Comments on: On purpose: Why some brands have already failed in 2010

By: Getting The Word Out | eatbigfish

Getting The Word Out | eatbigfish — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:49:12 +0000

[...] some of the sharpest bloggers are weighing in [...]

By: Simon Mainwaring

Simon Mainwaring — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:18:20 +0000

Completely agree, purpose will be the forward facing determinant and the quality of a brand's listening will be the backward facing one. As such brands must constantly stay true to their purpose as its intersects and acts with consumers conversations. That way they can stay authentic and relevant while recognizing that control has largely shifted to consumers. Great insights, Jeremy. Thanks.

By: jeremymorris

jeremymorris — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:36:12 +0000

Simon

I came a bit late to this post but wanted to say I couldn't agree more with your point here.

Unfortunately I think the vast majority of companies lack a clear mission or sense of purpose. Most are demonstrably just in it for the money - and consumers see through that. It's one reason why companies like Apple and USAA stand head and shoulders above their competition. Their sense of purpose shines like a beacon.

For companies that don't have 'it', I think they have a big and growing problem. As consumers gain access to greater and more accurate product and service information and opinion via the web, and as entire product categories are commoditized, so the ability to articulate and demonstrate a clear business-driving mission that employees, customers and other stakeholders can really believe in will become just about the only genuine differentiator left.

Jeremy

By: Simon Mainwaring

Simon Mainwaring — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:55:10 +0000

Agreed. We must provide that leadership too and old habits die hard. Thanks agin. Simon

By: Iconic88

Iconic88 — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:45:22 +0000

Fortunately for many brands, with the right stewards at the helm, they can change course and recreate themselves to add purpose and meaning to their business.

The purpose for brands can last throughout the test of time and resonate in the market place. The vessel(s) to carry the message of that purpose changes with the times.

Cheers Simon.

By: Simon Mainwaring

Simon Mainwaring — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:45:48 +0000

Thanks. Yes. “Creative destruction” Schumpeter called capitalism. I think those that ignore purpose may sadly find themselves on the rocks.

By: mckra1g

mckra1g — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:09:53 +0000

Assumptions are dangerous and costly. It's like a frigate leaving the harbor in the 1500s without having a compass.

“Oh, I think I heard a rumor about land being [vague gesture westward] over that-away.”

Not smart. I agree that purpose should drive the purse strings.

By: Simon Mainwaring

Simon Mainwaring — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:04:35 +0000

Thanks for the feedback and yes, they are intertwined. I have to admit though, in all my dealings with brands, I rarely hear the words purpose. Too often its assumed, overlooked or consider irrelevant. I'd love to see purpose become a line item in the briefing/planning process. That way we'd know its in the mix. Thanks agin and best, Simon

By: mckra1g

mckra1g — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:46:34 +0000

To answer your question, the brand's purpose is intrinsic to it's goal. They are symbiotic and complement each other, for one buttresses/reinforces the other.

A brand is a 3D kaleidoscope of shifting and distinct parts, all of which revolve around a central core.

IMO, it goes without saying that this goal should be built into yearly planning strategies. Great post – thanks for the opportunity to comment. Best, M.

By: Simon Mainwaring

Simon Mainwaring — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:01:35 +0000

Totally agree. The market is self-correcting and we'd all be wise to trust its judgment. Thanks again. Simon