In Defence of Brand Purpose

If you believe some people on LinkedIn, you’d think brand purpose had been taken out behind the woodshed and shot. The Trump-era corporate rollback is very real. But talk of its demise is premature and wildly overblown.

I’ve spent the last eight years working almost exclusively with businesses to define and activate their purpose. Over that time, I’ve watched the concept take hit after hit from some of the most eloquent voices in marketing. But for all the criticism, I’ve yet to see a proper defence from the pro-purpose side that tackles those critiques head-on.

So when Jim Stengel’s The CMO Podcast recently ran an episode titled “Is Purpose Dead?”, featuring longtime purpose critic Mark Ritson, and Nick Asbury followed up with what was intended as a final nail in the purpose coffin, it was the final nudge I needed to sit down and write this.

Part 1 looks at the biggest misconceptions I see consistently repeated by critics. Part 2 will set out the positive case - why I believe the purpose genie is out of the bottle, and why its future looks bright.

But first, a few definitions. Because much of the confusion (including in that podcast) comes from the fact that everyone seems to be working from a different one.

Brand purpose or corporate purpose is the reason a business exists beyond turning a profit. In multi-brand companies like Unilever or P&G, the corporate purpose is distinct from the brand-level ones (e.g. Dove or Pampers). In companies where the corporation and consumer-facing brand share the same name, Nike or Airbnb for instance, brand and corporate purpose are often one and the same.

In marketing circles, “purpose” is often used as a catch-all for any action a brand takes to make a positive social or environmental impact. It’s most commonly associated with purpose-led or “cause” marketing campaigns, but is also sometimes used to refer to sustainability and CSR initiatives too. Crucially, purpose-led work is just one expression of a brand or corporate purpose, not the whole thing.

With that distinction in place, let’s dive into the misconceptions:

Misconception #1:

Businesses claim the reason they exist is to do good. That’s dishonest - they exist to make money.

Nick Asbury summed it up:

“It’s one thing for corporations to claim they do good things for society. It’s quite another for corporations to claim this is the reason they exist. That extra step is the seed that has grown into a thousand deluded ads and tortuously reverse-engineered purpose statements.”

It’s a valid critique. But it misrepresents what most purpose statements actually say. Having seen and written hundreds, very few businesses claim the reason they exist is to “do good things for society” in any altruistic sense.

A few large high-profile companies are explicit about creating a better world:

Unilever: “To make sustainable living commonplace.”

Danone: “Bringing health through food to as many people as possible.”

But these are the exceptions, not the rule. Most purpose statements are fundamentally commercial at their core:

Netflix: “To entertain the world.”

LEGO: “To inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow.”

Airbnb: “We help people to belong anywhere.”

L’Oréal Group: “Create the beauty that moves the world.”

PepsiCo: “To create more smiles with every sip and every bite.”

Procter & Gamble: “To provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers, now and for generations to come”

Their loftiness might not be to everyone’s taste, but they don’t pretend the business exists to advance the species. They’re attempts to articulate the emotional value the business brings to people’s lives through its products and services. Value that, when delivered consistently, should drive long-term growth.

Consumer-facing brands - the ones behind the lion’s share of purpose-led marketing - almost always ground their purpose statement in a product truth: the joy, connection, beauty, entertainment, etc they bring to people’s lives (I’d share examples, but most are never made public).

Most purposes aren’t literally why the company exists - in that they weren’t in the founder’s head at its inception. They’re usually written years later. But when done thoughtfully, shaped through conversations with leadership and employees, they’re an honest reflection of what animates the business today. And the strongest ones often connect back to values that have quietly guided the company all along.

Yes, the ultimate purpose of most companies - at least from a shareholder’s POV - is profit. But that’s not what gets people out of bed in the morning. A good purpose captures this deeper meaning behind the work, without pretending the business is a NGO.

The “doing good things for society ” part - the purpose-led work - is just one expression of that. Only a handful of household brands - Patagonia, Tony’s Chocolonely, and Ben & Jerry’s - were founded on genuine social missions and have built their entire brand story around it. A few other unicorns, like Dove, weren’t born with it, but have fully positioned themselves around a social cause.

But for most brands engaged in purpose-led work - Corona, HSBC, Nike, Ikea, Apple, Airbnb, Gucci, Microsoft, etc - it plays second fiddle to their traditional advertising. It’s one lever in the broader mix to win mental share.

It’s true this is often the part of the jobs clients are most passionate about. But very few, in my experience, are under any illusions that doing this work is why their company exists.

Most purpose statements aren’t altruistic. They’re fundamentally commercial.

Misconception #2:

The purpose of purpose should only be purpose - and it should cost you.

Mark Ritson has been the loudest voice here. Writing about Patagonia’s decision to give away its profits to fight climate change, he argued:

“Purpose is not usually the path to greater profits and better growth. That handy, naïve, entirely specious narrative needs to end. The purpose of purpose is purpose. You deliver it because you believe in it. You deliver it even when it costs you something – everything, even your whole company.”

And again on The CMO podcast, he criticised:

“The undergraduate desire to link purpose to getting more customers. Because isn’t the point that purpose should cost you money”

Let’s start with what he gets right. The oft-cited Bill Bernbach line - “a principle isn’t a principle until it costs you something” - is spot on. If a brand’s commitment to a cause evaporates the moment it stops being trendy or starts hitting the bottom line, it was never purpose - it was PR.

But the issue is Ritson sets up a false binary: either you believe in purpose and accept the financial cost, or you drop it in favour of more growth. But this view is too narrow. It focuses almost entirely on the external marketing effects (see Misconception #4 for more on that) and ignores the broader role purpose plays within organisations.

To use Ritson’s beloved bothism: purpose doesn’t have to be either moral conviction or business benefits. It can be both.

A well-defined corporate purpose guides strategic decision-making across the business. Companies invest in sustainability initiatives to future-proof themselves - against regulatory pressures and insurgent challenger brands making their biggest cash cows look outdated. And as mentioned already, many brand teams set aside budget for purpose-led marketing because it’s one more way to connect with (usually younger) audiences.

But perhaps most importantly, there’s solid evidence that purpose powers internal performance. Ritson himself acknowledges this, citing Peter Field’s IPA data:

“59% of strong purpose cases improved employee satisfaction (compared to 23% of non-purpose campaigns and 47% of weak purpose campaigns)”

Deloitte has also found that purpose-driven companies benefit from 30% higher levels of innovation and 40% better retention.

On the CMO podcast, Ritson laments that marketeers have fallen out of love with selling:

“When did it become not exciting to just sell products?”

“A lot of marketers are not happy just selling soda”.

But the reality is, marketeers - like people across every part of a business - want their 90,000 hours at work to add up to something more meaningful than that. Many also believe their company - often a billion-dollar powerhouse - has a responsibility to do its bit in a crisis-riddled world.

So if a purpose statement captures that deeper meaning, and purpose-led work is part of showing that it's real - and that, in turn, drives performance - then the purpose of purpose isn’t just believing in it. It’s the business benefits too.

The purpose of purpose is purpose and the myriad business benefits, inside and out. It’s both.

Misconception #3:

It taints the act when brands talk about the good they do

Nick Asbury again:

“Many businesses have done good things over the years, without making it the centre of their brand image. When they do, the ‘good’ starts to look a lot like self-interest. Early purpose critic Jesus Christ had it right when he said “Thus when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do… that they may be praised by others.”

Mark Ritson again:

“There are plenty of companies quietly operating with purpose while opting not to position explicitly upon it through their marketing. For two decades, Pret a Manger has quietly taken unsold sandwiches off its shelves and, rather than discounting or dumping them, distributed them to shelters and food banks. Pret doesn’t talk much about this at all. It continues to position on fresh, handmade food instead.

Their argument, in essence, is that the moment a brand starts talking about the good it does, it taints the acts - turning purpose into brand promotion.

But doing good anonymously isn’t automatically more virtuous. Altruism research shows we’re motivated by a mix of factors - compassion, yes, but also how good it feels. And in a world where our reputation matters, being seen to be doing good advertises desirable traits about us.

This was captured famously in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, where one museum wing is named “Donated by Larry David,” while the other is “Anonymous” - but everyone at the opening knows it was Ted Danson, because he told them privately. Larry is punished for being honest. Ted is praised for appearing selfless. Both ultimately want the same thing: to be seen as good people.

So if sharing the good we do leads us - as individuals or businesses - to do more of it, why pretend otherwise? It might feel less pure for some, but the net effect is that more good gets done.

However, the most compelling case I’ve heard for communicating the good you do comes from neuroscientist Sam Harris. He used to believe that anonymity was the more moral path - because it ensured you were giving for the right reasons. But that changed when he began sharing his charitable giving on his hugely popular podcast, Making Sense. The response was immediate: listeners flooded him with messages saying it had inspired them to give too. Visibility had created a ripple effect.

The same is true for brands. Yes, sharing the good they do burnishes their reputation. But it also establishes a norm around it, exerting a soft social pressure on other brands to follow suit. Again, with the net effect that more corporate resources flow to the most urgent issues of our time - money that might otherwise go to a bit more influencer or Meta spend.

Communicating the good you do doesn’t cheapen it - it inspires more of it.

Misconception #4:

Purpose marketing is less effective than regular marketing - so brands shouldn’t do it.

Much of the glee surrounding the “death” of purpose-led marketing has come from those who have long argued it simply isn’t as effective as traditional marketing.

This is true. Peter Field’s IPA research showed that, on average, non-purpose campaigns generate 1.6 ‘very large’ business effects, while purpose campaigns deliver 1.1.

But averages are an atrocious basis for strategy. As Ritson has said himself:

“The fact of the matter is that no marketer needs to care about the average performance of purpose versus non-purpose campaigns. It’s an entirely pointless pissing contest. Ignore Field’s average scores and focus on his bar charts – purpose can be weak, effective or stellar. It depends.”

“The fact that purpose is not a marketing prerequisite means that it is therefore a choice. A strategic choice. Because, as anyone with any experience of strategy can tell you, that is all strategy ultimately is: a series of selfish choices that entail deciding what your brand will and won’t do”

Despite the purpose debate raging agency side, clients have long understood this. As mentioned already, very few brands are betting the farm on purpose-led marketing. Most clients - especially in large FMCGs - make a strategic choice to do both, carving out a small slice of their budget for it.

Why? Because when done well, Field’s charts also show that purpose-led work is especially effective at driving penetration growth, mass appeal, mental availability and distinctiveness, and in-store presence.

“The great thing about brand purpose is that when it’s done well, it introduces new dimensions to a category so a brand can differentiate itself in ways it couldn’t before” (Marketing Week)

It can also enrich the traditional advertising work. For years, Corona’s This Is Living platform celebrated our spiritual connection to the beach. Meanwhile, their Protect Paradise purpose work has helped preserve beaches by tackling ocean plastic. Purpose amplifying product - and vice versa.

That’s why pitting purpose-led against product-led marketing misses the point. For most brands with decent sized budgets, it’s not either/or. It’s both. Rarely the headline act, but a powerful supporting one for the right brand.

Purpose-led work can be a powerful part of the marketing mix.

Misconception #5:

Most purpose work is vague, self-indulgent fluff

This one’s easy to address.

Critics of purpose work love to hold up the worst offenders: the abstract, piano-ballad-laden, overly worthy ads that mistake vague sentiment for real impact. And to be fair, there is something uniquely grating about a brand virtue signalling to sell soda without doing anything meaningful to back it up.

The issue is that the critics treat these misfires as representative of most of the purpose-led work. Conveniently ignoring the absolutely incredible work out there, especially as the field has matured over the last five years. And acting like regular advertising doesn’t have its proportional share of duds.

At Onward, we’ve looked at thousands of purpose cases from the past twenty years in an attempt to codify what good looks like. Sure there’s some wishy-washy fluff - but there’s far more bold, creative, high impact work that’s bang on brand.

It’s AirBnB on refugee resettlement, YSL on intimate partner violence, AMEX on supporting small business - the list goes on. These campaigns created real-world change and it clearly worked for the brand - or the investment would’ve stopped.

For every wishy-washy purpose ad, there’s bold, creative, high-impact work that gets it right.

Misconception #6:

Purpose work is so hard to get right, most brands shouldn’t even try.

As AMV’s Sarah Carter put it:

“Purpose is hard to do well and easy to do badly”

That feeling has only intensified in the wake of the recent backlash.

It’s true that purpose-led marketing is still a relatively young discipline - barely two decades old - and, as Peter Field and others have noted, naturally working through some growing pains.

But I don’t think it’s inherently harder to get right. The problem isn’t the brief - it’s who it’s usually handed to.

Most misfires happen because traditional creative agencies are machine-tooled to create fame through broadcast media - which is rarely the main metric or channel for this work. Hence the rise of specialist purpose agencies who excel at the buttoned-up impact bit, but often lack the creative magic to make consumers notice or care. One side knows how to move hearts, the other how to move the needle. The real power lies in combining both.

In some respects, purpose work can actually be easier. Traditional brand campaigns are often so subjective you could quite literally “go again” forever, chasing a better idea. Purpose-led work, by contrast, comes with built-in constraints. There’s usually only a limited overlap between a brand’s distinctive assets and a real-world issue it can credibly tackle. And a similarly limited number of actions it can take to make an impact. With the right expertise, those constraints focus the work, rather than restrict it.

Purpose isn’t harder - it just requires the right expertise, not old-school fame-first thinking.

Purpose misconceptions in summary

#1 Misconception: Businesses claim the reason they exist is to do good. That’s dishonest - they exist to make money.

✅ Most purpose statements aren’t altruistic. They’re fundamentally commercial.

#2 Misconception: The purpose of purpose is only purpose - and it should cost you.

✅ The purpose of purpose is purpose and the myriad business benefits, inside and out. It’s both.

#3 Misconception: It taints the act when brands talk about the good they do.

✅ Communicating the good you do doesn’t cheapen it - it inspires more of it.

#4 Misconception: Purpose marketing is less effective than regular marketing, so brands shouldn’t do it.

✅ Purpose-led work can be a powerful part of the marketing mix.

#5 Misconception: Most purpose work is vague, self-indulgent fluff.

✅ For every wishy-washy purpose ad, there’s bold, creative, high-impact work that gets it right.

#6 Misconception: Purpose work is so hard to get right, most brands shouldn’t even try.

✅ Purpose isn’t inherently harder - it just requires the right expertise, not old-school fame-first thinking.

Part 2 will set out the Positive Case for Brand Purpose - why the purpose genie is out of the bottle, why the recent rollback is an overcorrection, and why the pendulum will inevitably swing back.

I’ll explore what companies owe the cultures they operate in, the extraordinary potential for change when a brand’s creative and financial firepower aligns with the expertise of those working on the front lines, and how the field must evolve - learning from the mistakes of the past to meet the moment and make this work truly connect with real people.