Purpose isn’t only about sustainability or social causes

As ever there’s a lot of discussion in the world of marketing around Purpose, and the merits or faults of it. ?For the last 10 years or more the Purpose juggernaut has rolled on relentlessly crushing all in its path… any other way of thinking about ‘Brand Positioning’, including ‘Brand Essence’ or ‘Brand Vision’, or even the most simple expression of how your brand is positioned in the minds of consumers vs the competition, have been seen as small and narrow minded in comparison to the mighty ‘Brand Purpose’.

As ever the irrepressible Mark Ritson highlights the clear failings of slavish adherence to Purpose as the answer to all business and brand issues by illustrating the differences in share price performance of a number of leading FMCG companies where Unilever, the god of Purpose, performs the worst. (See article below)

And for every nay sayer and every cheer leader alike I am sure there are those out there, like me, who believe the truth is somewhere in between the notion that Purpose is the answer to everything or a hiding to no where.

For me, the big issue for purpose is about a simple misunderstanding of what Purpose really should be. For me it is the simple fact of why your brand exists, and having a ‘purpose’ in the world and in consumers lives.?Or put another way, having a clear, distinct, and meaningful role in their lives.

It doesn’t have to be purely about sustainability or social causes it should be about the role it performs.?

According to the Economist Steve Jobs said Apple should “make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind”. Back in the 1980’s, when this was said, it would have been referred to as a Mission. Now we would probably call it a Purpose. But ultimately both of them are about the brand having a clear role in the world and in the lives of people.

The reality is that in the 2020’s businesses have to behave in a way that is more sustainable and more socially responsible.?And critically that is very much the role of the overall corporate entity - the entity that takes raw materials from the earth, that builds factories, that use lots of resources (energy and water), and that employ people in communities - they have to think about what they do impacts on individuals, communities, and the planet.

But if the overarching corporate organisation is behaving already in this way, does every brand in its portfolio also have to be overt and explicit in its use of sustainability and social purpose as core to the brand. ?

AB InBev that has an organisational purpose of ‘We dream big to create a future with more cheers’ clarified by stating that ‘a future with more cheers is share prosperity, for our communities, for the planet and for our company’.?This is underpinned by a number of programmes in both sustainability and social responsibility.?But when it comes to the brands it is clear that between their core 3 brands - Budweiser, Stella Artois and Corona - each has a different role in communicating these broader business wide initiatives.?Corona, for example, a brand that has clear connotations of beach life focusses strongly on sustainability and ocean plastics (even partnering with Parley), whilst Stella Artois has less of a direct focus on this.

The truth is that sustainability and social responsibility are both critically important to any business and as such need to be baked into how both the organisation and its employees act. ?

Purpose can be a powerful tool to crystallise what this means to the organisation (and some of its brands) and unite the employees behind it.

But a brand should remember the real Purpose it exists is the role it has in people’s lives - how it helps improves the communities it operates in and the planet it exists on will act as an enabler to help make that purpose even more meaningful and relevant, but they don’t have to become the sole purpose themselves.

https://www.marketingweek.com/ritson-unilever-investors-ben-jerrys/