Purpose is the symptom of an embarrassed industry
Creative strategist Zac Martin believes the advertising industry’s obsession with purpose is more than brand noise – it’s a desperation to be on trend.
Marketers are embarrassed. It’s an industry which has become ashamed to admit we influence behaviour and make businesses profit.
It’s why we call it “content” instead of “ads”. Or worse, “films”. It’s why we set objectives for engagement, despite little evidence it does anything meaningful. Likewise building experiences, brand love and ‘having a conversion’ all fall under the same banner.
On the other side, it’s one of the endearing things about Russel Howcroft (Gruen panelist and my first boss). He bloody loves ads. He likes big ideas and big agencies. He gets off on advertising – from Cottee’s-jingle-old-school to Koala-mattress-modern. He understands successful businesses grow the economy, keep people employed and fund the nation’s retirement. Nothing embarrassing about that.
Zac, this is great. Will share.
Agree.
First fill a legitimate need, Differentiate on a number of Key Factors and Grow the business.
There really isn’t any “sustainable” consumer goods out there unless you are building or fabricating your own from what you grow (and living in a cave), this is capitalism folks and if I can produce it someone will imitate and fill my excess market share if not careful.
I don’t buy Nike shoes because of a NFL / AFL / NRL personality defying the social norm, I buy them because of a number of differencing factors, the biggest is price. The last thing I think about is the sweat shop its produced in (which 90% of footwear are made in China, Indonesia, Bangladesh or Korea)…
Well said.
A great story. By the time you deal with “engagement, social justice, and check for PC” the whole point of the ad is lost. BTW, I would never buy a bed with a bloke like that on the advert. My organs could be harvested in the middle of the night and he wouldn’t even crack a smile!
Why didn’t they use Liam Neeson to add more feel?
Isn’t this just pure existentialism? That no-one ever really does something for the good of others, they do it to be perceived as such.
I don’t think companies undertake these initiatives due to any kind of embarrassment, they do it because they think it will make their brand be perceived as being ‘better’, to drive top of mind awareness and preference (nothing new there in brand marketing world), and therefore drive sales and increase revenue. That is marketings job.
Brand purpose = Sell me the product I want at a price I can afford.
Brand cause = Sustainably make money for shareholders.
Love this! Yes there is so much truth in this article.
If we continue to align ourselves with social causes ( whether we agree with them or not) we will end up like robots, like “news speak” or Animal Farm.
It’s why we call it “content” instead of “ads” – can'[t agree with this anymore.
I was actually handed a promo magazine today in the city for a social media content company showing their agency work. I flicked through on the train and soon realised all the ‘content’ the agency had produced were just good old fashioned ads, when did we start slapping content on everything vs calling it what it is. An ad, art direction, styling.. all renamed as content.
Great article
The biggest problem with purpose is that many who are trying to flog it don’t actually know what it is. Purpose, or your company’s purpose, isn’t about starving kids in Africa or trying to save whales, it’s about the reason why your business exists (other than making money).
While agreed that Simon Sinek’s infamous Ted talk has been taken grossly out of context on many occasions, often by the advertising community, it’s a little hasty to discredit it purely because we look at purpose as the ‘context of brands aligning with and promoting social causes’ (which it isn’t, it’s just an excuse to run an ad campaign).
Mercedes is an interesting example of a purpose led organization. Whilst they currently use it as a tagline for advertising, the phrase ‘the best or nothing’ has run through their organisation for over 150 years. It’s their purpose, their reason for being and everything they do can be tied back to this. In a branding, or brand experience sense this gives them a tremendous amount of consistency across all the ways a customer engages with them.
Apple as an company are actually more than just ‘being good at brand building and product development’. Their brand revolves heavily around the purpose of bringing simplicity and creativity to the world of computing and electronics. They have lost their way a little in recent times, but the foundations of their business was built on this purpose.
It’s very easy to look at purpose as just another buzz word, like ‘social media’, ‘ROI’ or ‘data driven’, but it’s actually been around a lot longer than Sinek’s Ted talk, and companies who have used it to great affect have not looked towards advertising to find it, it’s been inherent in their DNA from the beginning and everything they do is merely and expression of that.
Peter,
Re-branding is a function of image the company want’s to portray. Mercedes have had many slogans – “Die Zukunft des Automobils” or English equivalent “The future of the car”.
Mercedes differentiates on quality, safety, efficiency but really when you purely evaluate the competitors there is not a great deal of difference.
“Purpose” of a business is to remain competitive and see EBITDA growth at or above 8%. The commercial / creative / advertising departments will primarily be judged on volume or earnings growth, secondly on creative awards (some can be brought) or social media response (can also be paid for). The real conversation on advertising campaigns is the one that never really is discussed, actual, measurable sales and revenue growth. Not feel good social media campaigns.
Peter, go speak to someone at The Cancer Council, a major sports code or a local child care centre and ask them if their purpose is 8%+ EBITDA growth. Ask Tesla customers why they pay twice as much for a car. Purpose isn’t branding and it isn’t a sharemarket return but if you get it right, the financial returns can be enormous.
Comparing not-for-profit is hardly playing fair!
Tesla may be differentiating in the market due to not utilizing an internal combustion engine, however when you make a lithium battery from a Congo Mine which is refined in China by a 14 year old the real social context get lost in a self-righteous inner metropolitan sense. Elon Musk is not a great example currently on how to run a business, albeit sending a Japanese Billionaire into space is a very positive story!
What are you actually trying to say Michael? Advertisement doesn’t have a quantifiable return to the CEO or board? If that line was adopted in boardrooms, shareholders would revolt.
Peter do you think the industry has confused purpose with a good old fashioned mission statement? Agreed there’s value here internally in driving teams forward and in the right direction.
I feel the problem is when this is forced externally. Brand positioning doesn’t need to be lofty, or feel good, to be effective.
Zac, I think you’re missing the point here. In saying that brand positioning doesn’t need to be lofty or feel good to be effective you are completely ignoring the fact that we are shifting into an era, the new digital economy, driven by lateral power versus top-down power, where the customer not only demands to be respected but will increasingly become activists against brands and businesses who don’t serve their needs with integrity. Effective brand positioning without purpose means peddling crap to people that they don’t really need – and that era is fast coming to an end. The tech start-ups who are disrupting traditional industries are driving the change – every pitch deck starts with Problem and Solution. If you are not offering Solutions with substance, that serve a true societal purpose, and communicating them effectively through both brand and product/service leadership comms, you are destined to perish.
“Rh7thm integrates a forward-facing marketing, technology and innovation company with a ventures group, including advisory and investment in game-changing startups and its own ventures”. I well educated (don’t mind if I do) and I do not have any idea what you are gibbering on about. This is the point.
The biggest issue the ordinary person has with advertising is authentic, truthful, substance campaigns. Not pushing the line of your own business in the Mumbrella Opinion Section.
The consumer is turning off traditional sources, even social media is becoming increasingly stale. As the economy tightens and the consumer becomes more frugal, the cream will float and I continue to state, real revenue growth from advisement will be scrutinized!
Simon, what are YOU gibbering about ? I run The Growth Activists with my co-founders and we do Purpose-led strategy. If you’re going to look me up online, check my Linked In profile properly. As for being well-educated, if it was possible to make any sense of what you’ve written through the typos and grammatical errors I’d be half inclined to believe you – but you haven’t quite convinced me.
The opinion section of Mumbrella is for industry insiders to share their opinions on articles, and I just happen to have an opinion that perfectly aligns with what I do professionally. So I’d say I’m using the comments more than appropriately.
Had your excellent education also included comprehension of the English language you would discover that our opinions are actually not that far apart. The economy will indeed tighten, and the cream will indeed rise to the top – except that the next wave in decline of discretionary spending will happen within a climate of greater consciousness around a more circular economy, the impact of excessive consumption and true sustainable value – this is why brands and the marketers that promote them need to embrace Purpose or perish.
This is getting a little personal, like a school teacher correcting my homework. This is a public forum, I have nothing to do with “your” industry nor do I live in the inner Sydney suburbs. I don’t have a twitter, Instagram or Facebook profile for a reason.
Pushing Rh7thm and your own barrow is self indulgence the rest of us can clearly do without as it is adding no value to this debate.
Put forward some substance rather than attacking my grammatical errors.
P.S I counted 4 buzz slogans in your retort!
Simon, you made it personal when you accused me of “gibbering”, and I have every right to defend myself and point out your flawed logic. But some men don’t like women standing up to them, especially those who are too afraid to publish their surnames in public forums. What do you have to hide? And you continue to refer to Rh7thm when I have clearly told you I work at The Growth Activists. My commentary is based on my beliefs and expertise and is highly relevant to this debate. If anything is self-indulgent it’s unnecessarily aggressive missives from a character like you who has confessed to not even being from the industry. Perhaps it’s best that you stick to your knitting, kiddo.
Hi Zac, it depends on what industry you are talking about. I think the advertising industry is very confused about what purpose is, where the branding industry is less so (and yes there is difference between the advertising and branding industries).
Agreed that whenever a ‘purpose’ is forced on an organisation from an external party it’s a recipe for disaster, although you could argue that this isn’t a purpose at all.
While this attitude might be somewhat cynical I tend to feel sometimes that purpose, mission, vision and ambition can be somewhat interchangeable. The dangers lie when you have too many of these things in play and they contradict each other. Essentially there core function of any of these is to bind an organisation around a single minded idea that drives everyone in the same direction. Or as Nick Davis mentioned creating “organisational intent, galvanising a workforce, culture and set of activities focused entirely on one goal” (well put Nick).
Hate to break it to you, but you’re dead wrong. I spent 10 years at Nike in global and regional leadership roles, and believe me, if there was ever a purpose-driven business Nike is it. The reason they dwarf their competition is evident in their mission statement – “to bring innovation and inspiration to athletes (if you have a body you’re an athlete)” – everyone in the organisation is there to fulfil this purpose. It fuels their momentum and is at the centre of their culture. Take a read of Adidas’s mission statement or any other major sports brand and it’s all about the shareholders – purpose drives business success, every time. The businesses that do not put a greater societal purpose at the centre of their strategy are doomed to perish. Just ask Blackrock’s Larry Fink, with $6.3 trillion assets under management, how important purpose is to the survival to every business in their portfolio – read his letter to CEO’s. Or Danone, with $25B annual turnover who just became a B Corp. Or Unilever, with $60B in annual revenue, who plan to have every business in the portfolio fully sustainable in the next few years. If you think Purpose is a brand and marketing fad, you’ll be left behind with the other troglodytes in the Australian comms industry.
Nicely said @Rosanna Iacano. I’ve added some important stats in a comment that seems to be stuck in moderation. This is what consumers want and brands that are lagging will be left behind. People misunderstand what ‘Purpose’ is I think. Nike is one of the founders of purpose driven creative and no doubt part of why it has been so successful.
Hi Anne
Could you offer some evidence to the following statement:
‘This is what consumers want ”
Virtue signalling surveys don’t count. Some solid evidence based on sales.
Hate to break it to you, but you’re dead wrong. I spent 10 years at Nike in global and regional leadership roles, and believe me, if there was ever a purpose-driven business Nike is it. The reason they dwarf their competition is evident in their mission statement – “to bring innovation and inspiration to athletes (if you have a body you’re an athlete)” – everyone in the organisation is there to fulfil this purpose. It fuels their momentum and is at the centre of their culture. And it drives every piece of creative. Take a read of Adidas’s mission statement or any other major sports brand and it’s all about the shareholders – purpose drives business success, every time. The businesses that do not put a greater societal purpose at the centre of their strategy are doomed to perish. Just ask Blackrock’s Larry Fink, with $6.3 trillion assets under management, how important purpose is to the survival to every business in their portfolio – read his letter to CEO’s. Or Danone, with $25B annual turnover who just became a B Corp. Or Unilever, with $60B in annual revenue, who plan to have every business in the portfolio fully sustainable in the next few years. If you think Purpose is a brand and marketing fad, you’ll be left behind with the other troglodytes in the Australian comms industry.
Rosanna, if you define purpose as a mission statement, then I’m on board. But in the context of brand positioning, is there evidence that “purpose drives business success”?
It’s hard to dismiss the comments of experienced global CEOs… but even people in important positions say trendy things.
hey Zac, there is tons of evidence that Purpose drives business success. Here’s one little factoid published in March of this year – businesses in the UK who are certified B Corps (which means they are purpose-driven businesses serving a greater group of stakeholders – shareholders, customers, employees, community, environment) grew 28 times faster than the national average! The national GDP was 0.5%. FMCG’s that were B Corps grew 21% per year, with traditional FMCG’s growing in low single digits. The stats are pretty consistent globally. I make my living helping businesses accelerate their growth through purpose – happy to share lots more evidence if you need it. Nick Davis said it best – misunderstanding Purpose is a symptom of an embarrassing industry – though not for long, even if it will be learnt the hard way….!
Sorry, but research from a company who’s paid to certify others as purpose-driven feels just a tad bias.
Zac, I was about to do it but well called out!
I have a real issue with Confirmation Bias (Michael / Rosanna) and I do not agree with everything you say, for the common person you have written a reasonable piece that outlines social cause for what they are. Puff.
Wow, really ! Zac and Simon (the man without a surname !), B Corp is a not-for-profit organisation, not a company, and it’s the global gold standard for certifying organisations that do good whilst making money. The data they publish is fully and independently audited. Even EY, great champions of traditional capitalism, publish an annual report documenting the out-performance of Purpose-led businesses over traditional businesses. Look it up. Harvard Business School has established Purpose as a field of study and has dozens of case studies on how it fuels sustainable growth. But sure, go ahead and believe Purpose is a fad….I wish you both the best with career reinvention when things real.
Belittling and belligerent, hardly surprised.
Zero substance just more Confirmation Bias without a shred of evidence.
Oh wow. Great article.
Spot on about content being a catch all – and an excuse.
Accurate about the overwhelming lack of purpose in Purpose.
But then came Rosanna and now I’m not so sure…
Anyone else out there? Groucho, where are you? Dave Trott? Ian Watson?
Regardless, thanx Zac… more please!
I know you placed a caveat around your definition of purpose however I feel it has been completely lost on the readers except Regan who has pointed out the difference between a cause and a purpose.
To use Corona as an example, I am sure we could all be confident that they do not get up every day to ensure the ocean is clean.
But they have a brand cause, something they can align their influence alongside and this no doubt aligns very nicely with their audience.
Cotton On are another great example of purpose v cause. Everyone at Cotton on is committed to ensuring that they produce on trend, affordable clothes. The cotton on foundation however is focussed on developing countries and ethical supply chain accountability. This marries perfectly as people can buy cheap clothes in the knowledge they have been created without exploitation.
I think that misunderstanding purpose is a symptom of an embarrassing industry.
The people who constantly attack purpose are people who don’t understand what it’s useful for. It’s usefulness is not customer positioning and ad campaigns.
Talk to people who work in organisations about the usefulness of purpose. Purpose is about your entire organisational intent. It’s about galvanising a workforce, culture and set of activities focused entirely on one goal.
The trouble is that brands are hopping on the purpose bandwagon without integrity. So we see purpose deployed as a cheap marketing tactic, a way to make up for having no real positioning, or a shortcut to scoring a point with the customer.
The trouble with brand purpose isn’t the concept of brand purpose, it’s the crappy application of it by businesses and agencies who misunderstand its role and usefulness.
Yes !!! Spot on, Nick Davis.
Spot on, as is Rosanna. Many gaps in logic in this article but true purpose drives an organisation. Cause marketing does not. If you don’t have true purpose, get out now.
Frankly, people that work in organisations tend to understand why they are there, even if a purpose statement does not exist.
Yes, this is the actual point worth making.
Couldn’t have said it better Rosanna. Nike is great example of how an organisation is governed by it’s purpose or brand idea. ‘Authentic Athletic Performance’ sits at the middle of every decision they make and it’s the reason why Tiger Woods is still with them and Lance Armstrong isn’t.
Simon,
Don’t confuse purpose with an advertising tagline or a campaign, they are very different things and advertising or creative should never lead a company’s purpose. And I think you’ll find Mercedes differentiates on prestige and not attributes like safety which is more Volvo’s territory.
There are also so many studies out there that show how true purpose led businesses do a lot better than growth of 8%, especially during down times like the GFC. As Henry Ford once said “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business”…
Spot on, Peter – there are tons of examples of businesses who sailed through the GFC due to a workforce, shareholders, and a community who were all aligned behind and felt served by the greater purpose of the organisation…. one of my favourite retail examples is Nordstrom’s – whilst every other department store in America declined, their singular focus on customer value through the most generous loyalty rewards in the industry means they only had a couple of quarters of decline and then immediately got back into growth mode. In the meantime, the others who focused on cost-cutting still have not recovered, including our own local laggards Myer & DJ’s. Their values and purpose transpire in their comms – and the customer knows when they are not being put first.
Totally agree with the thrust of this article, but in terms of singling out those Corona and AirBnb spots as not driving growth, I’m not as convinced either way.
If those initiatives drive impact and saliency, they could well help to drive growth – even if the messages they’re delivering are (as you say) ‘off brand’.
So while initiatives like these on their own might not constitute a sustainable, long-term strategy – using ideas like these to drive moments of fame and attention aren’t necessarily wrong. Especially considering the investment these types of ideas get vs. other activity is pretty low.
Good comment Matt. I don’t think either example is bad, and they do a good job of building fame. I guess I struggle to see how pollution messaging reinforces the positioning of a beer you drink when you want to be somewhere else.
I think you’re overestimating how precisely consumers think about brands. I think this execution reinforces how a beer drinker may think about Corona i.e. that summery/beachy one.
Quite possibly. I’m still confused by Corona’s play into snow sports. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But corona’s positioning is all around surf, beach and sunshine and the creative of pollution wave in the water – why would you think people wouldn’t recognise
– corona’s moment is that time on the beach/elsewhere
– can’t enjoy that shit if the water is filled with rubbish
Corona is doing its part in making sure you can enjoy that moment on the beach.
isn’t it the role of creative strategy to recognise how you draw bows?
There is copious research that shows people favour brands which reflect, respect & contribute to the causes they care about. So already we can see that it is not embarrassment & rather profit that is the most likely motivator for brands to do so. There are always people doing the right thing for recognition & reward rather than just to be good – it’s human nature, but its a lot better than the alternative where no one does anything nice ever. It’s the same with brands. To accuse every brand that tries to do some good in the midst of hitting targets & driving revenue of being embarrassed of their purpose is unproductive, and frankly an extremely negative viewpoint, regardless of how well put together this article is. Selling products and contributing positively to society are not mutually exclusive. Brands have a responsibility to contribute back to the world that sustains them, and they should be able to do so without accusations of being “embarrassed” that they still need to sell their products.
I think Zac has a point about leveraging irrelevant strategic messages but let’s look at some facts on this whole ‘purpose’ thing… Before anyone rants about credible data here too, this is one of the most respected global studies The Edelman Trust Barometer:
51% of people expect brands can do more than Government to fix social problems
57% of people are buying or boycotting based on a brand’s social or political stance
30% more than three years ago are buying or boycotting based on a brand’s social or political stance
50% of people globally say they are belief driven buyers
60% of millenialls buy based on belief
73% of Chinese buy on beliefs as the world leaders in this
40% of Australians buy on beliefs and we’re the 9th in line
65% of people will not buy from a brand if they remain silent on something the public thinks they should have stood up for
67% of people bought for the first time from new brands because of its position on a controversial issue which is a 10 x gain for the brand
Stronger engagement, and stronger advocacy from belief driven consumers and will pay a 23% premium for it
The big thing that links in with Zac’s point is that people don’t want brands to just be talking about the issues, but to DO something about them.
That’s pretty cut and dried that belief driven business, and to share that in marketing actually works.
If anyone thinks otherwise then they’re not thinking strategically and delivering what the people want. Let’s not resort to old thinking.
Purpose is a symptom of a strategic alignment to customer needs.
I think Zac has a point about leveraging irrelevant strategic messages but let’s look at some facts on this whole ‘purpose’ thing… Before anyone rants about credible data here too, this is one of the most respected global studies The Edelman Trust Barometer:
51% of people expect brands can do more than Government to fix social problems
57% of people are buying or boycotting based on a brand’s social or political stance
30% more than three years ago are buying or boycotting based on a brand’s social or political stance
50% of people globally say they are belief driven buyers
60% of millenialls buy based on belief
73% of Chinese buy on beliefs as the world leaders in this
40% of Australians buy on beliefs and we’re the 9th in line
65% of people will not buy from a brand if they remain silent on something the public thinks they should have stood up for
67% of people bought for the first time from new brands because of its position on a controversial issue which is a 10 x gain for the brand
Stronger engagement, and stronger advocacy from belief driven consumers and will pay a 23% premium for it
The big thing that links in with Zac’s point is that people don’t want brands to just be talking about the issues, but to DO something about them.
That’s pretty cut and dried that belief driven business, and to share that through marketing actually works.
If anyone thinks otherwise then they’re not thinking strategically and delivering what the people want. Let’s not resort to old thinking unless it is proven.
Can’t argue with those stats. But, you can question their credibility. Not saying they aren’t credible, as I don’t know that particular survey. But I’ve found that many surveys that link ‘purpose’ with buying behaviour rely on what people SAY is important, or what they SAY drove their purchase decision. And we know two things: there’s usually a discrepancy between what people say they do and what they actually do; and when you ask people why they did/do/will do something, the reasons they give – however heartfelt and genuine – may or may not reflect the actual reasons why they did what they do…because so much of what drives a decision is sub-conscious. In short, an conscious expressed belief about why we do something or the importance of certain things in influencing our decisions often bear no relationship with what actually drives behaviour. So, first question to ask about the above (or any) data is whether it’s based on what people SAY is important to their choices. Is it, for example, ‘60% of Millennials buy based on belief’ or is it ‘60% of Millennials SAY they buy/bought based on belief’? Very different, one more credible than the other…
This data is credible. However, assuming you have some valid point here, there are also plenty of case studies that are available that shows this translates into actual sales results too. So, this isn’t a matter of just ‘talk’. If you follow Conscious Capitalism you’ll see some awesome case studies, and see how this new movement is gaining incredible and tangible results in business. Plenty of proof.
I can personally say that if there is a business that is doing something good for the planet or the people on it (regardless if this is on brand or on strategy), I will be choosing to support them over another and often prepared to pay a premium. I can see that what I say and what I do would clearly be aligned and not a question for a moment.
I’m a little shocked that this would be questioned actually…that’s just people with different values I guess…
Anne, my point is a simple one. Question ALL data and examine the method by which it is gathered. I’m not taking sides, or questioning anyone’s conviction. I am pointing out a common flaw in a lot of data that is collected, by all sorts of organisations, on all sorts of topics (not just this). And the flaw is a simple, but critical one: what people SAY is important and drives their decisions does not necessarily reflect what ACTUALLY drives their decisions. This is basic behavioural psychology. So it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with the idea of brand purpose per se. It’s about the validity of the data used to support the argument. And on face value the data seems to rely on ‘claimed behaviour’, i.e what people SAY. Which is inherently flawed, regardless of the topic. If it’s not based on claimed behaviour, then the data is very powerful…
This seems to be a perennial argument doesn’t it. Perhaps there are three distinctly different but parallel threads that are overlapping.
Corporate purpose (why we exist – which has come to replace the vision statement, as these were believed to be hard for all employees in a firm to engage with or align to; whereas purpose is something ideally everyone can connect with and gives a deeper meaning to work). This should never be advertised to consumers since it’s not a consumer proposition. Every time this happens, it comes across as indulgent to us.
Cause marketing (promoting the causes the brand supports as a means to more deeply connect stakeholders with the brand)
Brand positioning (positioning the brand in the minds of its customers or prospects, in an effort to differentiate itself and create memory structures. Often this is done through identifying and shining a light on shared beliefs to create brand relevance)
It seems to me that the problem comes when marketers and their agencies confuse the role of each of these. In reading many of the comments, you each have good points to make but you might find that the cause of your disagreements have more to do with being at cross purposes than being right or wrong.
Best comment in the thread!
The fundamental issue here is that purpose belongs to the organisation and is driven by the operating model. ‘Brand purpose’ has been hijacked by marketers wanting to make a difference in the world because they’re having trouble making a difference to the bottom line (?)
Your article seems directed at the latter Zac, and fair enough. But to contend that purpose is a worthless and fleeting fad is ignorant of all the incredibly effective strategies that have been developed over the years by leading global brands that build purpose from the inside out.
I wouldn’t buy Corona purely because they support removing plastic from the ocean. I agree with Zac in that I’m not convinced the Corona ad makes a lot of sense with brand alignment. There needs to be a deeper alignment with brand, eg the Westpac Rescue Helicopter probably doesn’t make people switch banks but it’s part of the overall brand perception.
I do think that purpose matters, but not a token purpose in an ad, it needs to be integral to a company’s existence and culture. I buy Nike shoes for reasons beyond the fact that they look nice and are reasonably priced. I also use their apps and I do indeed find the brand to be inspiring and innovative and I want to be a part of that. I’m not a great athlete but the Nike brand makes me feel like I could be capable of achieving more. I buy into their purpose, which is core to the company and not just one ad campaign.