Brands should consider the pitfalls of hitching themselves to the purpose wagon
The authenticity craze and ‘millennials’ obsession has led brands to overplay their hand, and confuse the need to stand for something genuine with a desire to stand for something worthy, writes Kate Richardson in this excerpt from Eat Your Greens.
Too many brands are making the mistake of orienting themselves around a lofty, higher purpose that goes beyond the goal of profit, straying too far from their unique value and the realm of their category. Brands are getting distracted by standing for [insert important or worthy or socially conscious aspiration here] at the expense of standing for something relevant in the mind of their audience. In trying too hard to be responsible and caring, they’re coming across as tediously homogenous and utterly disingenuous.
All the hoo-ha about authenticity, the hype around social media and prevailing discussion in the marketing community, instigated by leaders like Paul Polman and Jim Stengel, have created a false sense of the importance that (most) brands play in our lives. The fashionable discourse on beliefs and purpose has given rise to the idea that even the most innocuous of products need to create important meaning in our lives, and bring us closer to what really matters, regardless of the real role the product occupies in daily life.
Jim Stengel’s Grow argued companies that subscribe to a ‘Brand Ideal’ significantly outperform their competitors. For his research, he chose the 50 top brands from Millward Brown’s database of 50,000. He then identified the common link in their superior share price growth as a purpose designed to improve the lives of others. While the methodology has been discredited, most notably by Byron Sharp and Richard Shotton, the mud has already stuck. And some of the top names in our industry have been evangelising the prosperity in purpose ever since.
Unilever’s Paul Polman has built a popular narrative around ‘Sustainable Living’, a purpose which he credits as the unifying force behind the company’s growth since it was first introduced in 2010. Last year, the company proudly announced that its ‘Sustainable Living’ brands grew 50% faster than the rest of the company, and were responsible for 60% of the growth, an increase from 2015 when they grew 46% faster and accounted for 30% of the growth.
However, it’s difficult to determine whether the sustainable, purpose-driven nature of these brands was the only driving factor. For example, the company notes that, as of 2017, there are 18 Sustainable Living brands in the top 40 Unilever brands, up from 12 in 2015. With an additional six brands now counted in the numbers, there is a possibility that growth could have come, at least in part, by simply including more brands in the portfolio. In addition, it’s unclear whether the brands that fall outside the portfolio are in slower growing categories, fewer or lower growth markets, lack innovation, have been disrupted by new entrants to market, or have been hurt by insufficient investment.
This is not to criticise Unilever who are working to be a better, more sustainable employer, but rather to highlight the somewhat unchallenged narrative that has developed around purpose. While it may be appropriate for some brands, there is an increasing tendency to confuse creating a socially responsible company with designing the locus of a brand around a socially responsible aspiration.
This is exactly where brands like Pepsi and McDonald’s have made calamitous mistakes. Pepsi’s widely observed, disastrous Kendall Jenner fronted effort to deliver a message of ‘unity, peace and understanding’ was evidence of brand overreach as the company clearly forgot not only what it stood for, but the teensy tiny role it plays in shaping people’s lives (not to mention global harmony).
As Elle Hearns, executive director of the Marsha P. Johnson Institute (and formerly an organiser for Black Lives Matter) said, the ad “plays down the sacrifices people have historically taken in utilising protest. No one is finding joy from Pepsi at a protest, that’s just not the reality of our lives. That’s not what it looks like to take bold action.”
Heineken’s ‘Worlds Apart’ video brought together strangers with opposing views to discuss their differences over a drink (surprise surprise it’s a Heineken). The video garnered plenty of chatter, but as Mark Ritson noted, there was little that was unique about the ad; its rights advocacy-based subject matter was perhaps a long way from the brand, and the video lacked distinction, as it could have been done by any beer brand.
Brands are right to think about the drivers of authenticity relevant to their category, story and product; however, companies should carefully consider the pitfalls of hitching themselves to the social purpose wagon as they risk diluting a distinctive position and diminishing their credibility.
Kate Richardson is principal consultant at KR & Co. Consulting. This article is an extract from her contribution to Eat Your Greens – fact based thinking to improve your brand’s health.
The problem isn’t “authenticity” its authenticity that’s inauthentic.
Or to put it another way, the audience knows when its bs.
If Pepsi had spent a couple of years spending its marketing budget by giving a portion of it to charities for the oppressed, if they supported a fairly popular protest movement (say getting children of Nauru for example) financially and if their add had been just a little less corny, it would have landed ok.
You can’t manufacture purpose in a hurry. It takes time and it has to be authentic (dictionary definition of the term, not marketing jargon definition). If you skip this step, you *will* be found out.
So the author is right that many brands shouldn’t try. But I’d disagree with the reason. They shouldn’t try if they haven’t been putting in the yards *before* marketing with purpose. If you actually do have a good story to tell its fine. Its making up the story that’s the problem. The audience aren’t stupid enough for that anymore.
User ID not verified.
Just because some there are some
Very poor examples, it doesn’t mean it’s not an acceptable strategy.
When you don’t mean it , you get caught out. When you do mean it, it’s got to be communicated well. And that’s the hard part.
User ID not verified.
Feels like it’s becoming increasingly popular to have a crack at ‘purpose’, or at least what some industry people think is purpose. Unless your brand is something like Oxfam it’s not an ‘important or worthy or socially conscious aspiration’. That would be social marketing.
True purpose is your brands reason for being (beyond making money) and I think you’ll find those top brands in Millward Brown’s brand equity ratings, or any brand valuation list, are incredibly clear on exactly who they are and what they offer to the world. This clarity comes from their purpose / reason for being and drives the way people experience them through consistency across all touch points, not just media channels either, but by everyway someone might interact with a brand (should cover off things like who you hire, what products you develop etc )
This consistency helps to provide a sense authenticity in the brand (the experience matches the promise) and more importantly gives those that interact with them a feeling of what they are about and what they are not. From this we create differentiation which in turn will give consumers a reason to choose your brand over someone else.
Maybe have another look into what purpose is and how it works, brands that get it right generally go straight to the head of the class. And perhaps have a nice juicy steak with those greens
User ID not verified.
Hi Peter,
I’m not suggesting brands shouldn’t have a clear purpose and express that in all they do. On the contrary. But the notion that a brand purpose needs to be socially responsible to resonate with consumers and drive brand growth is just plain wrong.
Richard Shotton has shown this in his elegant dissection of Jim Stengel’s work on the subject.
https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2017/04/12/truthiness-marketing-the-evidence-behind-brand-purpose-flawed
Mark Ritson makes a good point here about some of the top brands on the Interbrand rankings being a long way from brands with a social purpose.
https://www.marketingweek.com/2018/09/21/mark-ritson-marketers-ashamed-managing-brands/
Unfortunately what we say is important to us is often not the case.
Good to have debate on the subject.
User ID not verified.
Ps both Richard Shotton and Wiemer Snijders have written interesting chapters on purpose for Eat Your Greens.
https://www.bookdepository.com/Eat-Your-Greens-APG-Ltd/9781789016758
User ID not verified.