Purpose: You’ve either got it or you don’t
Last month, creative strategist Zac Martin wrote a piece for Mumbrella titled ‘purpose is the symptom of an embarrassed industry’. Here, strategy director Paul Scarf provides his response.
Adland has always been cynical, but I have to question whether we have reached a new level when we start criticising brands for doing good. A few weeks ago, Zac Martin wrote a piece on the industry’s ‘new’ obsession with aligning to social causes – citing Corona’s sustainable plastic activation as being off brand, and Airbnb’s marriage inequality campaign as ‘distracting’.
Corona’s sustainable plastic activation
As a long-standing partner of the World Surf League and general purveyor of idyllic ocean imagery, doesn’t Corona have every right to raise awareness about ocean degradation? As an organisation with a nondiscrimination charter guiding how its community should act and a long time supporter of LGBTIQA+ communities around the world, why shouldn’t Airbnb talk about marriage equality?
“I have to question whether we have reached a new level when we start criticising brands for doing good”
Opening up with a straw man. Great work.
What (some) people are criticising is brands (and in particular some of the tech brands you name above) that build a false purpose to hide their true intention – to make as much money as possible.
No-one is upset if brands try to do “good”. But let’s pause to define “good” – in the examples you quote, I see brands trying to look after their customers. That should be a given – not dressed up as some higher level purpose. Take WeWork: it’s a real estate company with a ping pong table. No more, no less.)
People get upset when brands try and hide their true purpose behind a veneer of ‘purpose’. Not much different from the greenwashing trend of a few years back. And should be equally called out when it happens.
“demonstrating at its core the company is concerned about its purpose in its customers lives”
SNORT!
It is ridiculous use of language isn’t it? So out of touch with the real world. Here’s another:
“Looking at the above brands, their purposes all stem from some very basic, intrinsic rights and values. Democratisation. Autonomy of choice.”
Complete bull. It’s marketing. And thankfully very few people outside of a few self-interested people in the industry would ever take it too seriously.
Good response Paul. I wonder though if your examples aren’t just mission statements? Some feel like a stretch to suggest they’re ‘doing good’. But the key point of contention remains there is limited evidence to suggest nobility drives growth.
Keep the convo going!
And this is the problem with the world. The obsession with growth. Founders of new companies (like those mentioned above) are purpose driven and see purpose beyond growth. It’s baked in. Legacy companies beholden to shareholders don’t and so they fake it.