Pull Brand + Creative

The world’s oldest unchanged brand changes logo for the first time in over 140 years The brand has maintained the same logo since 1888, when the image of a dead lion surrounded by a swarm of bees was first introduced. This week the logo was replaced with a lion's head and a single bee. Lyle had strong religious views, which is why the logo depicts the story of Samson from the Old Testament, in which Samson killed an attacking lion, and later noticed a swarm of bees had formed a comb of honey in the carcass. “Out of the eater came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet.” Judges Tate & Lyle made the decision to rebrand and remove the dead lion from its Golden Syrup packaging in order to modernize the product's image and move away from potentially controversial or outdated imagery.

Dear Helen Edwards, I’m sorry, but are you sure that cause-led marketing is a viable marketing strategy – at least for any brands that aren’t themselves a cause? “[Please] respect cause-led marketing as just one route among many to deepen our engagement with consumers.” I suppose Nigel Farage did sort of feel he had a deeper relationship with Coutts after they de-banked him for not sharing their claimed worldview on progressive causes? Well for a while I guess. . . The gist of the article seems to be a kind of defense for cause-led marketing unless it gets “too extreme”.  But is that really good guidance for marketers struggling to make sense of the brand purpose debate? “This was a thrilling time for marketers, who could now step into their cubicles as culture warriors with a cause, bent on righting wrongs and changing the world.” But was this good marketing? Who’s cause? Who’s rights and who’s wrongs? As Andrew Tenzer and Ian Murray have demonstrated so clearly, marketers’ worldview is a world away from that of the mainstream. Marketers come from privileged socio-economic backgrounds compared to those they are advertising to, tend to be more left-leaning than the mainstream, and to favour progressive causes far more. They are arguably part of society’s elite. Should they be using their brand’s budgets to promote their own often polarising beliefs? Is society better off as a result? And is their brand better off as a result? I don’t thing there’s any evidence for either. Given this difference of worldview, what is the likely effect of their preachy behaviour? Well as Helen actually points out – just look at Budweiser. The mainstream Bud buyer stopped buying the brand. They didn’t see the brand’s activism as ‘righting wrongs’, they saw it as trolling buyers of the brand. In a substantial consumer survey at Pull we asked consumers what they made of brands that support progressive causes. The majority (68%) were uneasy about it. (https://lnkd.in/ds68J_yy). And so we come to Nick Asbury’s masterful The Road to Hell. In an exhaustive study of the subject of brand purpose, Nick amply evidences his conclusion that cause-led marketing is bad marketing. It detracts from true distinctness and leads to samey marketing revolving around the same fashionable causes. And perhaps worse – it doesn’t further causes. "Once you turn purpose into marketing, it stops being either purpose or marketing." "It tuns purpose into self-interest. . ." The Road to Hell has not yet had a single well-articulated riposte. So please Helen – or any other supporter of brand purpose or cause-led marketing. Tell us where the evidence is for this sort of claim: “And in truth, it can be effective, boosting awareness, deepening emotional engagement.” Please give us an example! (And don’t say Patagonia or Nick will give you his answer to that one!) #brand #brandmarketing #brandpurpose

In the Road to Hell, Nick Asbury brilliantly demonstrates the essential paradox of brand purpose. You can do commerce and you can do good. You can do good commerce. But the moment that you claim that the purpose of your commerce is to do good, you are admitting to an irresolvable tension within your brand or business. Many feel that Nick’s definitive book has put the final nail in the coffin of brand purpose. I largely do. However, now I’m going to praise Caesar as well as help bury him. I am going to make out a case in favour of brand purpose or at least a form of brand purpose. I entirely agree with Nick’s view that creativity and the human spirit can save us from the tyranny of brand purpose in the form it has taken. But can brand purpose ever offer brand managers anything? The answer is yes. Because your brand or business can have purpose beyond just making money. So there are two case studies in my latest Substack article. The point they illustrate is that there are businesses that are driven by a higher purpose than just making money. This is of course a long way from claiming that the purpose of your mayonnaise is ‘reducing waste’. Unlike that claim, yours should be heartfelt and authentic. Not window dressing (no pun intended). In both these examples we refer to having ‘uncovered‘ a higher purpose for the brands. It was already there. As we sometimes say to clients – you can’t see the label from inside the jar. All we did was uncover the higher purpose that their brand already had. These examples are evidence I think that Brand Purpose does have a purpose. What is essential of course is that it actually IS the brand’s purpose. (Link in comments below) #brand #brandpurpose