Profit and Purpose

Marketers use an odd language when they talk to one another. Words like ‘positioning’ and ‘values’ and ‘authenticity’ pop up, which, to the rest of us, are close to meaningless when related to how we perceive brands.

A particularly strong word that marketers throw around is purpose. Supposedly, purpose is a brands reason for existing beyond making money (ironically structured in such a way as to make more money). 

'Purpose' means little to consumers for a number of reasons. One reason is because the strategies marketers use to create a sense of purpose are invisible to consumers (as they should be). But mostly, it is because most brands aren’t bought because of a strong sense of purpose.

No, they are instead bought because the effective elements of a brand that marketers attribute to purpose are actually any number of the following: value, popularity, social proof, distinctiveness, high salience… etc. etc. It is easy to post-rationalise that a spike in sales is due to a brand’s strong sense of purpose, when in fact it is because the brand is simply more widely known.

That being said, there are a number of strategies marketers commonly use to breed purpose, usually with the goal of making a brand appear trustworthy.

Being trustworthy is important, as consumers are highly effective bullshit detectors. For any brand that is not bought habitually through choice architecture alone, it is beneficial for consumers to know that they are not some evil soul-sucking conglomerate.

And the fact is, we’re always looking for excuses not to get behind a product or cause, because, guess what, we’re all kind of lazy and critical of everything. It’s almost as if we believe that there’s a ‘limit’ to how much we can effectively give a shit about at any one time.

This is why brands that are thoroughly considered (i.e. technology brands, car brands) pride themselves on having a strong sense of purpose, whereas brands that are repeatedly and habitually bought (i.e. commodity brands, supermarket brands) rarely bother with the idea.

So, here are some common strategies that marketers push in order to make their brand appear purposeful:

Transparency and Authenticity

Marketers love the idea that a brand’s internal culture must mirror their stated purpose in order to be successful. This is the only area where smaller brands have the upper hand, as they appear more transparent by virtue of being smaller.

Larger brands that are more widely spread have difficulty appearing transparent, as their internal culture varies from region to region. (Starbucks was never going to work in Australia).

This is why family-owned and start-up businesses experience such surging popularity in certain categories. They are perceived as reliable, trustworthy, and consistent.

Authenticity ties into this, although it has mostly devolved into a buzzword with little meaning. Yes, the idea of authenticity is devoid of any authenticity. Again, smaller brands are perceived to be more ‘authentic’, simply because they are more localised.

These qualities seem to sell, for reasons heatedly debated by marketers. Some swear by them, others think they are horseshit. Some, like myself, are on the fence.

Social Responsibility vs. Social Image

Is it more important to be right or to be cool? Well, it depends on what a brand is selling and how its ‘purpose’ is communicated.  Charity brands, for example, have more of a duty to be responsible, but don’t get far without some ‘coolness’ to their image.

Like anything, skewing too far one way or the other can have consequences. PETA focus too much on being cool, and not enough on being right. They have run some horrible campaigns as a result, have received constant backlash and opposition, and are viewed by many as unethical.

Some brands skew the other way, and focus too much on trying to be responsible in areas where they needn’t be at all. Starbucks is the famous example.

A brand’s degree of responsibility and social image is dependent on whatever it is selling.  An animal rights brand using sex to sell deviates pretty far from its stated purpose, as does a coffee brand trying to get involved in race issues.

It’s best to stay relevant. The idea is to talk more as stuff is happening, but not to butt in where you’re not needed.

So, brands that are viewed as purposeful tend to be transparent, authentic socially responsible, and have a strong social image. These values can benefit a brand considerably, and there are examples of it happening, but they aren’t the be-all-and-end-all of a brand’s success.

Tried-and-true strategies – salience, distinctive assets, social proof – will always be needed to gain market share.

It can be argued that the idea of ‘purpose’ only exists to please clients, to make them feel better about the brand they’re pushing, to alleviate them of the realisation that they are just another cog in the capitalist machine. It’s jaded and cynical, sure, but I’m not going to discount it completely.

Regardless, purpose does have correlates with a number of attributes that successful brands possess. Even huge brands, like Apple, are always showing us how transparent, authentic, and socially responsible they are.

Does it mean anything? Do they really not care about anything else besides making money? Well, that can be debated until the end of time.

a.ce