Long-term effect of brand purpose ‘unclear’, but it’s here to stay
Issue and purpose-based marketing is here to stay, according to new research from Nine, with the media giant claiming “in a world where brands fight for attention and respect, having a point of view can be a way to do that”.
The long-term implications of this phenomenon, however, are unclear, as are the wider effects on consumer behaviour, Publicis Groupe’s global head of futures and insights, Tom Goodwin, said.
“We haven’t quite figured out what the long-term effect of purpose will be,” Goodwin said during a session on echo chambers at Nine’s Big Ideas Store. “Are people going to choose a shoe polish because they’re pro some political belief system? Should every brand aim to be an environmentally-friendly brand? Probably.”
Brand purpose, Goodwin said, doesn’t always have to be about taking a divisive or politically-charged stance.
“We have to understand that people like people because they are people, but people like brands because they represent values – and that doesn’t necessarily need to become so closely defined to become a personality or a multi-faceted character. It could just be that their brand value is that they’re ‘friendly’ or they’re ‘great at cleaning’. Or that they’re a ‘wonderful car maker’. So we have to be slightly careful,” he said.
Nine Powered’s director of strategy, insights and effectiveness, Toby Boon, pointed to Nine’s research which indicated brands with a point of view are viewed as modern, having integrity, being more outward looking, and overall easier for consumers to connect with. Brands that lack a point of view, he said, are considered neutral with an old-school way of thinking.
“A brand’s point of view though must be nuanced – not falling into the binary tropes of a cultural debate or conversation – educated, proving that the work has been done, and they’re coming from an informed place; and part of the audience you’re speaking to. Making sure you know where you exist in culture, and where you don’t – and importantly, only playing where you do.
He pointed to Huggies’ campaign about parenting being an individual practice, and Libra’s #BloodNormal initiative as examples of brands getting it right.
“They stayed in their lane. They understood what they can credibly talk about and found an interesting way to do just that,” he said.
“People are moving further and further apart, but we can lower our voices, change our tones, take steps towards one another. Brands can have a point of view, but say it in a way that’s inclusive and respectful.”
Fiftyfive5’s director Hannah Krijnen noted even brands which are perceived as getting it ‘wrong’ are actually, in many cases, getting it right.
She pointed to the divisive Gillette ad, which pivoted away from the traditionally masculine ‘Best a man can get’ trope to a focus on toxic masculinity and expectations of male behaviour.
Many consumers and commentators slammed the ad for alienating its audience and missing the mark, however Krijnen said if you delved deeper into the consumer sentiment, there were lessons for brands.
She said consumers who believed they “fundamentally hated” the ads, changed their minds when they were then shown more traditional campaigns about the functional power of a razor.
Consumers then realised the power of taking a stand: “They go ‘You know what? I respect Gillette, because at least they have a point of view and they care about this topic. I don’t care about how many blades there are,'” she said of the shift.
“Brands that they [consumers] fundamentally said ‘I don’t agree with’, suddenly have more integrity and more genuineness than brands they saw as being functional and non-purpose led.”
Goodwin said that for all the back and forth about its effectiveness and impact, brands should be accessing diversity of thought and have a purpose simply because it’s the best way to do business.
“I think we need to look at intentions, actually,” he said.
“So I think many of these things become rather easy to answer when you just realise that it’s just how to behave. There should be no change of strategy, there should be no real need to adapt quickly. It should just be a company that has a strong moral foundation that knows what it’s about, and then acts in a way which is good for the audience and acts in a way which is good for any retailers, and it’s consistent to that. And I think if you had to suddenly change something, then perhaps you should gave done that work a while ago.”
I am surprised that the Australian market has been so slow to adopt purpose statements and marketing positions. I think Woolworths does this really well.
For people that doubt purpose has good financial return check out what Unilever have to say about this.
https://www.unilever.com/news/news-and-features/Feature-article/2019/brands-with-purpose-grow-and-here-is-the-proof.html
And here is P&G on the topic
https://www.brandknewmag.com/turning-brand-purpose-into-activism-pgs-chief-brand-officer-marc-pritchard/
User ID not verified.
You can continue to try and re-write history and customer sentiment, but someone needs to point out that the Gillette campaign (not the cause it supported) was a disaster. That is why it has not been repeated. That is why Gillette former consumers (not marketers being cool) continue to hate the campaign 18 months on. And partly why the brand recently had to complete a multi-billion dollar write down. But – hey ho – it was still a “success” because the prevalent dogma within the marketing discipline refuses to accept reality.
User ID not verified.
Always an interesting topic. Here are 4 thoughts:
1. I think it’s easy to accept that organisational purpose is powerful, for all the Unilever reasons around capital, talent, influence and, sometimes, driving consumer preference. It underpins the organisational brand – and can be the org brand sometimes.
2. The product/service brand’s promise or value proposition should connect the organisation’s purpose with the user’s needs, solve a problem (not just a functional problem, ideally) for the user. If it’s only a “point of view” from the brand about an issue, it’s going to struggle – although it may well stir up lots of action for the socials.
3. For the reasons above, I think that “brand purpose” is an empty concept, unless it’s org purpose and brand value prop being near synonymous (which it can sometimes be for orgs with highly distinctive, social value based roles in society)
4. Marketers need to accept that because public discourse is polarised and tribal, stepping into the issue-based marketing ring will inevitably create enemies, not just friends. And you’ve gotta be OK with that and have a clear sense of what you’ll gain and lose.
User ID not verified.
The issue with consumers comparing the old Gilette ads (rational razor demos etc) with ‘THAT’ Gillette campaign and thinkging “oh, well at least they took a stand” is a risky way to see things. Sure, if you’re willing to sit and discuss the past campaigns and the evolution into new approaches with consumers, you might get to that. I doubt very much that most consumers will get to that state of mind on their own. The campaign needs to be able to stand on its own and not rely on consumers overthinking it to be able to see the benefits.
User ID not verified.
Oh Gillette certainly ‘took a stand’ alright, and the message to men was loud and clear: Men are sexist, men tolerate and empower violence, men dont respect women, men encourage ‘toxic masculinity’, we are all white overweight men tending barbecues going ‘boys will be boys’ as if we routinely excuse bad behaviour. We make women uncomfortable by telling them ‘to smile’ … not to mention the incredibly racist undertones that went with it.
I can tell you as a previously loyal Gillette product consumer, we were utterly gobsmacked at the insult being handed to us by Gillette, who thought the worst of us, who had gone out of its way to misrepresent us, de humanise us and sought to re-educate us via the constructs of ‘toxic masculinity’. …and you want to then say, we came back and reflected ‘oh well, at least they stood for something’. You might as well say the KKK stood for something too, hey? If thats a virtue in and of itself!
There is one interesting footnote to this tale that doesnt get told enough. Its may help explain the hurt/insult men felt in a way that those who ‘cant understand’ why men reacted the way we did.
The director of the Ad was a feminist director who also produced a series of ads for the ‘This Girl Can’ campaign. These ads were uplifting, inspiring, saw the best in women, what they could overcome, and not to be afraid. Why couldn’t she say that about men? Because she is a sexist bigot, and her work reflects that. The Gillette Ad was a work of utter rampant bigotry.
Consequently, very coolly, calmly and quietly, I, my sons, my wife, and any man I know have all agreed we will never touch Gillette again, insult any sponsorship deals they do,and will avoid P&G products wherever possible. Its easy to do.
User ID not verified.
Not to dig up the Gilette stuff too much but the one eyedness of it sat badly with every person I chatted to about it.
Anecdotal I know.
Meryl Streep did have something interesting to say on the subject.
“We hurt our boys by calling something toxic masculinity,” she said. “Women can be pretty f&*k%^g toxic … It’s toxic people.”
As Ben noted in his comment, the lack of positivity is not something that reflected well on the brand.
I think right now there is a huge difference between brands standing for something and brands virtue signalling.
Like teenagers, brands love the virtue signal, they are addicted to likes and comments on social media.
They, however, don’t really stand for anything.
Brands – we aren’t racist, but we will do better at not being racist
Consumers – we never thought you were racist
Brands – check out my black and white logo
Consumers – I don’t care, I just want good customer service
User ID not verified.