Part 1: A riffle through the dark side of our business

I’ve just finished Nick Asbury’s book “The Road to Hell, How purposeful business leads to bad marketing and a worse world”.

I bought the book because it spoke to an unease I have been wanting to contextualize and articulate but found myself struggling to express.

For as long as I have been in this industry, Purpose (with a capital P) has been at the forefront of everything, and questioning the purpose of the Purpose has been close to taboo.

This book slams the door of that taboo with brute force, and I honor Nick for daring to rub many powerful people in a less desirable way.

The case studies provided—through an impressive focus on stats and anecdotes that are hard to track in our fast-paced and shouty landscape—are mainly focused on the biggest players in the world. Even if these are conglomerates at a scale I’ve never worked with, the effects from the Purpose movement have undoubtedly shaped my journey in this industry, and they have trickled down into how we think, work, and produce at large.

Beyond dissecting Purpose and the potential dangers it holds when applied to a for-profit limited company positioning itself as a driver of societal good, one of my key takeaways from the book was highlighting the language used by many influential voices (it particularly addresses Simon Sinek and his “Optimism-revolution”).?

When leaders of power and influence are convinced that a greater Purpose drives work and assert this belief in a close-to-threatening stance on values fuelled by optimism, it becomes hard for anyone to express diverting perspectives without being written off as pessimistic or non-helpful.

This seemingly well-intentioned purpose-driven power move can demotivate anyone on a “highly collaborative and well-functioning team” from adding their voice to the mix in the fear of becoming a spanner in the work, causing friction. What we are left with is a purpose-peer-pressured group of yes-sayers that limit the diversification of ideas, and we perpetuate misleading promises of greater societal value when we, in fact, sell deodorants.

As I see it, one of my biggest tasks when writing brand strategy is to seek truth, not only for its moral implications or a righteous high ground but also from an impact and business perspective. I have sat through many workshops where clients who have seen Sinek’s “How great leaders inspire action” (19 million views on YouTube) or read his book “Start with Why” get lost in the search for a bigger meaning with what they do, and the outcomes become diluted value word salads that spark very little creativity or creates clarity.

Asbury heavily criticizes Sinek’s Golden Circle method in the book, and although I agree with its inflated promise of power, I do believe it serves as a good discussion point when getting to know your client. However, you have to make sure it stays a discussion point and protect the outcome of your work from lofty promises of a better world to not end up in a sea of sameness where a chocolate bar, a female hygiene product, and an electric car brand all say the same. It won't do any of us, or the people we speak to, any good in the long run.

Our job is to help clients define who they are today, and map where they are going in a creative way so that they can continue to grow their business by attracting the right people and customers. Shoot too far away from the truth, and your work becomes a useless PDF collecting dust or, even worse, a document that inspires dishonest marketing outcomes that bombard us at all touchpoints, including your kids scrolling on TikTok.?

It's not all black or white, and I believe we can have a positive impact with the work that we do inside the grey areas we are operating in, but it’s not through putting lipstick on a pig.

A good place to start is nudging companies who desire to follow the mantra "do well by doing good" by asking, “Is this really true?” before we put our pen to paper.?

Also, advise them on the implications of the difference between the mantra and the potential cost of "Talking good without walking the talk". In this Harvard Business Review, they shed some more light on the topic:

"It’s alluring and very much in vogue to connect social responsibility with profitability. If you can make a business case for positive social action, everybody wins—employees, shareholders, and society at large. But for decades researchers have labored to answer a nagging question: Is there, in fact, a link between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance? Not a strong one, according to an analysis of 167 such studies that were conducted over 35 years, a project we undertook with James P. Walsh from the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business."

According to the article, the biggest risk of taking the social responsibility route is not so much the loss of financial investment as it is being called out for false efforts. "Anecdotal scandals highlight just how grave the consequences of wrongdoing can be for companies and their executives."

The article points out that cash contributions to charities have shown a stronger correlation with success than corporate policies or community projects. It doesn't mention the effects brands have when they lead their communications with the promise of a higher societal value just by selling their products for profit.

In his book, Asbury gives plenty of examples of dissonance between the Purpose promise and the actual outcomes. It paints a very dystopian image intended to serve as a wake-up call, and these are rarely effective, if not loud and clear.

I won't pretend to have the credentials to present a one-page mental model that can fix this complex topic. And even if I had the credentials, it's just never that easy. But I do believe, as always, that people can have an impact of their own. Especially if we reclaim our own sense of purpose and values, which for far too long have been held hostage by brands and corporations.

If it feels too scary to question a client, ask yourself, “Do I really want to tell this story” when a casino company proclaims its Purpose is to “gift joy” or a vegan brand says its Purpose is to “alleviate suffering for all living creatures” while creating ultra-processed food.?

I’ll admit this is a half-glass-full vs. empty scenario, and some cases are clearer than others, as exemplified above. Still, I do believe that a little critical thinking, introspection, and honest communication go a long way toward ultimately sparking true creativity.

For an industry obsessed with questioning the status quo in all industries we work for, I believe it's time we question our own. It might feel scary, but as quoted in the book, “A principle is only a principle when it costs you something”—Bill Bernbach.

As for the book, it’s a worthwhile read for anyone who is ready to take off their rose-tinted glasses from which we are told to view our own industry, if only for a moment, and examine a less optimistic perspective in order to navigate our way to better times. It's quite refreshing.

This article has been heatedly discussed, and I'm happy my thoughts have sparked further conversation! I, in return, reflected on those conversations in this article as a part 2. I hope you enjoy!