The Priceless and the P's: A Marketing Fairytale

Once upon a time, in the 1960s, the American Marketing Association introduced the Four Ps concept—product, price, place, and promotion—as fundamental elements of the traditional marketing mix. However, brands have felt persuaded to adopt a more holistic approach to appease woke mobs demanding ecological and social justice and subdue their modern-day pitchforks, the weaponized capacity to click "unfollow" and "unsubscribe."

As time wore on, the construct of "trust" emerged as the cornerstone of modern business and marketing strategies, emphasizing engagement, connection, and storytelling over traditional promotional techniques that prioritize the sale of inventory and downplay the scale of their impact. In this context, the Four 'P's had to get redefined to embody essential aspects of a vibrant business culture capable of transforming individuals who were once cogs in the capitalistic wheel into crusaders evangelizing a brand's changemaker spiel. Instead of being cordoned off in cubicles, employees could now convene around co-working roundtables to spread the mission and vision of the company intentionally and evocatively with "Passion," "Purpose", "Positioning", and "Personality."

According to this progressive proclamation, "Passion" ensures a brand leader's deep commitment and enthusiasm for the business, which translates into catalyzing growth and inspiring others to align their values with the company's mission. Imbue this with Purpose and the same business no longer has an existential crisis, it knows its raison d'etre, and why it engages employees and customers toward attaining a common goal. The term "Purpose", as it was initially qualified by marketing spell casters, should not be confused with how "Purpose" is defined today, where it is used synonymously with having a social and environmental conscience and moral compass. Positioning delivered the golden goose egg of a unique value proposition to the brand, enabling it to distinguish its market presence through its sense of purpose rather than with mere product features. This was then elegantly tied together by Personality, a sense of anthropomorphized whimsy and character most brands embody without the self-awareness, self-work, self-integrity and self-actualisation to back it up. Having a personality meant that brands could become relatable; by reflecting human traits and characteristics to their consumer audience, they began to claim other expressive scaffolding like authenticity and connection, not unlike AI. If it acts like it's genuinely human and speaks like it's genuinely human, it's probably a bot or a brand. Deducibly, when mimicry is executed without depth and dimension, it undoes the illusion of being human, rendering both bots and brands incapable of earnest vulnerability, originality, and intimacy.

Sometime later, a marketing wizard summoned several additional Ps to make brands appear even more conscientious. The anointed original four Ps were given three new familial relations, "Physical Evidence" "Process" and "People."

"Physical Evidence" used to be known as "Packaging", but then it came to express every aspect of the brand that customers related to, from the place of business to the design of the company's spaces, logo, branding, packaging, social media presence, and everything else that offered a brand a tangible instance of interaction.

"Process" zeroed in on customer experience, ensuring it was effortless, enticing, and exceptional. While user experience is significant, limiting the scope of this P word, Process, makes light of the term's relevance and omnipresence in our biosphere. 'Process' is vital to all rhythms and relationships in life, yet this word's holistic expression remained unacknowledged in the Marketing Mix, brazenly underscoring the chasm between corporations and coexistence. Marketers resorted to pedestrian and frivolous copy because they leaned toward convenience over compassion and intriguing over-inclusive, attempting to 'Keep Things Simple Stupid' at the cost of sincerely understanding the complexities of our world. Why be comprehensive when you can resort to catchy, inaccurate reductivism?

"People," under this framing, did not explore civil engagement or harness the wisdom of the crowds; instead, it zoomed in on every individual within or related to the brand that made or had a point of contact with a brand customer and tried to optimize those human touch points. Once again, a marketing warlock had managed to diminish the true significance and weight of responsibility the word "people" carries and whittle it down to its most banal and short-sighted premise. And we wonder at town square gatherings why brands widen the cracks in society and broaden the gulf between industry and nature... it is because the foundational language that helped build these capitalistic empires was and still is fundamentally flawed and fractured. Words are taken out of context. Words like "nature" are given broad enough definitions to allow companies to exploit loopholes in favour of profit and performance above holistic considerations. Many corporations benefit from intentionally manipulating the definition and scope of certain words as it helps them shirk responsibility and defer consequences to the next generation or external stakeholders. This play on semantics carries through to how language is framed and expressed in policies, treaties, and other legal agreements they can influence to further line the pockets of their shareholders.

Naturally, these disingenuous theatrics fell short of actual accountability, courage of character, and integrity. Consequently, the hoodwinked peasants revolted again with their wallets and votes. The corporate kingdom endured another uprising from the likes of data-backed common sense that spelt out for corporations the need to spend less time striving to mirror marketing mixes with the mellifluous alliteration of words beginning with the alphabet P and more time enacting systemic changes within and beyond their organizations. External stakeholders wanted to see brands invest significant resources in building their competence and capacities to address the world's complex social and ecological challenges proactively.

Swooping in to defend the moat of the capitalist castle were high-level strategy development firms, who slayed the dragons and demons of oxymorons and antithetical realities with surveys, polls, rebrands and new brand verbiage, all for a hefty fee that companies happily coughed up. Pretending to do the right thing by hiring more middlemen and squandering more resources to place more distance between direct action and the institution in question seems to be the modus operandi of the day. They churned out graphs and tables in pretty colours, pictorially depicting what was crucial for brands to model out in their reports. They discerned that for businesses to honestly tout a moral compass and conscience and effectively address social and ecological crises, the companies would need to go beyond just marketing strategies and consider integrating sustainability, ethics, and social responsibility into their core business practices. These reports were groundbreaking; they brought to life what would be self-evident if common sense, not bureaucracy, prevailed in corporate culture. These mindblowing insights sent local weather patterns into a celebratory tizzy, and biodiversity burst into song and dance over projected timelines devoid of tangible recourses to warrant social and ecological justice. The intrepid, villain-vanquishing consulting goliaths required brands to champion a more holistic approach that involved creating more environmentally friendly products and services capable of supporting communities, fair trade principles, the just treatment of workers, and ethical supply chain practices.

The fair citizens of the consumerist haven dared to expect more, though; they wanted corporations to lower their drawbridges long enough to allow the redistribution of some of their plundered wealth into regional resiliency, social well-being, public health, and environmental stewardship. The public outcry underscored the need for companies to not only focus on their own agendas but also to work cooperatively towards collective solutions proficient at driving positive change at a larger scale.

The fairytale of the Marketing Mix Ps ended when engaged consumers and enlightened family-owned businesses finally embraced conscious coupling, which led to the birth of the 5 Ps of Sustainable Development, which reframes the 17 SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) under each: People, Peace, Planet, Prosperity, and Partnerships. The new offspring were expected to infuse their essence into every aspect of the 4 original Ps of traditional marketing: Product, Price, Place, and Promotion but the extent to which that occurs is compromised by varying degrees of sibling rivalry between the old Marketing Mix Ps and the new SDGs Mix of Ps. With each P vying for the throne at the cost of the other, not knowing quite how to reconcile their differences despite all the therapy sessions at Davos and COP. On the sparse occasions when all the "P" offspring played well together, they still could not evince long-term conviction toward accomplishing critical environmental targets, sustainability goals, climate action milestones, and social justice outcomes.

These new Ps were beautifully distinguished principles, validated by the United Nations, and moored in a known framework, however vague. They were noble, recognisable, and keen on addressing the oversights of the traditional Ps. These Ps were eager to account for the subjective aspects of human and social well-being and the objective limits of ecological systems while still helping brands remunerate, except this time around, they would not be resulting in conflict and chaos to pinch the next dollar; the money would be realized collaboratively to ensure an era of peace and prosperity. In this brave new world order of bloated late-stage capitalism with its chronic inflammatory and corrosive tendencies, these Ps were going to behave like a deluded justice league. People now finally denoted human beings from all walks of life, particularly the marginalised, the hungry, the impoverished, the excluded and impinged. Goals: 1. No Poverty, 2. No Hunger, 3. Good Health and Well-being, 4. Quality Education, 5. Gender Equality, and 6. Clean Water and Sanitation would all fall under the social auspices of the People pillar. Next in line is Prosperity, a rehashed way of keeping us on the known hamster wheel while washing it a new shade of green, assures everyone that we can suddenly behave ethically and equitably within a schematic that is driven toward exponential cancerous growth, and ensures everyone leads prosperous fulfilling lives in harmony with the wild biosphere. Goals: 7. Affordable and Clean Energy 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth, 9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, 10. Reduced Inequalities fall under this economic banner. Planet laughably strives to protect the earth and all natural resources and global climate despite our daily inability to honour any of the hard limits imposed by shared scientific consensus. Goals: 11. Sustainable Cities and Communities, 12. Responsible Consumption and Production 13. Climate Action, 14. Life Below Water and 15. Life on Land is within the purview of this P's environmental umbrella. Peace intends to foster peaceful and inclusive societies. Never mind that entities of all sizes and calibre have managed to put their ad spend to reduce visibility on the wars and helped us all turn a blind eye to the atrocities unfolding in Gaza and Ukraine while continuing to consume their non-essential wares in the nations we live in. Never mind, many of these brands assumed a voice of compassion and political persuasion before they decided that having a backbone hurt more than helped their bottom lines. Never mind, many brands we continue to buy from have managed to profit off consumer bases in the nations perpetrating the attacks. Few can behave in as morally ambiguous a manner as a multinational conglomerate. Yet this most audacious of the Ps promises to uphold the elusive premise of Goal 16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Lastly, we have the fifth P, Partnership, because we cannot have progress without the synergy and symbiosis this pillar executes. It aims to implement networking on a global level, Tinder for Treaties, Match for Mavens, consolidating the final goal, 17. Partnerships For the Goals.

If this story could have a wise sage in the midst, the Gandalfesque hermit would draw a line in the sand with a staff and proclaim, "You shall not pass." To state the obvious, a brand or an institution cannot attempt to work out that which is priceless with a language that places a price on everything. Everything living and non-living that is endemic to the biosphere and not anthropogenically generated adheres to seasonal cycles, circular flows, and continuous transformation to increase the availability of critical resources. Everything "mankind" has given rise to is linear, segmented, degrades to create toxic waste, and decreases the availability of essential resources.

Stewardship does not emerge from formulaic thinking; it stems from pioneering necessary, comprehensive action even when it is the most challenging choice to follow through on. Brands need to possess the mettle to extend clemency, not complacency, to all stakeholders in the brand ecosystem, especially to those factions who disagree with brand agendas.

Since the mainstream consumerist empire relies on the building blocks of Ps, the ones that matter most are the ones innately found in nature. Every duchy in the kingdom is looking to deploy "Nature Based," "Nature Positive," "Carbon Neutral," and "Net Zero" solutions that foster diversity, advance equity, reduce waste, and replenish ecological reserves; the model I am going to propose is thus the only recourse to pursue. The P's in play for sustainability sound aligned with the goals but are not inherently anchored in or emulate ecology. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole yet again without acknowledging the hard edges.

Most fairytales portray their royalty as being able to commune with wildlife, with a predisposition to nurture nature's expression in their everyday activities, consquently in this fairytale too, it is only right that the incorporated fiefdom embraces a wild-fluent disposition. At this juncture of the narrative, I care to step in as a brand shaman compelled to intervene and bridge the hiatus between brands and the biosphere. Fortunately, I have just the thing, a potent potion capable of curing all that ails corporations because they are the currently divorced spouses of nature desperately trying to keep on top of their alimony checks.

Without further delay here is the therapeutic elixir of the day, the Eco-Dynamic Model, the only Nature-Positive, Nature-Derived Ps in circulation: Presence, Process, Participate, Populate, Purge, and Pause. The terms that comprise the Eco-Dynamic Model not only enlist elemental ecology that is life-cycle focused, and aligned with seasonal flows, but it is rooted in observable phenomena that occur all around us and are thus easy to replicate.

The 6 Ps of the Eco-Dynamic Model

1. Presence: Nature is always unfolding in the present, while there may be moments when animals think ahead, or reflect on the past, for the most part, the wild is constantly alert, aware, and fully available to the moment at hand. Both at a species and ecosystem level, nature's many inanimate and animate aspects are constantly interacting with one another, always optimizing for efficiency and equilibrium.

Brands can assimilate such coherence and effectiveness by restructuring themselves in ways that empower them to be more present. By building lean interdisciplinary niches of layered expertise within its larger, more slow-moving umbrella, it can still retain a nimble, adaptive, and accessible approach to global and regional realities. Being present also entails authenticity, and genuine availability to life as it is happening, which requires vulnerability and integrity, not marketing mixes and advertising spin. Brands should streamline how they extend themselves both online and offline, prioritizing dispute resolution and conflict reduction while enhancing all channels of communication and connection to feel consistently intimate and effective.

2. Process: In nature, everything follows a natural process of growth, change, death, decay, and renewal. Similarly, brands should focus on life cycles in every aspect of their footprint, from business operations, supply chains, and brand outreach to packaging, product development, and distribution.

I will be breaking this down in a future article, but brands need to step out of their industry jargon and embrace the self-evident language of life itself. Veer away from "Ideation, Validation, Prototyping, Marketing, Development, Launch" which makes it seem like something comes into existence from solely the human ego and mind, rather imbue it with context from the outset and simplify to what has worked for 4.6 Billion years for everything from stars to starfish, "Birth, Growth and Transformation, Reproduction, Death, Decay, Reassimilation and Remnants." Instead of coming up with a new buzz word every season, and having to a coin a new hashtag to make it feel relevant, perhaps just imitate what nature has figured out. Regenerative is covered in this definition of process, so is Net Zero, Scope 3 Emissions, and all the other vocabulary brands have doubled down on in recent years. Every one of those terms is still representative of aspects of nature but not truly rooted in it.

The Eco-Dynamic Model's focus on "Process" ensures nothing gets wasted, that remainders are self-contained, inert, or accounted for, and everything loops back on itself. Not only would this save a brand a tremendous number of costs but it would prove inherently sustainable to our Earth as it would behave how everything else in the universe and on this planet behaves. Bring it back to the basics, repeat what has been tried and trued for millennia before the human race even came into existence.

3. Participate: Nature is distributive, assimilative, subtractive, osmotic, in flow, and in an incessant state of exchange and release. It is alive, engaged, and constantly collaborating, thriving because of its predilection to build, transmute, and destroy intentionally, directionally, and to the benefit of the whole. Brands need to adopt a similar state of dynamic contribution and productive deletion, by engaging with all of its stakeholders, and its social and environmental landscapes, just as robustly and mindfully. Brands can opt for materials that simulate nature's membranes and strive to reach balance in every process within its organizational structure. Brands can enrich, educate, enlist, and embolden their customers, employees, and communities, they can explore waste repurposing, composting, and disintegration into valuable constituents. Brands can be feedback-driven during every stage of the Eco-Dynamic Process, ensuring equitable access to innovation, reciprocity in stakeholder relationships, and shared beneficial outcomes.

4. Populate: Nature is abundant and diverse, with different species coexisting and contributing to the ecosystem at different times of day, during different seasons, and for different reasons. Lifespans also vary for each of nature's actors. Brands have yet to approach populating the world with their products, services, and experiences as holistically as nature does. Brands also fail to develop products in packaging that are capable of delivering more than one use case or alleviating more than one pain point over the course of its life span to either the same or two different customer segments. Brands need to diversify their product offerings such that the death and decay stages of their inventory can be viable for the enterprise, perhaps resulting in minerals, nutrients, raw materials, catalysts, and outcomes that can be productively redeployed toward the creation of new products or used in other supply chain processes. Brands do not do half as much as they can because they still cling to the old way of doing things, inundating shelves with heavily packaged products they never reclaim, evidence minimal responsibility for, and fail to see as a resource. By negligently entering new markets with such flawed merchandise, they cause the same problems worldwide. Defining population solely through the lens of increasing market share by targeting different demographics is myopic, but to create products and services that work in various permutations at every stage of their respective lifecycles to benefit as many people as possible is hugely advantageous to all involved. Can you imagine the number of revenue streams creating constant abundance for all brand stakeholders in such a pulsating brand ecosystem?

5. Purge: In nature, there is a natural cycle of renewal and purification through processes like disease, death, destruction, degeneration, and decomposition. Brands hold these words as negatives instead of leveraging these processes to bolster resiliency in their products, practices, methods, messaging, and deliverables. Proactively placing hard limits or instituting checks and balances, termination triggers, and accounting for deterioration in a brand's life cycle makes it hardy and flexible. Letting go of outdated practices, principles, constructs, and structures is part of the Eco-Dynamic Purge. Purging would allow brands to release what no longer serves it or account for what could only benefit it as it wears down or decays. Brands cannot make the most of their resources if they cannot discern how to make the most out of deleterious circumstances and processes. The Eco-Dynamic Model does not fear what is removed because what is left behind is more resilient, relevant, and adaptive.

6. Pause: Nature typically takes a pause or goes into rest and recovery cycles based on season, phase of the lifecycle, or time of day. These break periods allow plants and animals to conserve energy, rejuvenate, and prepare for the upcoming seasons, stages of life, or times of day. Similarly, processes take respite or attain entropy states before they cascade into chaos due to external variations. This allows for the optimization of resources and energy expended toward the movement and momentum of nutrients and materials within a system. Brands need to adopt a similar approach to achieve regenerative flows like farmlands left fallow to replenish their fertility; brands need to take their feet entirely off the "profit-margin" and "shareholder-returns" pedals at different moments to enhance ecological regeneration and social revitalization.?

It is time we went beyond trying to integrate nature into business to rooting business in nature itself, a biomimetic framework. Companies that successfully embody these principles in their brand identity and strategy will not only become more than exemplars of conscious business practices, but they will be assimilated into the biosphere's flow of air, water, energy, and materials, and conclusively working with not against nature's harmonious intelligence. Brands will finally be able to champion conduits within nature's timeless and abundant networks instead of disrupting them.

If the corporate kingdom cares to attain an uplifting, never-ending story, it must embody the Eco Dynamic Model's 6 Ps cyclically. Brands must recontour their framework, character, culture, and entire footprint to be inalienably nature-based instead of trying to integrate nature into their industrial countenance as an afterthought.