly in favour of businesses having ethical principles – it's just that purpose is the wrong way to think about them.)
Yes, I think you’re right that Bernbach wasn’t thinking about brand purpose… :) I suspect that agencies are playing a major role in encouraging businesses to move beyond boring old selling ads. Much more fun (and much easier) to do grandiose commercials about making the world a better place, with the brand tacked on at the end with some oblique justification.
I still think you summed it up best in that first article in 2017: Bill Bernbach said that a principle isn’t a principle until it costs you something. Today’s advertisers have turned that around — now it isn’t a principle until it makes you money.
Having said that, I do think there are company (as opposed to brand) principles that can be powerful – for differentiation and particularly for recruitment. And these can bleed into (but should not be the focus of) the brand advertising. One of P&G's core principles is never to release a product to market unless it is at least as good if not better than the existing best in that market. That drives their internal research and product teams, and informs their advertising, but it's never expressed directly to the public.
Cheers Rupert – yes, sometimes I think I should have left it at that first post. (I actually did for a few years and then returned to the fray.)
I think you're referring to a slightly different sense of 'principle' with P&G. You can have principles in the morally neutral sense of rules that govern you decide to operate – I guess 'never knowingly undersold' would be another example. And I don't think there's anything controversial or new about that idea – businesses have always needed a strategy. But Bernbach is obviously talking more about ethical principles, and that's where the whole Purpose idea has caused a lot of grief. (And to be clear, I'm certainly in favour of businesses having ethical principles – it's just that purpose is the wrong way to think about them.)
Yes, I think you’re right that Bernbach wasn’t thinking about brand purpose… :) I suspect that agencies are playing a major role in encouraging businesses to move beyond boring old selling ads. Much more fun (and much easier) to do grandiose commercials about making the world a better place, with the brand tacked on at the end with some oblique justification.
Superb
And may I borrow ‘Tapism’?
Going to find that rather useful :)
Yes, it would be ironic if that catches on! 🚰