Character: We develop Characters and Story Frameworks for brands.

December 2009 Archives

The Purpose of Purpose

| 3 Comments | 0 TrackBacks
It seems like a lot of brands are starting to understand that making the most money isn't an emotionally engaging reason to exist. Certainly, making money is one of the purposes of a brand, but it's a purpose that doesn't work well as the center of a rich, emotional relationship between the brand and its customers. And ironically, brands that achieve that kind of rich, emotional relationship with their customers find it a lot easier to make money. If you think of a brand as a character in a story, the character that exists only to make money is generally the villain--which is pretty much how a large segment of the audience is coming to view most very large brands. The audience understands that a brand needs to make money, but that's not a sufficient reason to care about a brand.

Brands that connect powerfully with their audiences on an emotional level seem to share a key trait: they have a purpose above and beyond just making money. They care about something alongside the rational, commercial transaction at the center of their business. This observation has started a number of large businesses down the path of looking for causes to support in order to build a sense that their brands have altruistic urges and a larger sense of purpose. Hence the explosion in pink ribbons and green claims on a shockingly wide assortment of products. Purpose is the new black. But I believe there's more to it than that. From a branding perspective, some purposes are better than others. Not because they are more altruistic, more noble or pure, but because the purpose suggests a reason to believe that the brand is better at what it does than a competing brand that is only out to make money.

The best brand purposes seem to suggest to the audience why a particular brand has a passion for what it does that is likely to make a difference in the quality of the product. When Philips partners with the Susan G. Komen foundation and creates a portable pink DVD player to call attention to the fight against breast cancer, I can find that admirable, but supporting that cause gives me no reason to suspect that what Philips cares about as a brand enables them to produce better electronics than any other company. Interestingly, the purpose you find on Philips' website is "to intimately understand the needs and aspirations of consumers and customers in order to deliver innovative solutions." In other words, Philips tries to figure out what I want and sell it to me. As a consumer, I don't find much in that purpose that takes me beyond the money story.

Apple, on the other hand, does not seem to have a single, clear cause with which they align their brand, but they do seem to have a reason for being above and beyond just selling computers. Apple seems focused on making technology a freeing experience for people rather than just a useful one. From their famous 1984 commercial through to the introduction of the iPhone, Apple seems focused on making the computing experience liberating, intuitive, enjoyable and human. Their stated purpose is "to make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind." This purpose connects them to a growing segment of the audience who use their computers for reasons other than pure functionality and who believe that Apple makes better computers because of their passion for bringing a human touch to technology.

Six weeks ago I added a blog posting entitled Brands that outrun their story, in which I speculated that Starbucks is having a difficult time regaining its footing as a brand precisely because the story on which the brand was built seems to be contradicted by the very size and success of the business.

By the same token Walmart--which was arguably in an even deeper hole than Starbucks three years ago--has done a better job of climbing out of that hole because the Walmart story, at its best, is very congruent with its size and success.

So what about Google? One of our readers asked if we thought that Google was in danger of outrunning its story, which provoked the following thoughts:

On the one hand, the Google brand was built around people's experience of a free service, presenting a clean, non-commercial home page and a funny, playful name. As a business, it had a kids-in-a-dorm-room kind of feel to it: friendly and a little self-deprecating.

On the other hand, the model for the business Google was building is a poster child for the network effect: connect uncountable hordes of people and mine unfathomable streams of information until the resulting flow of cash could sink even the Evil Empire of Microsoft itself.

The conflict, as so often happens, was right in the name. On the surface, Google sounds warm, fuzzy and almost cartoony. At the same time, for engineers with their hands on the controls of the digital economy, the word googol stands for numbers so big the rest of us don't know how to deal with them. The conflict is also acknowledged in the company's informal motto, "Don't be evil." The phrase sounds anti-corporate in a glib, rebellious way, while at the same time clearly referencing the corruption that can accompany great wealth and power.

From a story point of view, the future of Google as a brand depends entirely on what objective is communicated by its actions in the world. In other words, what does the brand want? A brand is like a character in the drama of its category. As a member of the audience watching that drama, I am suspicious of any character whose motive is not clear. If a brand fails to convey a clear and convincing sense of what it wants, then my default assumption must be that the brand is only interested in my money. In that sense, Google's strategic marketing problem is very much like Walmart's. As vast commercial enterprises, both Google and Walmart must communicate a sense of purpose above and beyond making money. Otherwise, they will have an increasingly tough time making money.

From the beginning, Google has done a good job of articulating a larger purpose: to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. The question is, do you believe them? It was easy to buy this as altruism when it seemed like kids in a dorm room playing with geeky algorithms. Now that they are becoming more and more deeply enmeshed with our vital personal information, and the opportunities to exploit that information are so clear, do you still believe they are capable of managing their wealth and power in a way that honors their stated purpose?

I'd love to hear your answers to those questions.