Three uncomfortable truths about brand purpose
Brand purpose has been one of the buzz marketing phrases of 2014 with experts urging companies to stand for something more than profits. Here Benjamin Harrison argues very few brands can pull it off.
If only measured in articles, books, agencies and events espousing brand purpose – the idea driving brands through an understanding of ‘why we exist beyond making money’ or the ‘noble end’, then 2014 has been its peak year to date.
It’s also the year that Chipotle – the famously purpose-led fast food chain – reported explosive 19.8 per cent same-store sales growth in the US. By comparison, McDonald’s – a one-time stakeholder of the brand – posted a 3.3 per cent drop in the same period.
Steve Ells, Chipotle’s charismatic founder, once said “our performance is rooted in our long term vision to change the way people think about and eat fast food”.
This fake-authenticity is useful as a marketing tactic but that’s all it is.
It helps resolve a particular cognitive dissonance.
Now you can be a do-gooder and still consume – millennials FTW!
Purpose/authenticity is the new cool, the status-oriented nature of the activity remains the same.
‘people are prepared to pay a premium for a strong purpose’ – and for the status that comes with it.
I’m off for some $10 arisanal toast.
Purpose should be about making things happen inside an organisation, not merely the positioning of its offer to the market. That’s where I think this article misses a trick.
All corporate brands should have a purpose.
Purpose can help employees connect emotionally to an organisation and to their work. It can define certain operational imperatives. It can compel certain behaviours and modes of working. And ultimately all of these things will bear fruit for customers as employees full of purpose delivers great outcomes whether they’re product designers, marketers or customer service operators.
Agree that purpose is best not ‘invented’ by an agency but residual in an organisation or at least in its CEO’s vision. If it isn’t tapping into something authentic it won’t work.
Good concise article.
Interesting. ANU’s recent ESG decision to offload investments relying on fossils fuels sits in contrast to reports that it has the highest carbon footprint of the main Australian universities.
In order for Brand Purpose to be valid, should not every single aspect of a business’ existence conform to a completely ‘fault-free’ set of criteria? Or is it enough to be very visible on a certain Brand Purpose whilst ignoring or failing to attend to other possibly relevant issues? Does Chipotle’s Brand Purpose negate the apparently excessive sodium content of its products?
I think it’s a great marketing ploy for the right product/audience. Your points re: execution of strategy are well-made.
A brand’s purpose, if it is to have any value from a brand perspective, must be relevant to the actual product or service. A company suddenly deciding to offsett carbon emissions or donating to charity is great, but hardly sets them apart. Which is why the most successful ones – e.g. Chipotle, Virgin, Bodyshop, Patagonia, Apple, Tesla – tend to have been founded by visionary individuals who makes sure the brand stays on track.
I still think it’s possible for brands to invent a purpose from scratch, it’s just very difficult and most attempts fail miserably. Dove managed to. As did Diesel and Lynx. Purpose doesn’t just have to be about saving the planet. Anything above and beyond the category generic that goes to solve some sort of higher-level problem for people is arguably a purpose, at least from a marketing pov.
Brand purpose is only useful if it is something that can be monetised, and it can only be monetised if it is consonant with your consumer’ need that your product benefit delivers on – competitively,uniquely and consistently.
I dunno, Neil.
Brands that are widely recognised as the poster boys for ‘purpose’ e.g. Apple, IBM usually identify that revenue is not their primary business driver. They understand that if you get your business focused and aligned in a singular direction, that will lead to better products, better services, better customer loyalty – and bottom line success will follow.
Making money is a fact of life for businesses but it’s perilous to put it at the centre of things. It should be the outcome of what you do, not the starting point.
I hear you and feel your pain, tacking on phrases like ‘purpose’ when it is mearly whitewashing, be it by a consultant or a company is painful to witness. But not new news.
It’s all just language.
Call it positioning, USP, DNA, purpose..if there is not a bigger idea than just making money, it becomes hard to find a reason for people to believe or even notice you, let alone want to work for you.
That doesn’t mean companies with a ‘purpose’ won’t mess up – the world is a messy place, or that companies won’t try to bandaid on a meaningful purpose, nothing new there. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to hoodwink people externally.
This is in a climate where Corporations have a primary role to increase shareholder value (ie Make money), challenger brands are nipping at their heels, (and yes often with purpore driven brands) and technology companies are increasingly disrupting traditional models.
It’s complicated. But we choose in the end with our wallets who wins; building a culture that reflects our collective values.
So is McDonalds brand purpose to feed people as fast and as cheaply as possible a bad thing?
Or is there some other rhetoric that I’m missing?
Maybe I’m old school , but I think its dishonest to start with the premise that businesses exist for some higher purpose than to make money. There are other forms of organisations that occupy this space.
For a business to be successful in making money, they need to cater to different stakeholders – shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers , community and govt.
The primary paymasters are customers – as it is they who pay you for what you are offering. The other stakeholders are enablers. Terms like brand purpose, culture values , credos etc are articulations of strategies to energise / address these stakeholders. Although I don’t like using brand purpose for this – as brand is the primary customer link. A way around this is companies like who have brands separate from corporate name -eg Unilever, P&G etc . Keep them separate , and everyone is clear .
I’d like to marry Nick.
To connect with purpose is to connect with an organisations truth and not all companies are ready for that. Its way more than marketing or branding alone, it starts with internal brand building and has a lot to do with leadership culture.
I believe that every business has something unique and relevant to offer the world, by tapping into what that is may mean that they need to undertake massive change in their business, and if they’re willing to put in the hard yards to do so I believe that there will be ever-greater opportunities for their business and their brand.