The Pitfalls of Good Intentions in Marketing: Balancing Purpose and Profit

Source: Shutterstock

Public companies, even those with good intentions, often prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability and accountability.

I have been advocating against the idea of purpose for seven years, drawing from my experience as a writer in the branding and strategy field for a significant amount of time. Surprisingly, the quote mentioned above does not originate from me or other purpose critics who are commonly labeled as pessimists and skeptics.

Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, expressed in his open letter of 2022 how disastrous it would have been for his company to go public.

Let's put aside the bigger picture of Patagonia's story (which is more intricate than what the PR portrays, as discussed in my Substack post here). However, let's focus on the essence of Chouinard's quote.

If Chouinard is correct, what does this mean for Unilever and the 181 CEOs who enthusiastically signed the ‘Statement on the purpose of the corporation’ in 2019? This statement emphasized the importance of social purpose in the corporate world.

Despite their public declarations of good intentions, often seen in flashy marketing efforts, there is a saying that good intentions alone may not lead to positive outcomes.

In my new book ‘The Road to Hell’, I explore the concept of purpose in the marketing world. This idea has gained significant attention in recent years and continues to be deeply ingrained in the industry. Terms like ‘do well by doing good’ and ‘start with why’ are commonly associated with purpose, along with phrases like ‘stepping up’ and being ‘on the right side of history’.

While many have criticized the results of purpose-driven marketing, it is important to look beyond the obvious failures, such as the controversial Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad. I believe in taking purpose seriously and examining it on its own terms, or what proponents refer to as purpose ‘done right’.

I explore the evolution of this concept in my book, starting from its origins in business, all the way to the more recent discussions on shareholder versus stakeholder capitalism. The narrative continues to the 2008 financial crash, a time when the global business world faced a significant reputational crisis and began to view purpose as a solution.

During this period, some thinkers pointed out significant flaws in the idea. They argued that if purpose defines what an organization stands for, then it is essential to consider how society categorizes some organizations as 'for-profit' and others as 'not-for-profit.'

That distinction is very important because it determines how we tax organizations and what we expect from them. Non-profit organizations are expected to address social issues as their main purpose. On the other hand, for-profit organizations have not been traditionally expected to do the same because they do not have the social approval to do so.

When for-profit organizations talk about "stepping up," they are usually trying to move beyond their usual scope and influence matters that are better handled by society and democracy.

The Downside of Good Intentions

Sometimes, good intentions can result in bad marketing strategies. In the book, I explain how the common practice of starting with why (based on a debunked 'triune' brain theory) can actually steer companies towards making vague statements and weak claims.

The concept of marketing often involves trying to connect your product with a larger social benefit. Some companies do this more effectively than others, but the basic idea is the same. Unfortunately, this approach can sometimes come across as deceptive and can make consumers feel like they are being taken advantage of.

Even Dove, a brand that is often praised for its marketing success, is seen differently by many people. While Dove has achieved commercial success, some of their advertising campaigns have been criticized for using the language of empowerment in a way that actually reinforces the insecurities they claim to address. Critics like Arwa Mahdawi, Virginia Postrel, and Shagun Gupta have written articles pointing out these issues.

If the goal of a campaign is to make an impact, then measuring its success based on its social impact is crucial. When it comes to Dove, their 'The Real Truth About Beauty' report from 2004 may not have been the most solid foundation.

Some may find it hard to believe that a soap brand's advertising could have any connection to the growing mental health issues. However, if that is the case, then it should also be considered just as unlikely that Dove would have any positive influence in the opposite direction.

Although endorsed by three scientists, the research conducted by StrategyOne was primarily a market research exercise. The headline finding that only 2% of women considered themselves ‘beautiful’ was misleading. In reality, 72% viewed themselves as average, 13% as below average, and most prioritized factors like family, friends, faith, and career success over beauty.

Despite this, Dove launched two decades of ads focusing on the issue and positioning itself as a solution. However, the results may be benefiting Dove more than society. Dr. Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, has observed a rise in mental health issues among young women. She attributes part of the problem to the excessive emphasis on ‘self-esteem’.

Some readers may find it hard to believe that there is a connection between a soap brand's advertising and the increasing mental health crisis. But then, it should also be hard to believe that Dove can have any impact in the opposite direction.

This is where social issues come into play for brands. Unlike economic problems like low wages or exploitation in the supply chain, these are not issues that can be completely resolved. This allows your brand to always be in a state of continuous advocacy.

The Gen Z contradiction

But aren’t consumers demanding this? Especially Gen Z consumers?

Gen Z consultancies want anxious middle-aged marketers to believe a certain story. But the reality doesn't quite match up. Recent polls by NBC and The New York Times show that Gen Z intends to vote 46% for Trump and 42% for Biden in the upcoming election.

Even if you reverse those percentages, it's not clear evidence of a generation that is fully aligned in wanting corporations to promote a progressive agenda.

Even if they were united, the popularity of two of Gen Z's beloved brands is evident in the rise of fast-fashion brand Shein and social media app TikTok. Despite TikTok being fined by the UK Information Commissioner's Office last year for data misuse, consumer habits often do not align with ethical choices as indicated in surveys.

The emergence of trends like 'quiet quitting' and 'lazy girl jobs' further demonstrates Gen Z's shift away from the corporate purpose narrative. Instead, they are seeking purpose outside the realms of corporations and consumerism, where it traditionally resides.

Some readers might be skeptical, thinking that there are numerous studies proving the effectiveness of purpose. However, the reality is different. Debunking inflated claims requires more effort than creating and promoting them.

Jim Stengel's 'Grow' was a key text in the purpose movement. In this book, he introduced the Stengel 50 companies that he believed had embraced purpose and achieved success as a result. Back in 2015, Our Website columnist Richard Shotton delved into the questionable data behind this. Despite this, the work was still endorsed by Martin Sorrell and many in the marketing industry.

Years later, the work of Peter Field and the IPA, sponsored by Danone with a clear purpose, gained more credibility. However, the main discovery that purposeful campaigns were not as effective as non-purposeful campaigns was overlooked.

I'm not saying this to criticize. The concept of businesses and marketers making a positive impact on society is a valuable one. But it needs to be saved from the inconsistent and complacent mindset of the purpose movement.

Marketers have the opportunity to make a positive impact by creating successful marketing campaigns that support businesses that provide for families and communities. Additionally, they can further contribute by aligning themselves with non-profit organizations that have genuine purpose, rather than overshadowing them with products like chocolate bars or fabric conditioners that receive more attention and accolades for their supposed 'purpose'.

The concept of businesses and marketers making a beneficial contribution to society is valuable. However, it is important to address and rectify the conflicting and complacent mindset within the purpose movement.

Marketers have a responsibility to uphold the social contract that underpins advertising. We often intrude on people's daily lives with large billboards on the streets or ads that cannot be skipped during their favorite shows on platforms like Prime Video or Netflix. As uninvited guests, we owe it to the audience to be considerate and respectful. It is crucial to show genuine interest in them, their diverse values, and their goals.

Unfortunately, many brands tend to focus on promoting themselves as the hero and deliver preachy messages. They often urge people to 'join the conversation' on social issues that they only recently became aware of. This approach distorts genuine conversations, fueled by the ad-driven social media model that thrives on polarization and tribalism just to boost engagement.

Some may already be weary of discussing the purpose, and I get that feeling. However, the ongoing discussion about the ethics and impact of marketing should never lose its importance - it has a long history.

Back in 1971, a man in advertising named Bill Bernbach stated: “A principle isn’t a principle until it costs you something.” This quote might be more impactful to have hanging over your workspace than the phrase ‘Do well by doing good’. It could potentially guide us towards a more positive direction.

Nick Asbury is a creative writer for branding and design, commentator at nickasbury.substack.com and author of The Road to Hell.

Editor's P/S:

The article explores the complexities of purpose-driven marketing, arguing that while the intention to do good is admirable, it can often lead to superficial and ineffective campaigns. The author challenges the notion that companies can prioritize both short-term gains and long-term sustainability, citing examples of brands like Dove and Patagonia to illustrate the potential pitfalls.

Furthermore, the article questions the authenticity of Gen Z's supposed demand for purpose-driven brands, highlighting the popularity of fast-fashion and social media apps that promote questionable ethical practices. The author calls for a more nuanced and critical approach to purpose in marketing, emphasizing the need for genuine impact and consideration for diverse values and goals. It challenges the industry to move beyond buzzwords and focus on creating meaningful campaigns that support businesses and align with non-profit organizations, while respecting the social contract that underpins advertising.