Purpose-driven creative can and should still be brilliant. A view from Ayesha Walawalkar in Campaign

I’ve been reading a lot recently about ‘purpose fatigue’.

The term ‘fatigue’ (at least in the articles I’ve read) is used not so much in the sense of exhaustion as of backlash: a pushback against the continued prevalence of campaigns ‘for good’.

Criticism is levelled from three directions: first from the culture warriors writing about brand purpose (and particularly social purpose) in terms of ‘wokeness’ purveyed by the lefty ‘loonies’ of the London bubble.

Second, from activist investors who fulminate that all this focus on social purpose is slowing share growth.

And finally, and perhaps more concerningly, from those in the creative community who are either fed up with the continued dominance of ‘purpose-driven initiatives’ at creative award shows, or who feel that all this purposefulness is making our output less entertaining and possibly less effective.

The solution to these sundry difficulties (to liberalism, slow growth and to the declining effectiveness of advertising) seems to be that we should stop worrying about saving the world and just focus on selling stuff.

Simples. Except it isn’t.

Brand purpose was harnessed to drive growth long before Simon Sinek popularised it in Start With Why. Brands with a strong sense of their purpose were able to rise above marginal functional battles with their competitors and build relationships with customers based on emotional engagement and shared belief.

Clarity of purpose enabled distinctiveness in everything from communication to packaging to product development. Brand purpose has stuck around for decades, not because it’s woke but because it works.

“Ah yes,” says the culture warrior, “but that is BRAND purpose. SOCIAL purpose is different.” Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Take Magnum, a brand that champions individual pleasure. Fulfilling their purpose requires an excellent, indulgent product. It also leads naturally to a communication strategy that highlights individualism and diversity.

Championing diversity is a social purpose that’s merely an extension of brand purpose and it successfully builds both equity and sales for Magnum (as well as appealing massively to a young, diverse target audience).

Which brings me to the criticisms of the activist investor who was so famously witty about the brand purpose of Hellmann’s mayo (its purpose, he insisted, was to go in sandwiches, blithely ignoring the fact that ALL mayo is designed to enliven sandwiches, but the purpose of a BRAND is to make your mayo different from all the others).

The only real answer to criticisms from investors is to keep pointing out that consistently purposeful brands remain the fastest-growing and most profitable in the stables of the big corporates – including the aforementioned Hellmann’s, which recently hit the €2bn mark.

But what of the criticism of purpose (particularly social purpose) coming from creative directors?

It is true that Cannes Lions and D&AD awards have largely been monopolised by purpose-driven entries in recent years. And it’s also true that in the cold light of day, some of those entries may look a little, well, scammy.

But I have two questions for the creative community. First, are those entries winning because they are woke, or because it’s easier to get excited about cool ideas that could change the future?

And second, when you look at genuinely brilliant work like ‘Womb stories’ (that not only dominated award shows but also helped to transform the fortunes of Bodyform), would you really rather go back to the days when we sold sanitary towels through side-by-side comparisons of absorbency?

I am fortunate that among my colleagues at MullenLowe are Andy Last and Richard Cox who, 20 years ago, founded ‘salt’: the purpose and sustainability consultancy.

Andy (literally) wrote the book(s) on purpose-driven sustainable growth. One thing he and I agree violently about is that not all purpose-driven advertising is great. Much of it is trite, worthy and, worst of all, irrelevant.

As Andy points out to everyone who will listen, every business needs to get its house in order as regards its impact on the world BUT, not every step a business makes can or should be trumpeted to the world.

There are many actions we should take simply because they are right, and because if we don’t we will deservedly be attacked. Problems arise when brands seize on flimsy pretexts to parade ESG credentials that are table stakes, that do not hold water or that are largely irrelevant to their customer.

But ultimately much of the responsibility for putting pretentious and worthy work out into the world comes down to the briefs that we in agencies are prepared to accept.

If we are presented with purpose-driven briefs (or indeed any briefs) that seem impossibly layered, absurdly lofty, or just plain boring and irrelevant, surely it’s our job to challenge them?

The simple question of “Why will anyone care?” remains the most powerful in our armoury.

Historically, purpose has helped make people care. But if we’re struggling ourselves to care about the brief in front of us, then it’s time to put our hands up and say that just being ‘good’ doesn’t make the work good.

Originally posted in Campaign 20th March 2023