{"id":79660,"date":"2022-03-08T16:56:59","date_gmt":"2022-03-08T16:56:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rockcontent.com\/?p=79660"},"modified":"2025-09-19T03:13:43","modified_gmt":"2025-09-19T06:13:43","slug":"a-discussion-about-brand-purpose","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pingback.com\/en\/resources\/a-discussion-about-brand-purpose\/","title":{"rendered":"Should Business Take A Side In The Ukraine-Russian War? A Discussion About Brand Purpose"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dark and rumbling clouds of war are quickly moving from the East toward European skies while the business debate about brand purpose hits new heights: should businesses take a side<\/a>, and support Ukraine? Or should they be silent instead?<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Yes. Here we go, again. Another post about brand purpose. If brands cannot add something positive to the current situation, they should shut up and leave the job to those who can. The debate is on.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The fact is: the more time passes, the more I observe this noisy race of brands trying to find or create new socially acceptable, ethically-sustainable purposes. <\/p>\n

Deepening the discussion<\/h2>\n

The (unjustified?) uproar generated<\/a> by Peter Field\u2019s talk for the IPA on brand purpose<\/a> at the end of 2021 is a sign of the hot debate currently in progress in most of the marketing channels. Yet I cannot hold back a smile every single time I hear sentences like: \u201cOur audience has to understand our new brand purpose\u201d<\/em> or \u201cIt\u2019s time to rethink our North Star<\/em>\u201d. If you had no brand purpose until today \u2013 and still run a successful business \u2013 why should you think about a new purpose now?<\/p>\n

Field\u2019s analysis, which is based on the IPA\u2019s effectiveness database and mainly focused on B2C brands, demonstrated that the average purpose-driven marketing campaigns were significantly less likely to generate long-term business effects when compared with traditional non-purpose campaigns. <\/p>\n

Then Field went back to the data and picked those brand purpose cases that performed better; at that point, he demonstrated that they perform better over the whole set of non-purpose campaigns. As you all can imagine, very few were convinced.<\/p>\n

Field says: \u201cWhat these findings show is that we shouldn\u2019t dismiss brand purpose out of hand. There can be considerable benefits for companies in deploying brand purpose campaigns \u2013 both for engaging their own employees, stakeholders and investors as well as for driving customer sales. <\/p>\n

When it is done well, when it is genuine and credible, brand purpose can be very powerful.\u201d As Mark Ritson pointed out<\/a>, \u201chis intent was not to defend purpose, but to make a case for it\u201d. <\/p>\n

The case of Peter Field\u2019s research is just a sign of a much wider conversation<\/em> \u2013 I should probably use debate<\/em> instead. <\/p>\n

Enterprises that have done business, more or less ethically, more or less successfully, in the last decades, are now suddenly discovering that having a brand purpose might help with boosting their profits, especially within the new generations of consumers \u2013 millennials and Gen Z \u2013 who are attracted by brands that put purpose at the center<\/a> of their content effort, definitely more than my generation was.<\/p>\n

Byron Sharp, author of the seminal book \u201cHow Brands Grow\u201d, and currently one of the most influential marketing academics, has been critical of the widespread adoption of social purpose<\/a>; he argued that it could lead to brands becoming too similar and undifferentiated. So, if the marketing community succeeds in teaching consumers they should only buy brands that donate to charity or are seen as doing good for the world, all labels can easily take that over in a very undifferentiated world. Marketers should instead have more self-confidence and belief in the good marketing does in the world by itself without seeking a higher purpose, he argued.<\/p>\n

As Kate Smith, a strategic marketing consultant, says<\/a>, \u201cthe issue isn\u2019t with purpose, per se. The issue is with how purpose is being developed and used. Is it being used to define what the business does and how it does it, or is it being used merely to create an illusion of social responsibility or just as the basis for a millennial targeted campaign\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe issue isn\u2019t with purpose, per se. The issue is with how purpose is being developed and used.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kate Smith<\/strong><\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The race to a purposeful brand didn\u2019t start last year with Field, of course. Back in 2019, Unilever\u2019s CEO published a report showing that brands of the group with a clear articulated purpose grew much faster than the rest of its businesses<\/a>. Back then the company committed to a future in which \u201cevery Unilever brand will be a brand with purpose\u201d.<\/p>\n

This is what CEO Alan Jope said: \u201cWe believe the evidence is clear and compelling that brands with purpose grow. In fact, we believe this so strongly that we are prepared to commit that in the future, every Unilever brand will be a brand with purpose.\u201d<\/p>\n

Brand purpose in appearance or at the business\u2019 core? Let\u2019s take a look at some brands<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s not just Unilever. Let\u2019s have a look at some of these purposeful brands. My list is not comprehensive;  but still, it provides a good scenario about enterprises that are embracing a brand purpose model and the real facts; just have a look and judge for yourself.<\/p>\n

Google <\/h3>\n

\u201cOur mission is to organize the world\u2019s information and make it universally accessible and useful\u201d. Google won\u2019t reveal its own revenue or profit figures at a country level<\/a>. <\/p>\n

In addition, Google has not disclosed its plans for a censored search engine in China<\/a>. <\/p>\n

In addition, Google+ (social network) has been closed<\/a> following a data scandal. And this could be an endless list. Finally, nearly every US state<\/a> (paywall) and European country is now investigating the company<\/a> for anticompetitive behavior in its advertising business.<\/p>\n

Volkswagen <\/h3>\n

The Group\u2019s goal is to offer attractive, safe, and environmentally sound vehicles <\/em>which can compete in an increasingly tough market and set world standards in their respective class. <\/p>\n

Then Volkswagen intentionally programmed<\/a> it\u2019s Turbocharged Direct Injection (TDI) diesel engines to activate their emissions controls only during lab testing, which caused the vehicles\u2019 output to meet US standards, but emit up to 40 times more poisonous toxins in \u201creal-world driving\u201d. <\/p>\n

The folks at Volkswagen deployed this software in about 11 million cars worldwide from 2009 through 2015. These toxins were partially responsible for the death or disability of hundreds of people. Volkswagen itself continues to insist that although eight million cars sold in Europe were fitted with defeat devices, they were not required to pass EU emissions tests and therefore it has committed no crime in the EU.<\/p>\n

Siemens<\/h3>\n

Siemens<\/strong>\u2018 purpose is \u201cBeing Responsible \u2013 Excellent \u2013 Innovative\u201d, with responsible interpretation meaning that the company is committed to ethical and responsible actions. <\/p>\n

Siemens will be remembered for one of the biggest corporate corruption probes in history when it agreed in 2008 to pay about 1 billion Euros in fines and penalties after investigations by U.S. and German authorities into bribes it paid to win contracts<\/a>.<\/p>\n

State Street<\/h3>\n

State Street <\/strong>created the \u2018Fearless Girl\u2019 sculpture and told us its mission is to get more diversity into corporate executive teams. The US government is claiming instead that State Streets pays female employees and people of color less than white males<\/a> (paywall). <\/p>\n

Specifically, State Street has discriminated against 305 top female black employees by paying them less than men in the same positions and has agreed to pay $5 million to settle the U.S. Department of Labor\u2019s allegations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"grayscale<\/p>\n

State Street\u2019s fearless girl<\/em><\/p>\n

Audi <\/h3>\n

Audi spent millions on a feminist Super Bowl spot in 2018<\/a>, which proclaimed: \u201cAudi of America is committed to equal pay for equal work\u201d. <\/p>\n

In the ad, a father watches his daughter in a downhill cart race and thinks about whether she is being judged based on her gender. At the core of the ad is whether she will be paid less than a man, despite her talents. But\u2026 Only two women sit<\/a> on Audi\u2019s Management Board (it was zero, until a few years ago), and its 14-person American executive team only has a few women. <\/p>\n

In the press release for the Super Bowl ad, the car company said it was publicly committed to supporting women\u2019s pay equality and pointed out that half of the candidates for its graduate internship program must be female. <\/p>\n

Rather than avoiding the conflict, Audi has responded to negative comments generating even more criticisms<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s easy to sense a recurring theme here: these large, legacy brands love to wrap themselves in high-minded mission statements for public consumption, only to have reality gnaw away at the edges of their intended reputations. You scan through their purpose-filled ads and social campaigns, but after the glossy surface, the numbers tell you who\u2019s actually benefiting\u2014usually not the workers or the communities they\u2019re spotlighting. There\u2019s a kind of theater about it all, probably because these firms are juggling pressure from every side: investors, consumers, regulators, and the endless churn of online outrage. Genuinely integrating purpose into business means tough operational shifts, not just tightening up the messaging in next quarter’s marketing splash.<\/p>\n

Some skeptics will argue that modern consumers are getting wise to the gap between a catchy mantra and genuine change. You see it in how subtle backlash forms and sticks\u2014brand trust erodes quietly when people feel patronized or manipulated by performative purpose. But brands are stuck in a bind: if they say nothing, they\u2019re criticized for staying on the sidelines. If they act, every detail gets dissected. It\u2019s not exactly an environment that rewards quiet, authentic improvement. Maybe that\u2019s why when a company actually puts long-term responsibility above short-term showmanship, it still feels like a breath of fresh air. Even now, it\u2019s the exception and not the rule, and people notice.<\/p>\n

BP<\/h3>\n

\u201cOur purpose is reimagining energy for people and our planet. We want to help the world reach net zero and improve people\u2019s lives\u201d. Currently, around 96% of BP\u2019s capital expenditure is on traditional oil and gas. <\/p>\n

Whether or not BP will keep to these promises remains to be seen, but we\u2019re not so hopeful<\/a>. \u201cWhile BP\u2019s advertising focuses on clean energy, in reality more than 96 per cent of the company\u2019s annual capital expenditure is on oil and gas,\u201d said Sophie Marjanac, a lawyer at ClientEart<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mondelez\u2019s Cadbury<\/h3>\n

Mondelez\u2019s Cadbury <\/strong>launched a new purpose positioning in 2018, to \u201cshine a light on the kindness and generosity that we see in society\u201d; it re-launched its global brand positioning as a \u201cfamily brand founded on generous principles\u201d. <\/p>\n

But\u2026 Cadbury manages to pay zero corporation tax<\/a>, for the eighth consecutive year. The company recorded a 740% jump in profit for the year to 31 December 2017, with turnover rising to \u00a31.66bn from \u00a31.65bn. In recent years, Cadbury\u2019s corporate owners have consistently managed (legally) to avoid paying any corporate tax. <\/p>\n

Alex Cobham, who runs the Tax Justice Network, notes that Mondel\u0113z regularly carries out \u201cfinancial engineering that is very sad given Cadbury\u2019s long history of working to generate value in the communities where they work\u201d.<\/p>\n

Starbucks <\/h3>\n

\u201cInspire and nurture the human spirit. One person, one cup and one neighbor at a time\u201d. Starbucks tells us its brand purpose is to build community while doing everything it can to minimize its tax payments<\/a>. In 2017 Starbucks paid only 2.8% of taxes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And what do Nike<\/strong>, Zoom<\/strong>, FedEx<\/strong>, Salesforce<\/strong>, Verisign<\/strong>, Xilinx<\/strong> and many other brands have in common? According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policies (Itep), they paid $0 Federal Taxes<\/a> in 2020.<\/p>\n

Should we mention Netflix?<\/h3>\n

Netflix continues its tax avoidance streak<\/a>, reporting an effective federal corporate income tax rate of 1.1 percent in 2021 on $5.3 billion in profits. The company avoided more than $1 billion in taxes in 2021 alone. <\/p>\n

At a time when many small businesses face pandemic-related challenges, Netflix is among large corporations that are handsomely profiting from changing consumer behavior. <\/p>\n

Yet, its sales and profits generated in the UK are moved elsewhere and many ask if and when the company will start paying any corporation tax<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And I won\u2019t write about Amazon <\/h3>\n

The company recently reported record profits of more than $35 billion; but it (legally) avoided about $5.2 billion in corporate federal income taxes<\/a> since 2018, despite receiving copious subsidies at the state level. <\/p>\n

I\u2019m not going to waste your (and my) time on Amazon, though \u2013 an entire book or documentary series won\u2019t be enough to list all its controversies, from poor working conditions to environmental impact, from social challenges to opposition to trade unions, and then privacy infringements, antitrust issues, and all other manner of scandals the company keeps perpetrating<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

As Bob Hoffman<\/a> wrote a while ago: \u201cTaxation may be unpleasant. But taxation is by far the most potent source of resources for societies to redress social ills. Taxation funds education, housing, health initiatives, social programs. When corporations take extraordinary measures to avoid paying taxes, they are doing extraordinary harm to citizens who have the greatest need\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhen corporations take extraordinary measures to avoid paying taxes, they are doing extraordinary harm to citizens who have the greatest need\u201d<\/p>\n

Bob Hoffman<\/strong><\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The thing is: it\u2019s not illegal to pay zero taxes. But how can we consumers trust all those powerful purpose statements, commercials, posts and promotions when we know \u2013 because we know<\/em> \u2013 they\u2019re coming from brands that are deliberately avoiding the basic pillars to support citizens and their communities?<\/p>\n

And yet, there are some brands that are genuinely purpose-driven<\/h2>\n

Think of Patagonia<\/strong>, for example, where the purpose has always preceded the products<\/a> ever since its foundation. Mark Ritson estimates \u201cthey (these purpose-driven companies like Patagonia) consist of about 0.2% of the world\u2019s brands. <\/p>\n

The rest are commercially driven operations that are not necessarily evil, and often take a responsible approach to packaging and other business challenges, but are not in a position to intervene on major societal issues\u201d. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Patagonia\u2019s Activism website section<\/p>\n

Properly used, the purpose is a way for businesses to think deeply about what they do, how they do it, and what their impact on the world is as a result. It can be part of the essential shift from profit maximization to value creation. <\/p>\n

As Field confirms \u201cthe great thing about brand purpose\u201d is that when it\u2019s done well, it introduces new dimensions to a category so a brand can differentiate itself in ways it couldn\u2019t before. A well-crafted and executed brand purpose brings a raft of benefits that encourage, rather than distract from profitability:<\/p>\n