Brand purpose isn’t the problem, it’s our abuse of it that is
Al Crawford explores how marketers have twisted data, forsaken narrative and overinflated campaigns all in the name of brand purpose.
Reticent is a great word. Or at least, it was. These days, it gets dragged out of the dictionary and pummelled senseless by people who use it in sentences like: “I’m reticent to do that.”
Same thing goes for purpose. One minute, it’s going innocently about its business. The next it’s having seven shades of shit kicked out of it by every Tom, Dick and Harriet in brand management.
The problem crept in when people got all la-di-da with it. Back in the day, purpose was just a synonym for other common sense marketing terms like brand mission, organising idea, or, if you were feeling particularly macho, brand fight.
Well said.
Quite right Al. Purpose is not a marketing toy, a brand affectation or anything to do with John Lewis Christmas ads. It’s job was to be personal; to try to get at why you do what you do. As observed by the philosophers and great writers of our time; notably Steve Harvey, Jordin Sparks and arguably Mark Twain “The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.” Merry Xmas everyone!
But I wish people would stop using Red Bull as an example of a great brand. Same goes for Apple, Nike and Google. Nothing wrong with those brands, they’re just lazy examples. Overused. Abused you might say.
Cheers for the comment. I agree with you. Those brands get way too coverage and are lazily trotted out in presentations everywhere. I was hoping this was a slightly less cliched reference. In this instance, I’m not using Red Bull as an example of a great brand; more as a demonstration of how their supposedly ‘limited’ purpose hasn’t stopped them producing seismic, category-busting, culture-creating results.
Great to see some well thought out commentary on brand strategy on Mumbrella. Well done Al.