Long-term effect of brand purpose ‘unclear’, but it’s here to stay

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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