For years now, a debate has been raging about purpose-driven thinking. This concept of 'purpose' for companies seems well-intentioned and successful. However, the word "purpose" is also often used to sell hot air. So today we look at purpose-driven branding and marketing through the lens of the storytelling: is it an effective story? Under what circumstances can it be trusted? We'll get right to the gist of it all: the greatest gap is between 'saying' and 'doing'. To find out why, follow us down the purpose rabbit hole. And at the end, we'll have a look if the word 'purpose' is still the right word to use these days.
(The ficticious Wilmore Funeral Home talking their purpose very, very seriously)
As a storyteller who also frequently helps commercial companies, I wanted to dive in and get a feel just how successful that purpose story really is after a decade or more of using the term. To get there we'll check what the numbers tell us, but also use some gut-feeling and look at some older and newer cases that can give us the right insights. But let's start with what purpose is.
The word "purpose" is popping up everywhere in marketing the past decade or so. Loosely translated, it’s about providing meaningful or societal value. With purpose we mean 'Acting in the best interest of society' with an emphasis on the word 'acting' as in 'doing' and not just 'saying'.
Are purpose-driven brand stories successful?
At first glance, the answer is yes. There is even talk of a more than 200% difference in revenue compared to organizations without a meaningful mission (Havas Meaningful Brands Research among 800.000 recipients worldwide comes at numbers such as 222%). However, these figures are not always easy to verify, so it is important to back them up with other evidence.
For instance, what we do know for sure is that the highly socially conscious Patagonia brand grew by percentages such as 15% per year for a long time, up to a point where both revenue and profit where so great, they started buying up forest land to preserve. And that was before the company's founder his big donation to charity.
It is until this day the most eye-catching and successful purpose story of course. And a key insight we can learn from their case is that it's not just about the green stuff, but about their exceptionally high quality goods too, that are tested in the field by scientist stationed at the North and South pole, professional mountain climbers, forest preservers, ocean-bound workers... people that rely on high quality clothing much more than you and I would. That too, is very purposeful. And most importantly, it is about the product itself, which we'll get back too.
There is plenty more indirect evidence too. The Big Four accountancy firms (EY, Deloitte, KPMG and PWC) all have clear purpose-driven missions and plenty of reports on brand purpose and meaning. And when they have it, there must be money in it, right? Although I can't back this up with numbers, I feel we should give them the benefit of the doubt here since the accountancy world also has to report to the government and has arguably made some really great strides into sustainability the past years. There is a catch though, in the advisory business often surrounding the accountancy business, the big consultancies don't get an easy free pass. Yes, IBM has the reputation to keep their word, as a 'good' example. But McKinsey is well-known for their decades-long greenwashing practices.
But, let's stay positive for the moment. Although now the situation is again different, we certainly can also take into account the impressive growth of Unilever's sustainable brands when they held their overall 'Vitality' positioning in the 2010's. Having such a clear purpose under all these vastly different brands for vastly different target groups gave them an edge that under Paul Polman his supervision gave them a really, really good bottom-line.
The fact that for a long time now between two-thirds and three-quarters of all the award-winning campaigns at Cannes Lions are socially-driven is also a clear indicator that at least in advertising terms, having purpose-driven brands is a clear winner. These campaigns are not only judged on how 'morally' good they are but very much on their sales impacts too.
A few numbers
I feel I don't have to bombard you with numbers on this one, since there are so many studies confirming brand purpose - sometimes also referred to as brand 'meaningfulness'. Yet, I do want to add some criticism and insights to the numbers that I feel need to be added to keep this whole purpose thing honest.
Let's throw down some rough numbers first. Kantar for instance, has been on the purpose train for a while now. This is their most recent report with findings emphasizing this. They show numbers like 50% reduced churn, 70% premium on your prices, 2,5 times more likely to increase market share. Forbes too, is on that train, but crucially... the numbers and articles - after a clear surge during the pandemic - start to die down after 2022 on the purpose and meaning subject.
We do still see increasingly clear numbers among the middle class when it comes to consciously buying 'meaningful or purpose driven brands'. About half of the Western consumer already do this if we can trust the numbers from all the various researches, and among younger people this is even more pronounced.
Yet here, there is big crack in all this purpose reasoning too.
Edelman's Trust Barometer has for years now been showing us that brands and companies are almost universally - and deeply - distrusted across the board in report after report, with at times trust going below the 20% threshold. The once even coined it all The Age of Distrust. We're also seeing that consumers don't believe most of the sustainable claims being made and have plenty of evidence to come to that conclusion (Volkswagen's carbon emissions anyone?). Meaningful Brands from Havas Media has been reporting for over 15 years now numbers between 70 and 80% of all global big brands that would not be missed if they'd stop existing today.
This is what I'm getting at: there's a gap between the reports that tell us how much more success you will get with purpose, while at the same time the vast majority of brands and businesses do not seem to be successful at all in reliably relaying their purpose. In other words, you can't have both. You can't say that purpose brings success, while in reality purpose means even higher marketing budgets are needed. Especially as we are seeing trust in brands and companies still being low and even falling, while marketing budgets keep growing.
Which one is it? It's either that purpose is working... or that it is not.
So, it's no surprise then that the debate is still heated after all these years. Where do we go from here? What is the truth?
The real meaning of purpose for the receiver of the message
The best way to describe the truth around purpose is to point out the wishes of the consumer and then compare it to the effectiveness in which brands and businesses are able to convince these consumers that they are the real deal.
Then, and only then will these numbers in all of these reports make sense. On the one hand all of the research shows that consumers will reward companies with a clear and good purpose. While on the other hand they show us by that consumers and audiences believe the vast, overwhelming majority of companies is simply not fulfilling their purpose effectively.
The wish for purpose is different than the reality of purpose, which in turn is different from the image of purpose.
And even those who do real good can still suffer significant damage because of this image gap. A prime example is Starbucks, which is very vocal—and successful—in its mission to strengthen communities. They honestly do good work there. However, the public is just as vocal when it turns out that you are evading taxes, and for a while at least, avoided Starbucks for it (until that case was publicly forgotten). Evading taxes is certainly not community-friendly. Here we see that having the community purpose is being off set by the tax-evasion thing.
There are unfortunately plenty of other examples too. I'm sure you can come up with dozens of them. A quick few examples from my side to spark your thinking: Google, with its "Do no evil" mission and purpose, has bowed to Chinese censorship a while back, and has recently been convicted in court for running a monopoly, among many other dubious things and cases. Of course, people still use Google (so do I) but alternatives such as Ecosia - who plant trees from their revenue - have a clear 'in' into the game.
I myself for instance now use Ecosia more than Google since it is abundantly clear that Google does not fulfill their own purpose. If however, Google had not claimed the whole 'do no evil' thing, I feel I'd be more positive, and use them more often. it's the lie that hurts the most. In purpose, sustainability, diversity and socially responsible branding, it's often already enough that we're not being lied to.
We see the clear downside of having a purpose on the one end, while not living up to it on the other end. Especially in the case of diversity in the United States we've had plenty of examples, such as Budweiser using a trans-person in a commercial after making their purpose more diverse, but then backtracking when it got some flack. It begged the question: why do the whole purpose thing if you're not prepared to go all the way, in the first place? If they had just stayed silent, they wouldn't have received flack from both sides of the political divide in the US, and would not have suffered any revenue loss.
We know the answer to that of course. If you say the purpose, you've got to also do it.
Budweiser is a good example of the fierceness of the discussions surrounding the new roles in society of businesses and brands. Companies everywhere are scrambling to become more diverse. Not for moral reasons, but for bottom line reasons. The fight over good personnel is very, very real and probably at the top of the agenda in every major company across the globe. It's a war for talent that can only be won when you diversify your workforce. Plus, your customer base is likely to be very diverse by now too. And if it's not... you're losing market share. Therefore, it makes sense from a revenue, consumer and company culture point of view to go full-on diverse. Yet, it can backfire (quite spectacularly...) if you don't see it through.
Their you have it, the dilemma in plain view. Budweiser has no other choice than to embrace everything (or is it every one?) with diversity or else they lose market share and talent... yet their core demographic doesn't much like it, begging the question what their purpose really is.
Their big competitor Heineken had a similar problem that was more fleshed out in Europe with their alleged exploitation of women a while back went directly against their purpose thinking. The problem was similar to Budweiser's. On the one hand they were just being a 'boy's beer' with man appreciating sexy women, and these women being part of a campaign. That may not be according to your personal tastes, yet Heineken has every freedom to do so if this fits their purpose. I'm not judging your taste here, or Heineken's. But what I am judging is the fact that in their purpose they were clearly going for a women friendly thing. I'm judging the self-created gap between the diverse purpose, and the reality.
Again, maybe if you can't live up to it... why pose it?
Recently, there was also Apple their commercial destroying all kinds of instruments and creative gear going against their own creative purpose (brilliantly countered by Samsung by the way). Although that should be considered just a mishap I feel, for which they quickly apologized. Still, it was the first time ever that my mind considered a Samsung...
...and that actually brings us to some general conclusions. When we step back for a moment and take it all in, the big question all of the above raises is not so much whether or not you should use purpose - I think you should - but the way you use it that is ultimately the key to success or failure. The question is: can you live up to it in your actions? This is our conclusion for now:
Purpose - with all of its sustainable, social and diverse meanings attached - is something consumers clearly, even desperately want as the new standard, while at the same time they feel that living up to the purpose is something the vast majority of companies fail in. And the measure of that success or failure is whether our not you can live up - in real world actions, not words - to the standards that you have set yourself.
Embrace the conflict
In other words... are you lying to yourself or telling yourself the truth? What is the story you tell yourself? And this brings us to conflict and friction as storytelling lessons. First off, one could start by doing no harm instead of shouting about how morally superior you are. Half the battle seems to be not to brag about it, but just to do it. If you can’t live up to a purpose, that’s okay. Not every consumer demands it yet, and most distrust it anyway. But please, at the very least, don’t shoot yourself in the foot by lying. That’s what demonstrably does the most damage.
It's better to shut up, than to lie and having to put up.
The insight is that in storytelling terms, embracing the frictions and challenges is still the best way to go. Many companies struggle with their purpose. This struggle occurs because being sustainable and social is simply not easy, especially if you shoot to far from target with your purpose for your audience, like our beer brands did. Behavioral change too often happens quite slowly. And you know what? That's okay. In fact, it's something you can actively position yourself on.
My advice is always: tell the whole story, especially the difficult part. That makes you human. Like Tony Chocolonely (here in conversation with Kantar). They are not 100% sustainable, nor do they claim to be, but in the corrupt cocoa market, you earn a lot of goodwill just by trying. And so that is literally their purpose: they fight to make it sustainable. But they don't claim they are there yet.
Another good piece of advice is of course to have this purpose resonate across the board: with your customers, with your suppliers, your stakeholders, your partners and most importantly, embedded within the company culture. That's the power of good storytelling that embraces both truth and friction.
And here we run into another problem with purpose. The two new stakeholder groups—society and employees—have not yet been elevated in our thinking to the same level as the two traditional stakeholders—customers and shareholders.
Cutting away ideals
An important example of how this can go wrong is Etsy. This digital marketplace was originally set up to strengthen traditional crafts with a strong emphasis on "women empowerment." Clearest purpose ever. In fact, it used to be a company with clear ideals, that were completely integrated into a smart business model. This made it a gem of Silicon Alley (New York).
Yes, you've read it... used to be. After an IPO some years ago, suddenly more than 200 people were laid off without notice. This group was specially selected: everyone involved in long-term planning and the core purpose was out the door. They deliberately cut the soul out of the company. It felt truly diabolical.
The end result was a slightly more profitable company... but the core was gone, as was its B-Corps status. The moment the profits were 'in' from this move, shareholders could take their money and be out of there.
Don't get me wrong, I still (want to) love Etsy. But this is something Etsy still struggles with today in terms of growth, product development, brand image and especially recruitment. For some, the IPO gave them some money. But it damaged so, so much. The decision to do the IPO in the first place can therefore be heavily questioned... especially for the shareholders themselves.
The price of losing their purpose proved high. It wasn't necessary either. Here and there, small business losses were incurred. But these were due to investments in meaningful—and soon to be profitable—projects. All of this is now largely gone, along with Etsy's real financial potential. In other words, even when you look at it as purely financial purpose, this whole ordeal clearly missed the mark.
Anti-entrepreneurial
It's quite shocking. Even the most die-hard capitalist understands that you can't cut so deeply into a company's origin and purpose. And the strange thing is: it's the shareholder who loses out. It seems like a phase of denial, a conservative attitude that amounts to a zero-sum game. It feels cynical and anti-entrepreneurial. And profoundly anti-capitalist too: this was a clear example of how not to use limited resources. These types of shareholders need to learn that they are no longer the sole owners... with this added as the ultimate irony... if they want to make more money.
Organizations now also belong to employees, customers, and society: four stakeholders in total.This, of course, makes things more complicated. But also not; you get much less hassle from civil society when holding on to the purpose instead of gutting it, your support base becomes significantly larger, your brand reputation grows, and with it, your market share as well, and your costs for compliance with governments and such goes down. Just ask the brands we discussed in the beginning of the article. Yet... too shareholders keep falling back into those old patterns.
Should purpose be thrown in the trashcan or not?
This is another key reason why the debate is still raging. Many shareholders to this day are still not convinced that, in addition to profit and growth maximization, a purpose should be part of the positioning. There still seems to be significant tension between purpose (acting in the interest of society) and positioning (capturing the largest possible market share).
From this perspective, the press is indeed right to cast doubt on all of this purpose-stuff: whoever you may blame (Consumers? Companies? Shareholders? Politicians? Researchers?) the reality is it just too often turns out to be a facade. It feels like the latest gimmick from the marketing department and brand consultants. So, should purpose be thrown in the trashcan again?
The answer is no. Purpose should stay.
That 'no' however, has nothing to do with marketing or branding and everything to do with how humanity is now evolving. There is increasingly more room in our society for self-development. A growing group of people is turning away from material success and seeking something higher: a holistic world. At the same time, we want to maintain our material achievements. So, we try to build a paradox: material success with immaterial meaning. We do this by seeing everything as a connected whole: Holism. Which is now evolving into more specific, smaller themes.
Of course, I'm not saying these things as some kind of a political statement. I'm saying it for the bottom line. We have now reached a point where the broader, holistic view is the main driver of innovation and is now embraced by the majority of brands and businesses... even when they are not yet as successful at it as they can be. It means that businesses very clearly understand where it's going. The execution however, is still not great
So at the moment, the purpose-driven thinking of companies is not pure enough. But the trend that causes it—holism—is. It is genuine. Sometimes still, business people find it difficult to believe in it and even become cynical about it. But that’s merely projection on your part. Because the reality is that the purpose-driven stuff, in addition to being a more spiritual concept, has also become an extraordinarily successful and concrete way of thinking. That still very few companies are implementing, meaning there is still a large opportunity for success.
Sustainable foundation
Due to the combination of the environmental movement, emancipation, the internet, and crises, after a few decades, we have returned to a philosophical base rooted in the principles of figures such as Christ, Buddha, Mandela, Erasmus, and Mohammed: "Do not harm others with what harms you."
A key lesson around purpose is, therefore: "Do no harm." Or if we translate it into practical business terms: do as little harm as possible, and be honest about it. It is still not possible for most companies - with a few exceptions - to make their products without doing any harm. However, this is also not needed or even wanted by the consumer. What is needed and wanted is the effort itself and honesty about its execution. Your mindset should be that of a die-hard: we're going to do everything in our power to do as little harm as possible.
Now, on the branding and storytelling side we've already seen plenty of examples how to do it and how not to, including the examples we've discussed above. But on the simpler business side this attitude also garners success. Not just as an inspiration for the innovation department, but also on the cost-side of your balance sheet. Energy costs for instance, can be drastically reduced by implementing holistic purposes. For instance your own solar panels. Or reducing water-usage also has a nice effect on that balance sheet for many big players. I'd say you can fill in the rest of these gaps yourself.
The next step into using purpose as a mechanism for greater revenue is the realization that sustainability is now merely a hygiene factor. Repositioning on sustainability is often unsuccessful because—despite what many marketers and consultants claim—it is no longer really relevant and distinctive today. It’s outdated by now: if you don't have it, it's your own fault. You need to go a step further: the product itself must become central to your social role.
Product and purpose need to become one.
Combining product and purpose
Take the Always campaign 'Like a Girl' from some time ago that still lingers in their overall storytelling today, which strongly addresses stereotypes surrounding women and young girls. This fits with the holistic trend where gender issues are discussed. But more importantly, it fits the product because gender issues for women often emerge when menstruation begins. And yes, connecting the product to a social purpose helps their bottom-line.
Similarly, the famous (and apologies if it has been discusses too many times...) Nike campaign that embraced the criticized Colin Kaepernick taking a knee with his national anthem to protest against ongoing racism, still makes sense. For the simple reason that he is an athlete. Athletes and Nike push themselves to the limit. So, regardless of your moral opinion on that case, it cannot be denied that linking the product with the purpose through an athlete, was distinctively Nike. Their sales by the way, went through the roof at that moment.
And that of course brings us back to our earlier warning and the risks involved in making social statements, no matter how strong your campaign is, when the purpose message is not aligned with your product. For instance, comedian Trevor Noah—a strong defender of Kaepernick at that time—couldn’t resist the anti-Nike jokes when he philosophized about the new social role of companies: "I really want to buy this toaster… but what are its views on abortion?"
You can go too far, as in the "Free The Kids" campaign by Persil/Omo, where playing outside is compared to prisoners' yard time. It’s a nice attempt, and I love their 'Outdoor Play' purpose that has helped their bottom line significantly, but linking crime and outdoor play in that particular campaign was just too far removed from the product. The campaign thus bombed.
The creativity of the holistic approach lies in coming up with better connections between people and the product, even if it’s commercially driven and means involving more stakeholders. Let’s call that the 'holistic efficiency paradox': by connecting to more than profit alone, you make more profit alone.
Now, to finish the article, let's see how exactly to integrate this into your positioning and your brand storytelling, according to today's zeitgeist surrounding purpose.
How to combine positioning, purpose and brand storytelling.
The goal of positioning is to optimize all elements of a brand's story - vision, mission, values, culture, proposition and such - to gain the largest possible market share. It is traditionally competitively driven: you 'conquer' market share from your competitors. And here, we naturally see the tension between purpose—acting in the interest of society—and positioning—acting to increase market share.
The best way to resolve this tension is by adding the purpose element to brand positioning based on the product, as we saw in our examples of both success and failure . The general rule of thumb is that the closer your social role is to the meaning of your product, the stronger, more concrete, and more honest your purpose will be. In other words, you won't have to go out of your way to convince people your purpose is okay if it is already really close to the product and the target audience. By definition, this is therefore already (closer to) honesty (read: lower marketing budgets too).
The discussion in the press shows that purpose has now become a means of creating differentiation under the influence of marketers. Additionally, it has become a way to attract and retain high-quality staff. Purposeful brands can also be more expensive, which means the company’s results grow as well. And finally, it also creates goodwill with politicians and various social organizations, meaning your job of doing business is likely to become easier.
Crystal Clear Conditions: Product & Doing
That’s a very clear and convincing list of benefits to adding purpose as an element to positioning and brand storytelling, which brings me to the conclusion that despite the many discussions, purpose is still very relevant today. It was more than a passing fad and has cemented itself into company storytelling now.
Note, however, that all of this rests on one crystal clear condition: the social role must align with the role of the product and it must be done not said. So don’t think from the perspective of 'marketing and communication'. For purpose, think from the product’s perspective. And therefore automatically the entire company, which, after all, rests on that product.
Marketing Director Alex Weller (Patagonia) told us: “You can’t reverse into purpose through marketing.” So, elevate it to the highest level. The CEO, executive board, supervisory board, shareholders, and product development department must all embrace it.
That next important rule regarding purpose is that ‘doing’ is more important than ‘saying’. UBS, for example, found that the new trend among millionaires—both young and old—is giving back to society. And that group did not turn to them for wealth management. In response, UBS created the Unlimited platform; a place where discussions about the future of society take place. Featuring guests like Stephen Hawking, Lewis Hamilton, and Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), along with collaborations with media such as Vice, Vanity Fair, and Monocle.
Although the platform is now gone, it’s a lesson in how important content marketing can be for all stakeholders... when you ultimately make true on your promise to actually, physically, invest. UBS did. On the one hand, UBS had attracted new clients and content distributors (60% of whom are female). On the other hand, a substantial amount of capital had been freed up that—under UBS’s guidance—is being invested in sustainable, purpose-driven projects. A win-win for shareholders, millionaires, society and environment. A win for purpose.
And you don't even have to be vocal about it, if that suits the purpose better. Take the Mars Group. They have been silent about their transition to biodegradable plastic. Why? Not because they weren't proud. But because they are afraid people will throw wrappers on the street if they know those wrappers are biodegradable... So they’re doing a double good deed.
And we heard about it in the pub. Meaning that mouth-to-mouth the brand was strengthened. Free advertising for Mars… by saying nothing.
And just one more, the one you may already know about but that highlights the success of purpose. The well-known Let’s Colour Project—right at the heart of the paint product and Flexa their purpose with this product—has now started close to three thousands projects, trained nearly fifty thousand people, recruited over twelve thousand volunteers, and used almost 1.4 million liters of paint.
In other words, when it comes to purpose... Just do it.
Love, as always,
Rogier
And check out my latest book The Whole Story - The Ultimate Guide to Storytelling!
Kommentare