Is there a purpose for a brand purpose?

Asking most people about any given brand’s purpose — why it was created, why it exists — will earn you a puzzled look. Not because it’s a hard question. To the contrary. Since the industrial revolution and uniform adoption of capitalism it’s a rather rhetorical one. The purpose of any business is to make money. However for some brands this is not the only purpose — they have an even more important one, more poetic and society-related. Or at least they employ people (or agencies) whose job it is, to convince the world that is the case.

The term “brand purpose”, together with the notion that every brand should have one to be relevant, was born about 10 years ago, when I was at the very start of my advertising career. Maybe especially because of that it has made quite an impression on me.

A legitimate brand purpose needs to check a couple of boxes. It must be rooted in a genuine consumer (or sociological) insight and, at the same time, be coherent with what the brand offers (more about this, and what happens when it’s overlooked, later). Basically, brand purpose can be found within the intersection of what the consumers want or care about and what the brand can give them or stands for.

While not easy to define, if done properly it can change everything for a brand. Transform it from being a consumption choice to a life choice — a statement of users’ views, aspirations and beliefs.

It can be a political statement, a manifestation of a world view — like what United Colors of Benetton stand for (I strongly encourage reading more about their most memorable campaigns: www.theguardian.com/fashion/gallery/2011/nov/17/benettons-most-controversial-adverts).

It can also a sociological, humanist statement — like ongoing Dove’s effort to improve girls’ and women self-esteem.

Finally it can be a personal statement, one of who I am or who I aspire to be. This is what Nike is all about with their “everyone’s an athlete” message.

Unfortunately not every brand purpose adoption (or attempt) story has a happy ending like the above. Some result in quite spectacular failures. Especially if it’s not developing a brand purpose as much as it is inserting the brand’s logo into an already existing social movement. Yes, I’m looking at you, Pepsi.

This example — even though vivid and emblematic — has already been discussed to death, so I will not dwell on it. I’ll just note its one great achievement. It has managed to almost single-handedly create an industry-wide sentiment, that the times of brand purpose are behind us. That we (the advertisers) should stop trying to make people believe products and brands are more than what they really are and go back to what we originally came here to do — selling.

You have surely heard of Publicis widely, and rather positively, commented decision to sit out the Cannes Lions festival, putting forward some version of the above argument (as an addition to the cost-cutting one) as the reason. Do you think those two stories are unconnected? If so, I have a huge, amazing wall for you to invest in.

You might have noted I wrote that Pepsi’s achievement was almost single-handed. That much is true, there were others who lately have unintentionally solidified the “brand purpose is dead” narrative by running botched social (no, not social media) campaigns.

Let’s start with McDonald’s — as many do during their day. So many in fact, that the brand has lately — somewhat unofficially — adopted a popularity-related brand message. McDonald’s is your life companion, a safe haven, one constant that is with you wherever you go, through all your good and bad times.

While the statement rings true and has some potential for good communication, the one they pulled out of their hat lately is not what you would have in mind. The ad is called “Dead Dad”. It really is. And it is as cringeworthy, as the title suggests.

The public backlash was strong enough, that McDonald’s decided to quickly pull the ad, but the Internet never forgets. On some level the brand will always be the one that told us: “Your dad is dead? Just sink your teeth in a delicious fillet-o-fish. It will make everything alright”.

My next example — surprisingly — is Dove with their famous Real Beauty brand statement. One that leaves no-one indifferent. Does it celebrate uniqueness and set out to rebuild female self-esteem continuously undermined by the fashion and glamour industry? Or is it a cheap grab at the demographic that despises the universal beauty standards because they can’t (be bothered to put in the effort to) reach them? The obvious health benefits of actually putting in the effort make the social impact of Dove’s communication — and the ethical high horse they seem to be on — even more questionable.

But we will not solve this now and my point here is not a wrong brand purpose. It’s rather a poor implementation of the principle. Enter — the new Dove bottles.

The brand’s mission is to help women be free from obsessing about their seemingly imperfect bodies. So to stop this harmful preoccupation they obviously decided to… put a reminder right in their faces. I’m not even sure which bottle should one buy to limit the damage. One that will remind her (and not just in the shop but also every day during the shower) about the imperfect shape her body has, or about the shape she wishes it had, but probably never will?

The last advert I want to discuss is from Heineken, a brand one a mission to “brew a better world”. Unlike the remaining ones I do not dislike this ad. If fact I enjoyed it thoroughly and it touches on the important issues in an ongoing fight for the better world: feminism, LGBT rights and climate change. All issues very close to my heart. It is also well executed and based on an interesting and intriguing idea.

The reason it is on my list of botched campaigns is different. It lies in the communication strategy and more specifically in the RTB (reason to believe). Or rather, utter lack thereof. Nike is at least making actual sports gear and Dove — beauty-related products. But is Heineken an important element of talking about important issues? Is beer — as the ad claims — such a catalyst? If anything, alcohol has a history of turning opinion differences into bar brawls rather than touching stories of conciliation.

This could have been an ad for a chair, a hearing aid or an independent political candidate. And it would make more sense as any of those.

We have heard the arguments and seen the evidence — are we ready to reach a verdict? Is this indeed the end of brand purpose? Has the approach proven to be more harmful than beneficial? And is (as the popular mantra goes) “doing good” not a “good business” anymore?

In any court of law there are always two sides to be heard. And indeed, we had lately seen some campaigns that were celebrated for a good way of tying bands to causes. Therefore we can’t quite pass a judgement without looking at the other side of the coin, can we?