Here's a carousel of the seven reasons on single-color background made in Canva with short soundbites to fulfill your confirmation bias about why you're special based on common sense principles.
My contention here is that values and belief driven communication IS actually more impactful than WHAT / HOW communication. Just because Simon Sinek was wrong about why his model works and because his ideas have been incorrectly applied by the business world doesn't mean that his core thesis is wrong.
The We Don't Speak January campaign by Equinox is the perfect example of "why" marketing done right. It's not political; it's tied directly to their product, but it's all about belief.
It's possible to see a gym talking about fitness as a lifestyle, not just a January thing, as simply a powerful marketing idea expressed creatively. And many such ideas existed for decades before the 'purpose' idea took off post-2008. What made purpose feel new was the idea of businesses defining themselves around a wider social mission. Sinek's contention was that this is how all the best businesses start and/or what they should put at the core of their branding. Once you take away the science and unpack the case studies, I don't think there's much of the theory left.
There's nothing new about the idea of a marketing campaign like We Don't Speak January.
What I'm saying is that part of the reason why that campaign worked is because it was authentic to the core beliefs, purpose. and brand of the company.
Simon Sinek was wrong about how beliefs and purpose actually work. But he's not wrong that a gym saying "We believe in hard work and commitment, so we don't let new members sign up on January 1," IS more effective than saying "We have a bunch of nice, clean workout equipment and amenities.
He's also right about the fact that when brands do this consistently over time, they build a tribe around their principles.
He's wrong about how it works, but he's right that it does work when it's authentic.
Humans are moral and emotional just as much as rational and self-interested.
For whatever reason, beliefs authentically and courageously followed grip us.
I think your criticism is well-founded. Purpose doesn't work for most businesses, but it doesn't work because purpose itself is the problem. Purpose doesn't work because it's inauthentic.
For example, if Equinox had said, "We're about saving the rainforest," that would have been a fake purpose, and it wouldn't have worked. It would have had nothing to do with their business, their audience, or their own deeply held convictions.
I can easily believe the science part is nonsense. And I'm also onboard with your bigger thesis that the race for a corporate "mission" and "values" is window-dressing in service of profits. Where I disagree with this argument is that this whole "Why?" issue is bullshit.
IT IS deeply human to seek purpose. It isn't just doctors or firefighters. You do what you do because you believe it serves a purpose. And that purpose is rarely just a nihilist "Oh, it's just fun".
That executive selling widgets? Unless she's been doing her job for like, a week, she knows her clients aren't, strictly speaking, buying widgets: They buy the drills so they can have a nicer living environment. They buy the insurance because they need to feel secure. They buy the headphones because they see themselves exercising and getting fit. And when the widget-making job gets unbearably annoying - as most jobs do, including for people on the NHS - people take refuge in the story they tell about purpose.
Just look at the above quote on the Wright Brothers. "Once they had the invention, they wanted to be like Henry Ford and Alexander Graham Bell and become rich off their invention and work." The purpose changed. They did what they did in service of a new purpose.
Again, do companies cynically exploit their employees' super human need to have a purpose? Absolutely. But the need itself is not bullshit, and neither is the premise that you could meet that need by working for a large company making widgets. Because it's never about the widgets, really.
I agree it's deeply human to seek purpose, and argue exactly that in the book! My issue is with the corporatisation and privatisation of purpose - the idea that a company/brand can be possessed of a deeper purpose to which employees are obliged to sign up. I think corporate purpose is ultimately an anti-human idea that tramples over the rights of employees, all of whom have different purposes in life. Some may be driven by professional achievement, others by raising a family or travelling the world or going to church or writing poetry. A decent business can be an engine for all those purposes, without having to elevate itself as the hero in the story.
Hi Nick, this was a great piece. I think the "why" has some place in marketing, but agree that the term "purpose" has been abused, possibly a lot more even than a "hidden" why. Non-profits, "impact, etc all culprits - is where i think you are going. I have not yet read your book and will order it asap. I am always tickled by subjects like these. Just added you on Linkedin (where I found this article from) - perhaps you might find this piece interesting where I cover come (I think) similar ground. Mine is a little more of a cynical view - given the chronology of global events past. https://activisms.substack.com/p/compliance-with-vibes-is-the-primary?r=wbim
Thanks Kerrin – yes, I definitely think the for-profit and not-for-profit distinction is important, and I think purpose blurs that distinction in an unhelpful way.
Could not have smashed that like button any harder. I come at this from a slightly different angle than you (comms), but I really see corporate purpose culture as actively toxic, both to employees and wider society.
When you quite clearly and demonstrably operate as a profit-led company – which is totally fine, btw – and yet tell everyone your purpose is not profit at all, it's blatantly dishonest. Worse, this is then imposed on employees in a bizarre gaslighting loyalty test, as they often have to justify their performance in the light of these values which everyone knows aren't real. It all wastes loads of time and absolutely decimates engagement. Because of COURSE we all crave purpose and meaning and good stuff – but we can all smell bullshit, too.
Also, claiming the right to define the moral values held by employees is kind of an unprecedented employer overreach. When a company claims that it prioritises its values over profit, which is the core thesis of 'purpose-led', the company is bound (at least in theory) to hire for values over skills. I could be the best candidate but fail the interview for not believing hard enough. This is not how you do business, it's how you start a cult. Normalising this behaviour is bad!
Sorry, rant over. 😅 I was just really excited to read someone actually analysing this stuff. I'm definitely getting your book!
Could it be that Sinek mixed up purpose and meaning? The "purpose" of a business is to have a customer. Its "meaning" is to have an income and occupation for its owner and employees. So, the purpose is not Why in the sense of "because of what" [warum in German] but in the sense of "for what" [weswegen in German]. So, it depends. In business, the Why should be related to the customer; that's why you have a business. The golden circle should be Who, What, How. Who do you want to address (and why?), What do they need, and How are you fulfilling this? Just saying...
Simon Sinek is the human manifestation of LinkedIn
And here are seven reasons and three takeaways for why that's true
Here's a carousel of the seven reasons on single-color background made in Canva with short soundbites to fulfill your confirmation bias about why you're special based on common sense principles.
My contention here is that values and belief driven communication IS actually more impactful than WHAT / HOW communication. Just because Simon Sinek was wrong about why his model works and because his ideas have been incorrectly applied by the business world doesn't mean that his core thesis is wrong.
The We Don't Speak January campaign by Equinox is the perfect example of "why" marketing done right. It's not political; it's tied directly to their product, but it's all about belief.
https://www.wearecollins.com/work/we-dont-speak-january-campaign/
It's possible to see a gym talking about fitness as a lifestyle, not just a January thing, as simply a powerful marketing idea expressed creatively. And many such ideas existed for decades before the 'purpose' idea took off post-2008. What made purpose feel new was the idea of businesses defining themselves around a wider social mission. Sinek's contention was that this is how all the best businesses start and/or what they should put at the core of their branding. Once you take away the science and unpack the case studies, I don't think there's much of the theory left.
There's nothing new about the idea of a marketing campaign like We Don't Speak January.
What I'm saying is that part of the reason why that campaign worked is because it was authentic to the core beliefs, purpose. and brand of the company.
Simon Sinek was wrong about how beliefs and purpose actually work. But he's not wrong that a gym saying "We believe in hard work and commitment, so we don't let new members sign up on January 1," IS more effective than saying "We have a bunch of nice, clean workout equipment and amenities.
He's also right about the fact that when brands do this consistently over time, they build a tribe around their principles.
He's wrong about how it works, but he's right that it does work when it's authentic.
Humans are moral and emotional just as much as rational and self-interested.
For whatever reason, beliefs authentically and courageously followed grip us.
I think your criticism is well-founded. Purpose doesn't work for most businesses, but it doesn't work because purpose itself is the problem. Purpose doesn't work because it's inauthentic.
For example, if Equinox had said, "We're about saving the rainforest," that would have been a fake purpose, and it wouldn't have worked. It would have had nothing to do with their business, their audience, or their own deeply held convictions.
I can easily believe the science part is nonsense. And I'm also onboard with your bigger thesis that the race for a corporate "mission" and "values" is window-dressing in service of profits. Where I disagree with this argument is that this whole "Why?" issue is bullshit.
IT IS deeply human to seek purpose. It isn't just doctors or firefighters. You do what you do because you believe it serves a purpose. And that purpose is rarely just a nihilist "Oh, it's just fun".
That executive selling widgets? Unless she's been doing her job for like, a week, she knows her clients aren't, strictly speaking, buying widgets: They buy the drills so they can have a nicer living environment. They buy the insurance because they need to feel secure. They buy the headphones because they see themselves exercising and getting fit. And when the widget-making job gets unbearably annoying - as most jobs do, including for people on the NHS - people take refuge in the story they tell about purpose.
Just look at the above quote on the Wright Brothers. "Once they had the invention, they wanted to be like Henry Ford and Alexander Graham Bell and become rich off their invention and work." The purpose changed. They did what they did in service of a new purpose.
Again, do companies cynically exploit their employees' super human need to have a purpose? Absolutely. But the need itself is not bullshit, and neither is the premise that you could meet that need by working for a large company making widgets. Because it's never about the widgets, really.
I agree it's deeply human to seek purpose, and argue exactly that in the book! My issue is with the corporatisation and privatisation of purpose - the idea that a company/brand can be possessed of a deeper purpose to which employees are obliged to sign up. I think corporate purpose is ultimately an anti-human idea that tramples over the rights of employees, all of whom have different purposes in life. Some may be driven by professional achievement, others by raising a family or travelling the world or going to church or writing poetry. A decent business can be an engine for all those purposes, without having to elevate itself as the hero in the story.
Hi Nick, this was a great piece. I think the "why" has some place in marketing, but agree that the term "purpose" has been abused, possibly a lot more even than a "hidden" why. Non-profits, "impact, etc all culprits - is where i think you are going. I have not yet read your book and will order it asap. I am always tickled by subjects like these. Just added you on Linkedin (where I found this article from) - perhaps you might find this piece interesting where I cover come (I think) similar ground. Mine is a little more of a cynical view - given the chronology of global events past. https://activisms.substack.com/p/compliance-with-vibes-is-the-primary?r=wbim
Thanks Kerrin – yes, I definitely think the for-profit and not-for-profit distinction is important, and I think purpose blurs that distinction in an unhelpful way.
It’s never escaped me that Sinek and cynic are homophones.
Sinek also means a fly in Turkish. Dark rhetoric is a lot of buzzing noise around a topic. Seemed quite appropriate
Interesting
Could not have smashed that like button any harder. I come at this from a slightly different angle than you (comms), but I really see corporate purpose culture as actively toxic, both to employees and wider society.
When you quite clearly and demonstrably operate as a profit-led company – which is totally fine, btw – and yet tell everyone your purpose is not profit at all, it's blatantly dishonest. Worse, this is then imposed on employees in a bizarre gaslighting loyalty test, as they often have to justify their performance in the light of these values which everyone knows aren't real. It all wastes loads of time and absolutely decimates engagement. Because of COURSE we all crave purpose and meaning and good stuff – but we can all smell bullshit, too.
Also, claiming the right to define the moral values held by employees is kind of an unprecedented employer overreach. When a company claims that it prioritises its values over profit, which is the core thesis of 'purpose-led', the company is bound (at least in theory) to hire for values over skills. I could be the best candidate but fail the interview for not believing hard enough. This is not how you do business, it's how you start a cult. Normalising this behaviour is bad!
Sorry, rant over. 😅 I was just really excited to read someone actually analysing this stuff. I'm definitely getting your book!
Slow reply, but thanks – agree completely!
Could it be that Sinek mixed up purpose and meaning? The "purpose" of a business is to have a customer. Its "meaning" is to have an income and occupation for its owner and employees. So, the purpose is not Why in the sense of "because of what" [warum in German] but in the sense of "for what" [weswegen in German]. So, it depends. In business, the Why should be related to the customer; that's why you have a business. The golden circle should be Who, What, How. Who do you want to address (and why?), What do they need, and How are you fulfilling this? Just saying...