BRAND PURPOSE AS A CULTURAL ENTITY

BETWEEN BUSINESS AND SOCIETY

Silvia Biraghi
Assistant professor of Management Sciences
Labcom
Department of Business Administration and Management Sciences
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Via Necchi 9
20123 Milan
eMail: silvia.biraghi@unicatt.it

Rossella C. Gambetti
Associate professor of Corporate and Marketing Communication
Labcom
Department of Business Administration and Management Sciences
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Via Necchi 9
20123 Milan
eMail: rossella.gambetti@unicatt.it

Stephen Quigley
Associate professor of Public Relations
College of Communication
Boston University
704 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
eMail: squigley@bu.edu

Abstract
Consumers today bring in a range of societal, ethical and economic expectations, some of which may
be aligned with and some of which may conflict with the actions of the firm. In this
regard, brand purpose today represents a cultural entity whose inherent meanings morph across
different consumer groups. As such, brand purpose no longer resides under the sole strategic control
of the firm, but rather is socially co-constructed by corporate executives and consumer groups in their
daily encounters, interactions and conversation routines. Building on brand purpose as the
recently appointed marketing word of the year 2018, this chapter delves into how current massive
technologically-mediated consumer activism is shaping how brands identify and execute their
brand purpose at societal and ethical levels to be attuned to increasingly cogent societal expectations
of consumers. In so doing, this chapter will illustrates some recent compelling case studies of brands
that have leveraged on their brand purpose to enhance their societal relevance.

Key topics
Brand purpose, societal corporate branding, corporate citizenship, consumer culture, social media,
clicktivism

1
Introduction

Amidst time of liquidity and technology we might expect such words as algorithms, blockchains,
social bots, voice speakers to be the landmark of our age. Instead the Association of National
Advertisers (ANA) has voted “Brand Purpose” as the Marketing Word of The Year For 2018.
Considering that ANA’s membership includes more than 1,700 companies with 25,000 brands that
engage almost 150,000 industry professionals and collectively spend or support more than $400
billion in marketing and advertising annually; their selection definitely says something about the
current mindset of top markers: as stated in ANA’s website1 verbatim comments from those who
voted for Brand Purpose included:

It drives a brand.

“Purpose” takes the word “brand” to a whole new level. It creates a greater partnership between
consumers and marketers to be responsible to each other, and shifts the focus from selling to
engaging.

Brand purpose represents an opportunity to ground ourselves in being relevant to customers. You
need a reason or purpose to be in front of them, one that speaks directly to a customer need or a
problem you will solve at a specific moment in time. We can’t be successful just by shouting the
benefits of our brand and why they should buy. The bar is now higher.

My company has been reorganizing around a brand purpose and I’ve seen other big brands doing
the same. Consumers are aligning loyalty and wallets behind brands with purpose.

In the polarizing world we are living in, many brands have stepped up and taken a risk and stance
this year. Nike is a good example, and more recently TOMS (for pledging $5 million to organizations
across the country committed to ending gun violence).
Purpose-driven marketing is exemplified by Procter & Gamble’s “Love Over Bias.” The commercial
depicts the impact of bias on peoples’ lives through the lens of a wide range of mothers who are
shown encouraging and supporting their child athletes in a world that isn’t always accepting of them.
The commercial was awarded Best in Show in the 2018 ANA Multicultural Excellence Awards
competition.

Besides the selection of brand purpose as word of the year, ANA has also established the ANA Center
for Brand Purpose to help marketers create purpose-driven solutions for their products and services.
In creating the Center, the ANA defined “purpose” in the context of marketing as “a brand’s reason
to exist beyond turning a profit.” In ANA’s words “Purpose is a long-term business strategy tied to a
societal benefit that guides every decision and action, from product development and
customer/employee engagement to marketing and hiring”.

Starting from this premise, we delve into the significance of Brand Purpose in current marketing and
branding actions. In this chapter we delineate Brand Purpose as a cultural entity whose inherent
meanings morph across different consumer groups. To do that, we first define Brand Purpose as an
asset co-constructed “in-between” business and society thanks to the contribution of consumers and
more broadly people. We then chart how consumers’ actions can affect the trajectories of Brand
Purpose. In particular we see the technomediated environment of digital and mobile platforms as the
key arena where the co-construction of Brand Purpose is currently taking place and magnified through
social conversations. To support our take on Brand Purpose, we share and discuss recent compelling

1
https://www.ana.net/content/show/id/51684

2
cases that show how Brand Purpose in action is shaped and negotiated according to ethical and civic
commitments. Finally we also reflect on how conversations and technomediated platforms can host
not only Brand Purpose construction but also Brand Purpose de-construction actions.

Brand purpose

Literally, “Purpose” can be defined as the reason why something exists. It deals with those
motivations that deep inside give life to something. These reasons and motivations set out the journey
of our existence: they establish why we came to life, how we see life, how we walk through the path
of life, and what are ultimate and true goals are. Simply purpose is the foundation of existence and
experience. Therefore for a brand, purpose reveals its essence: why the brand has been launched, why
it is relevant and necessary for consumers, and how it should improve society for the better.

According to Accenture Strategy’s annual Global Consumer Pulse Research survey, “To Affinity and
Beyond. From Me to We the rise of Brand purpose-Led brand”2 nearly two-thirds of consumers
expect companies to create products and services that “take a stand” on issues that they feel passionate
about. More specifically, the survey that involve about 30,000 consumers in 35 countries found that
62 percent of them want companies to take a stand on issues such as sustainability, transparency and
fair employment practices. Consumers are asking brand to align with their personal values and
commitments. Brands that are not doing that are paying the price with consumers being disappointed
and complaining or even walking away from uncommitted brands for good. According to the results
of the survey 47% walk away in frustration, with 17% not coming back. This evidence show that
consumers not only share their disagreement in social conversations, also they walk the talk by
dropping the brands that are not transparent enough or not aligned with their value-system. On the
contrary, companies that have been able to build and express a strong purpose have profited from it.
As the report points out, Unilever’s more sustainability-branded units including Knorr, Dove, and
Lipton are growing 50% faster than the rest of its offerings. They’re also more than half of the
company’s total growth. The snack bar maker Kind has grown to become the third largest player in
its category by focusing on literally transparent packaging and health-focused recipes and ingredient
lists. Patagonia recently donating its $10 million in federal tax cuts to environmental groups obviously
aligns with the outdoor apparel company’s conservation mindset. At the same time, strategies like
furniture maker Ikea hiring refugees at its Jordan facility shows how adaptable this ethos can be in
times of crisis3.

“Purpose” has been pointed at as the key to 21st-century success also by the Harvard Business
Review4: when doing well and doing good is woven into a company’s operational fabric then brands
can achieve superior performance by so the new way to acquire differentiation is competing on
purpose. For example finding the real represented the antidote to HP crisis. “In the last few years, HP
has re-established its purpose, starting with a commitment by the CEO and senior management to be
a purpose-led brand. The vision “to create technology that makes life better for everyone everywhere”
and a mission to “engineer experiences that amaze” has become a filter against which everything is
measured and a catalyst to shift both culture and business process”.

If on the one hand Purpose appears as the key factor of success in the competition to win the goodwill
of society, on the hand it represents a hard quest. Achieving a strong purpose meant for company

2 https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/strategy/Brand-
purpose?c=strat_competitiveagilnovalue_10437227&n=mrl_1118
3 https://www.fastcompany.com/90293137/brand-purpose-is-a-lie
4 https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-marketers-can-connect-profit-and-purpose

3
setting off a long journey. Purpose cannot be found in isolation inside corporate headquarters. It must
be generated in and with society. It cannot be written in the stone once and for all. It must be discusses
and lived by daily. It is in other words a profound co-construction effort. We name this approach
societal corporate branding (Biraghi, Gambetti, and Schultz, 2017).

Co-constructing the purpose

Societal corporate branding refers to the humanistic tension of a company to use the corporate brand
as an enabler of social discourses and actions through which the company carries out quasi-
governmental interventions in favor of society (Biraghi, Gambetti, and Schultz, 2017: 208). In this
frame, Brand Purpose does not emanate solely from the company; rather, it emerges from ongoing
exchange between business and society jointly shaping purposes, rights, and duties (Bhattacharya,
Korschun, and Sen, 2009) in a metaphorical sense. Doing so, corporations take on a role as
sociopolitical citizens thanks to their efforts to get engaged in the community and to actively
contribute to the common good (Aßländer and Curbach, 2014). A brand that acts like a citizen finds
then its raison d’etre in a strong community focus that translates into participating in the discourses
generated in the social arena by assuming the role of a socio-political citizen to actively contribute to
the common good embedding it in the brand value proposition and purpose (Biraghi and Gambetti,
2017).
While searching for their purpose, companies are acting as competent agenda setters in society by
using their power of influence as visible socioeconomic actors “to do good” and to somehow educate
communities and social groups who are touched by and/or touch back the companies. At the same
time, they are fully assuming their duties of citizens whose great powers of influence come with great
responsibilities (Biraghi, Gambetti, and Schultz, 2017). Thus, through their societal commitment,
companies are expanding their role of cultural laborers (Carah, 2014). That role is based on a
humanistic and cultural process of society-and-brand sense-making in which the meanings and the
commitments generated are capable of connecting business and society and expressed in the Brand
Purpose.

In the next paragraph we illustrate how Brand Purpose comes to be co-constructed in context of
cultural labor carried out by the agendas of the groups and individuals that may touch a brand.

The spectrum of the co-construction work: from productive consumption to consumers’ boycotts

What do we mean when we say that Purpose is socially constructed through cultural labor?
That can be understood thank to recent symbolic actions undertaken in the sport business that brought
together individual gestures, civic engagements and agendas, political parties and representatives,
brands, and society.

4
 Figure 1 – The “taking a knee phenomenon”

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/08/30/how-tv-networks-will-handle-nfl-national-
anthem-protests-a-year-after-colin-kaepernick/?utm_term=.ed4f4f617047

The “Taking a knee” phenomenon can represent the prototypical co-construction process of a
common purpose through the symbolic significance of shared gestures. San Francisco 49ers
quarterback Colin Kaepernick started the phenomenon taking to his knee for the national anthem,
“The Star-Spangled Banner”, during the 2016/17 NFL pre-season. This gesture sparked huge debate
and controversy. By choosing to kneel while everybody else in the stadium gets to their feet to honor
their Nation, Colin Kaepernick and soon other sports stars stand out as they protest against a
widespread problem in their society. Thanks to the visibility of their gesture and its symbolic value,
they were raising awareness and fueling the debating about inequality an unfair treatment based on
racial and skin-color prejudices. According to the BBC 1,152 people were killed by the police in the
USA in 2015. 30% of them were African American, while only 13% of the population of the USA is
African American. Movements such as Black Lives Matter have been at the center of the unrest in
wake of such incidents. Kaepernick raised a huge amount of awareness and many of his fellow
American Football stars joined him in similar kneeling protests over the weeks and months of the
2016/17 season. They made a stand and brought the issue into the public eye, into the mainstream.
As role models for many Americans of any creed or skin color, they sent an important and difficult
message of reflection on society around them, highlighting to the new and older generation that racial
oppression still persists. As Kaepernick said "The national anthem is and always will be a special part
of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honour our country and reflect on the great liberties
we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and
freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in
our celebration of the national anthem". Yet, Kaepernick is currently out of a job. He was unable to
find a contract with any NFL team before the 2017/18 season and it would be hard to correlate any
reason for this without associating his protest and connection to the Black Lives Matter. Some
claimed he turned down contract opportunities to try to further his cause in a form of self-protest,
while others have claimed he has been marginalized and quietly ousted from the sport. However, his
absence did not stop the #takeaknee movement and kneeling protests continued during the 2017/18
pre-season. The President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, weighed in on the issue
with a public condemnation of any NFL players involved in protesting and disrespecting the anthem
5
and the flag. He suggested it would be a great thing if some of these players were fired. Then in the
occasion of a a traditional and customary ceremony with the President, he publicly announced that
an invitation to Stephen Curry, who was part of the 2017 Golden State Warriors NBA winning team,
to come to the White House was revoked. This tweet alone received over 200,000 likes, while he
provoked responses from some other well-known NBA players like LeBron James and Kobe Bryant.

The #takeaknee movement crossed over into other sports, starting with NFL and spreading to NBA
and the MLB (Major League Baseball). Many other sports stars have participated, especially in the
basketball world, with its biggest stars heavily involved. The protest spread on the international level,
too. German football club “Hertha Berlin” took the decision of getting involved in this issue. The
players and officials of the club took a knee before kick-off of their “Bundesliga” home game.

Also Nike decided to take a stand in the controversy by running an advertising campaign featuring
Kaepernick, an outcast American football player and civil rights activist. The ad shows a black and
white close-up of Kaepernick’s face overlaid with the caption: “Believe in something. Even if it
means sacrificing everything”.
Kaepernick said “this is bigger than football”, likewise Nike’s decision to select him in the 30th
anniversary celebrations of “Just Do it” campaign had a similarly divisive affect on Americans5. Since
its launch, Nike’s share price fell by 2% on Tuesday as the response ranged from people burning
trainers and cutting the Nike logo from their socks to threatening a complete boycott of the brand.
The #NikeBoycott and #JustBurnIt hashtags are trending on Twitter with people sharing images of

5 https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/04/nike-controversial-colin-kaepernick-campaign-divisive

6
themselves destroying Nike products and others ridiculing such behavior6. However, online Nike
sales are up 31%7 and Colin Kaepernick is by many considered one of the most inspirational athletes
of our times, who – as Nike’s vice-president of brand said – has leveraged the power of sport to help
move the world forward.

Figure 2 – The Nike campaign “Believe in something” and consumers’ boycott

-
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-advert-with-colin-kaepernick-has-people-burning-products-2018-
9?IR=T

In sum the #takeaknee movement can be considered as representative of co-construction process of

Purpose and specifically Brand Purpose as a cultural labor effort. In this case we a cogent societal
and civic issue that is experienced by society and at the heart of society. People stand up to do
something good to tackle with this issue (i.e. the movement Black Lives Matter) and then cultural
icons such as athletes make a strong statement through their gestures (#takeaknee). Actions and
conversations spread and they polarized and created controversies, also in the political arena. Nike
sees in these controversies an opportunity to take a stand and to state their (brand and cultural)
positioning by steering global conversations and offering further energy and visibility to the
#takeaknee movement. As we have seen the social construction of the Brand Purpose opens the brand
to society, it positions the brand inside it and at the very center of the controversies therefore Nike
can either become one of the inspiring beacon of the fight against racial injustice as well as the target
of boycotts and value destruction (i.e. #JustBurnIt).
Is it right or not for Nike to take a stand on critical topics and to take the risk to face boycotts?
As we will discuss in the next paragraph, the technomediated context created by social media
platforms is hard pushing companies and brands toward relevance, which is also meant as taking a
position and living up to what they are promising their consumers, stakeholders, and society in its
whole.

6 http://www.ethicalcorp.com/why-nike-was-right-feature-colin-kaepernick-its-controversial-new-ad
7 https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/04/nike-controversial-colin-kaepernick-campaign-divisive

7
Brand purpose as a cultural entity between technomediated environment and clicktivist
engagement

The co-construction work of Brand Purpose has been dramatically magnified by the increasing
availability and flexibility of digital platforms. Social media have been claimed to be the “curators of
public discourse” (Gillespie, 2010, p. 347), generating, propagating and altering practices,
conversations, and collective action dynamics. Van Dijck (2013, p. 57) points at their role as
“producers of sociality, enabling connections as well as forging them”. The massive connective
energy liberated by technomediated narratives that are currently individually or collectively
performed in social media platforms has gradually shifted the exercise of consent and dissent
culturally shaping Brand Purpose discourse from the interpersonal domain to the digital realm. The
locus of collective praise and protest is redistributed (Latour, 2005) from the “occupy camp to the
phones and platforms where these come to life and are disseminated” (Milan, 2015, p. 1). Capturing
images and footage, liking or disliking, commenting and rejoinding, posting and reposting, sharing,
tagging, twitting and retwitting have all become institutionalized cultural acts of social approval and
disapproval whereby consumers, citizens and stakeholders socially construct, sustain or oppose Brand
Purpose. But how did we come to this?
Scholars have associated technomediated discourse generated in social media to the emergence of
technocapitalism, a new form of capitalism that is heavily grounded on the corporate power and its
exploitation of technological creativity (Suarez-Villa, 2009, p. 3) that is embedded in the cultural
labor generated and channeled in social media conversations. Technocapitalist forces are held
responsible for mobilizing new social configurations of consumer collectives, which have been
variously termed “individualized networking” (Wellman, 2001), “networked collective action”
(Rainie and Wellman, 2014), “crowds of individuals” (Juris, 2012), “connective action” (Bennett and
Segerberg, 2013), “brand publics” (Arvidsson and Caliandro, 2016). Arvidsson and Caliandro (2016)
noted how on social media like Facebook and Twitter, as well as on blogs, relations among consumers
or admirers of brands are less structured and communitarian while being more fleeting and ephemeral.
These relations are not based on sustained forms of interactions or a consistent collective identity,
rather they are oriented by momentary interests and desire for self-publicity actualized through
participatory actions that assert social status and amplify visibility and personal reputation among a
collective of peers.
Current fleeting and temporary forms of networked collectives have also transformed consumer
activism into “clicktivism” that can either enhance and glorify in a utopian fashion the corporate
beliefs and actions embedded in Brand Purpose, or impoverish and condemn them (Kozinets, 2019).
How does that work? Clicktivism has been defined as the widespread societal disposition toward feel-
good, ‘easy’ activism (Halupka, 2014) that has been popularized in social media platforms where
people can easily and quickly express and withdraw their ideas and opinions in socio-political
discourse with a simple ‘click’ of their mouse and little more. Seen as a lower quality and less
effective form of social mobilization (Schulman, 2009), clicktivism is characterized by low
commitment social media acts of political participation. Networked consumer collectives today
increasingly engage in clicktivist practices of social and political mobilization to react to or even to
explicitly provoke brand actions. In so doing, these collectives propagate and perpetuate cultural
value in social media loops of conversations, which relentlessly energize the connective force of the
network itself to keep it alive (Kozinets et al., 2017). Cultural value may include supportive social
discourse generated around Brand Purpose practices that amplify the acts of civic engagement of
companies which are perceived as authentically committed to taking a stance on cogent societal
issues. But it may also include fierce and questionable public protest when consumers claim that
Brand Purpose betrays the brand promise.
One of the most prominent cases that became a hot topic of media conversations worldwide, literally
sending the internet into meltdown, is the recent advertising campaign that Gillette by Procter &
Gamble released, explicitly addressing Brand Purpose to fight against the widespread stereotype of

8
“toxic masculinity”. Engaging with the #MeToo movement, Gillette’s campaign entitled “We
Believe: the Best Men Can Be” plays on its 30-year tagline “The best a man can get”, replacing it
with “The best men can be”.

Figure 3 – Gillette’s campaign “We believe: the best men can be”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2019/jan/15/new-gillette-ad-tackling-toxic-masculinity-receives-
harsh-backlash-video

The company shows a Brand Purpose that takes a clear distance from a type of male-customer that
expresses his masculinity through showing-off muscles, arrogance and physical superiority as a way
to abuse others. The message of the Gillette ad is hardly subtle in identifying a crisis of masculinity.
Young boys bully, chasing each other or taunting “Freak” in cyberspace. Adult men harass and
demean. They leer at women at parties and on street corners. Interspersed with these scenes are images
from popular culture — reality TV, music videos, cartoons — that appear to normalize bad behavior,
justified by the mantra “Boys will be boys”8.

8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/15/gillette‐takes‐toxic‐masculinity‐new‐ad‐rebranding‐metoo‐
era‐inviting‐backlash/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5da644e828e3

9
The Brand Purpose underlying this Gillette’s commercial addresses issues of sexual harassment, toxic
masculinity, bullying and abusive behavior, calling for men to hold themselves and others
accountable for their actions. The film immediately went viral with more than 4million views on
YouTube in 48 hours and generated both lavish praise and angry criticism9. Among the supporters,
Bernice King, daughter of the late civil rights legend Martin Luther King, claimed that “This
commercial isn’t anti-male. It’s pro-humanity, and it demonstrates that character can step up to
change conditions.” Duncan Fisher, head of policy and innovation for the Family Initiative,
welcomed Gillette’s revolutionary shift in messaging and said their Brand Purpose effectively played
into a new narrative about positive masculinity. “There are a lot of men who want to stand up for a
different type of masculinity” - he said – “but for many there has not been a way for men to express
that, we just need to give them a voice”. On the opponent side, The Emmy-award winning actor and
prominent Donald Trump supporter James Woods accused Gillette of “jumping on the ‘men are
horrible’ campaign” and pledged to boycott its products. Likewise, far-right magazine The New
American attacked the message of the commercial arguig that it “reflects many false suppositions”,
and adding that “Men are the wilder sex, which accounts for their dangerousness – but also their
dynamism.”
On the consumer side, Gillette has been bombarded with both praise and abuse. The supporters
recognized the positivity of the message and felt stimulated to make the values of masculinity evolve
toward a more balanced and testosterone-free model of mankind, even standing up to openly defend
the company against haters and detractors10.

But despite the company’s Brand Purpose showed in the campaign seemingly portrays a message of
respect and togetherness, the ad received almost 250.000 dislikes on YouTube. Moreover, the brand
faced backlash from thousands of men’s right activists across social media who vowed to the hashtag
#BoycottGillette. These people expressed their clicktivist dissent by harshly criticizing the ad
claiming it is offensive and betraying the brand promise to consumers.

9
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/15/gillette‐metoo‐ad‐on‐toxic‐masculinity‐cuts‐deep‐with‐mens‐
rights‐activists
10
https://memeburn.com/2019/01/gillette‐toxic‐masculinity‐metoo‐ad/

10
The Gillette case is a clear example of effective contemporary cultural branding. Even if the
reputational risk of taking a direct stance on hot-button, divisive moral issues is high, today forward-
thinking companies smartly leverage on their Brand Purpose as a cultural entity to dictate the socio-
political agenda and occupy the void institutional space left by political, religious, family and
educational agencies whose solidity and credibility – as Bauman (2000) argued – are progressively
melting down. Beyond social approval and dissent, it is the cultural relevance of the brand and its
capability to get at the center of public discourse that wins.
The next paragraph will provide further anecdotal evidence that delves deeper in the dynamics that
underlie the social construction and destruction of brand purpose to spotlight the nuances that
actualize this phenomenon in social media platforms.

Purpose in action

The twentieth century gave rise to the powerful intersection of mass production, mass media and mass
marketing. Top-down, one-size-fits-all products and mass marketing built most of the iconic brands
of today. As Brian Halligan, the co-founder of HubSpot likes to say, “What mattered in traditional
marketing was the width of your wallet.”
Is it possible that we are entering a new “bottom-up” era where large “legacy brands” may find their
size and power stifling in a disintermediated global marketplace where every brand and every
consumer is a media company? Does a new generation of consumers expect and demand to have a
say – and to be heard? Who’s in control of today’s brands?
Jim Stengel, former global marketing officer at Procter & Gamble, offered this insight in an AdAge
interview, “Legacy brands are adept at building products around which they wrap a brand; brand
management then kicks in to drive awareness, trial and loyalty.”11 Stengel goes on to suggest that d-

11
https://adage.com/article/cmo‐strategy/soul‐branding/317182

11
to-c brands (direct to consumer) are unburdened by a tradition of controlled messaging and customer
expectations. Instead he argues, “insurgent brands” are free to build from the ground up through
intense connection and immersion with their community of customers. Unfettered by a tradition of
control, these brands “assemble a tribe, united in their belief in how the product or service connects
them to their individual lives and to their communities.”12

Glossier: Trust us, we're you.

Emily Weiss the Founder & CEO of five-year-old Glossier, an insurgent beauty brand that garnered
more than $100 million in annual sales in 2018, epitomizes the ethos of community-driven purpose
brands. She rejects the notion that big brands know what’s best for their customers. Rather, she
asserts, “We reinforce the idea that we're all experts who benefit from the shared relationship of a
community of experts.”13
The company’s website spells-out Weiss’ bottom-up, shared purpose philosophy in no uncertain
terms, “Glossier was founded on the fact that beauty isn’t made in a boardroom—it happens when
the individual is celebrated.” Weiss envisions her organization as an ecosystem animated and guided
by its inhabitants whose conversations and comments fuel the brand. The company’s stated purpose
is inseparable from its customer connections – democratize beauty.14
How did this cult-like brand reach the $100 million revenue benchmark and an estimated of $1.2
billion valuation in just five years? By building a passionate community first and a brand second. It
all began with Weiss’ blog, Into The Gloss, which she launched well before the business. Today, her
define-your-own-beauty blog serves as the hub for Glossier’s passionate and far-reaching community
of fans eager to hear from each other – and to be heard. Today Glossier celebrates and is inspired by
over two million loyal Instagram followers. While Instagram remains the logical social platform for
this millennial-inspired brand, Glossier’s content is widely shared by its community on Facebook,
Twitter, Pinterest, YouTube and, of course where it all began, on their Into The Gloss blog. The blog
and social media community have become the company’s focus group. “The most innovative thing
we do,” say Weiss, “is listen to our customers.”15
Rather than offering expertise and answers, Glossier celebrates and empowers customers as
individual beauty champions. At Glossier “you’re the beauty editor.” “Her customer-focused
approach to beauty resonated strongly with women who felt their voices had been ignored by beauty’s
legacy brands.”16
While legacy beauty brands turned to social media as a less expensive version of one-way TV/beauty
magazines for instantly pushing “must-have” products, Weiss deeply understood social as platform
for listening, learning, connecting and community building. “Weiss didn’t use content to promote her
brand—content was the brand.” 17
Forbes Magazine sums-up Glossier’s remarkable five-year unicorn status with 5 Cs: Consumers,
Content, Co-Creation, Conversations and Community. One of the company’s most vital digital assets
is its customer feedback forum. Through non-stop listening and conversation, Glossier taps into their
tribes’ needs, passions and lives. Two-way conversation takes the guessing out of product
development and marketing. By the time Glossier launches a new product it has been vetted – and
even co-created - by thousands of experts - their loyal community.
Glossier offers more than beauty. The company’s 5 Cs provide voice, autonomy, inclusion, power
and individuality. And in return, the company earns trust, authenticity and cult-like loyalty. Unlike

12
https://adage.com/article/cmo‐strategy/soul‐branding/317182
13
https://adage.com/article/cmo‐strategy/soul‐branding/317182
14
https://www.glossier.com
15
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/how‐emily‐weiss‐took‐glossier‐from‐beauty‐
16
https://producthabits.com/how‐glossier‐turned‐into‐a‐400‐million‐business‐in‐four‐years/
17
https://producthabits.com/how‐glossier‐turned‐into‐a‐400‐million‐business‐in‐four‐years/

12
so many legacy brands, Glossier was all about community from day one. By respecting and
empowering customers, the brand gives voice and validation to those who have quietly resented being
defined by others. The company’s website says it best: “Personal choice is the most important
decision a brand can never make.”18

Figure 4 –Glossier’s brick-and-mortar retail outlet

Source: Glossier.com

Connection, community and conversation are deep in Glossier’s DNA. The company recently
launched their first brick-and-mortar outlet in New York City, which feels more like a living room or
lounge for friends to hang-out as much as a retail outlet. That feeling, of course, is not accidental.
Following the store launch, Weiss explained, “We would rather people come and actually stay than
people come buy something and leave.”19 Connection drives the brand. As their website exclaims,
“This is a group effort.”

Lego: Children are our role models.

There’s no height or age requirement when it comes to finding social purpose through stakeholders.
For Lego, a child’s innate curiosity, imagination and resilience fuel their purpose. Lego is both
inspired by children and committed to inspiring children.
Lego’s purpose transcends product co-creation and marketing. It inspires and informs the company’s
mission, values, philosophy and decisions – including its corporate social responsibility. The
relationship between Lego and children is symbiotic and founded on genuine respect for their
feelings, ideas and dreams and a relentless investment in listening and learning from them.
In 2004 the company was on the brink of bankruptcy. Ten years later, Lego recorded record profits
and unseated Ferrari being named by global consultancy, Brand Finance, as the most powerful brand
in the world.20 Turns out, the inspiration for the Lego turnaround was right under their nose from the
very beginning: inspiring and developing the builders of tomorrow.21 Purpose was pursued over profit

18
https://www.glossier.com/about
19
https://producthabits.com/how-glossier-turned-into-a-400-million-business-in-four-years/
20
https://www.iris.xyz/sell/brand‐strategy/how‐legos‐purpose‐made‐it‐the‐most‐powerful‐brand‐in‐the‐world
21
https://www.lego.com/en‐us/aboutus/lego‐group/mission‐and‐vision

13
and the company was re-organized to ensure that every aspect of the company was aligned with its
purpose.22
Lego listens to and learns from children on matters well beyond plastic bricks. The company’s
commitment to children and social responsibility run so deep it is nearly impossible to discern where
“business” ends and CSR begins. Genuine commitment to children naturally begets commitment to
children’s lives and the issues and challenges that impact them today - and will impact them
tomorrow.
True to their purpose, Lego goes beyond supporting top-down corporate initiatives designed to
improve the lives of children. Their initiatives are informed and guided by children’s fears and hopes
and dreams. The company recognizes what purpose consultant, Carol Cone, advocates: stakeholder
participation and co-creation of purpose. “Consumers have long expected companies to do good for
society. Today, they want to be active participants in a brand’s do-good work: empowered to make
the lives of others better as well as their own.”23
In classic Lego fashion, they describe children as the builders of tomorrow and maintain that
understanding the issues that matter to them is critical. Their 2018 Responsibility Annual Report
states, “…We believe understanding the issues that matter to them is critical if together, we are to
build a more sustainable planet. That’s why we’ve undertaken research with children around the
world asking them to express their worries, hopes and dreams using Lego bricks. We were surprised
and inspired by what they shared and you’ll see their answers throughout this report”24

Figure 5 – Lego’s initiatives are informed by children.

Source: The Lego Group 2018 Responsibility Report

In the company’s 2018 Responsibility Report, CEO, Thomas Kirk Kristiansen advocates for giving
today’s young people a voice on the key social, environmental and community issues of our – their –
time.25

22
https://www.iris.xyz/sell/brand‐strategy/how‐legos‐purpose‐made‐it‐the‐most‐powerful‐brand‐in‐the‐world
23
http://purposecollaborative.com/redefining‐purpose‐in‐the‐activist‐era/
24
https://www.lego.com/en‐us/aboutus/responsibility/
25
https://www.lego.com/en‐us/aboutus/responsibility/

14
 Figure 6 – Lego describes children as their number one stakeholder

Source: The Lego Group 2018 Responsibility Report

Jennifer DuBuisson, senior manager, environmental sustainability at LEGO, elaborates, "A few years
ago we got this letter from a 9-year-old that read, ‘When I grow up, I want my kids to grow up in a
healthy world. They (children) are our No. 1 stakeholder and we need to ensure that we are working
to meet their expectations of our products and our company."26
A year ago, the LEGO Group announced an ambitious goal to use sustainable materials in all of its
core products by 2030. This child-inspired ambition is supported by numerous Lego teams and $150
million in investments according to DuBuisson. CEO Kristiansen portrays Lego’s far-reaching CSR
efforts as a natural extension of their symbiotic relationship with children, emphasizing that they want
to ensure they meet they meet children’s expectations of both the company’s products and the
company itself. As of 2015, the company child-centered CSR effort reaches over 100 million children
in 140 countries.27
In 2007 the company launched their Build The Change program in collaboration with museums and
local partners around the world. The program gives kids a platform for using Lego’s iconic bricks to
articulate their vision for a better world.28 Author and president of EarthPeople Media, Anna Clark,
turns the term “pester power” on its head when describing Lego’s Build The Change Program.
“Pester-power is that relentless energy that marketers love to ignite in children in order to influence
their parents’ buying behavior. In an effort to transform pester-power into a force for good, LEGO
marketers are giving kids a platform for using the beloved bricks to express their vision for a better
world…. They’re so much more than a mess on the floor — they’re also tools to teach my kids about
designing a better world.”29

Southwest Airlines: Employees first

Southwest Airlines’ purpose statement sounds as noble and empty as that of every other airlines: To
connect People to what's important in their lives through friendly, reliable, and low-cost air travel.
Yet somehow, their purpose statement lives and breathes because it resides in the hearts of their

26
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmainwaring/2016/08/11/how‐lego‐rebuilt‐itself‐as‐a‐ purposeful‐and‐
sustainable‐brand/#bd956576f3c4
27
https://www.lego.com/en‐us/aboutus/responsibility/
28
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/lego‐builds‐change‐through‐its‐youngest‐stakeholders
29
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/lego-builds-change-through-its-youngest-stakeholders

15
employees – not just on the corporate headquarters wall. Purpose at Southwest is real because it’s
“owned” by their 35,000 employees who bring it to life.

Figure 7 - Southwest relies on employees to give their Brand Purpose life

Source: HumanSynergistcs

Southwest regards front line employees as the experts who bring purpose to life. The company’s
“upside-down” informal structure celebrates and empowers customer-facing staff. In the midst of
United Airlines’ passenger “re-accommodate” embarrassment, marketer Steve Yaeger posted on
LinkedIn, “Would this have happened on Southwest?” and suggested the answer is no. The reason?
By putting employees at the center of customer service and decision-making, Southwest empowers
employees to use their judgment and “warrior spirit” to do what it takes to care for customers. To live
the brand purpose through individual actions guided by overarching values. Yaeger concluded, “And
that’s what this PR disaster for United really is: a failure of empowerment.” 30
At Southwest front line staff play a major role in annual business planning and budgeting. This
bottom-up planning model stems from co-founder Herb Kelleher’s decentralized management model
and iconic “crusade” philosophy: “Hire for attitude. Train for skill.” By providing clear business
“guardrails” and trusting employees to live company purpose in their own way, Kelleher eschewed
hierarchy and top-down instructions, trusting employees to interpret shared values without the
constraints imposed by most corporations.31
According to Harvard Business Review, Southwest receives job applications every two seconds and
screens-out 98% of applicants for attitude fit. The three attitudes that serve as the company’s holy
grail are anything but secret: warrior spirit, servant’s heart and fun-loving attitude. (HBR).
Performance reviews rate the degree to which individuals live the three attitudes and promotions are
driven by “walking the talk.” Southwest’s exceptional customer service ratings start with hiring and
live at every level of the company. 86% of employees report being proud to work for the company
and 75% describe their work as “a calling” – not just a job.32
In addition to preaching the Southwest gospel from the top-down, the company employs a system
that encourages peer-to-peer praise. Employees award points to their colleagues who embody purpose
and those points can be redeemed to purchase items featured in a company catalog. And when the
airlines needed new uniforms for their flight attendants, rather than turning to corporate fashion
designers, Southwest trusted their flight attendants. (Robertson)
Not surprisingly, more than 7,000 Southwest customers per month turn to social media to praise the
spirit/heart/attitude of front line employees. Those compliments are in turn forward to both the
employee and his/her supervisor. (Robertson)
30
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-did-happen-united-steve-yaeger
31
http://www.advancebusinessconsulting.com/advance!/strategic-alignment/strategic-alignment-business-cases/the-rise-
of-southwest-airlines.aspx
32
https://www.humansynergistics.com/blog/culture-university/details/culture-university/2018/05/29/southwest-airlines-
reveals-5-culture-lessons

16
How does a company bring purpose to life? By aligning the hands, heads and hearts of its employees.
And how do you do that? According to Herb Kelleher with more than a paycheck:
“They can buy all the physical things. The things you can’t buy are dedication, devotion, loyalty—
the feeling that you are participating in a crusade,” Kelleher said.33

Takeaways

 Brand Purpose, previously envisioned as being articulated and controlled by the enterprise,
is presented as being socially co-constructed by corporate executives and consumer groups.

 Digital and mobile platforms are the key arena where the co-construction and de-
construction of Brand Purpose is currently taking place and being magnified through social
conversations.

 The alignment – or misalignment – between brand promise and Brand Purpose is

increasingly influenced by social dynamics as illustrated by Gillette’s decision to update its
brand promise from “the best a man can get” to “the best men can be.”

 Today forward-thinking companies smartly leverage their Brand Purpose as a cultural entity
to dictate the socio-political agenda and occupy the void institutional space left by political,
religious, family and educational agencies whose solidity and credibility are progressively
melting down.

Reflection questions

 How much control should companies exercise in building and protecting their Brand
Purpose?

 What are the benefits and risks associated with ceding degrees of control of Brand Purpose
to consumers?

 Are we entering a new “bottom-up” era where large “legacy brands” may find their size and
power stifling in a disintermediated global marketplace where every brand and every
consumer is a media company?

 To what extent are today’s corporations fostering the illusion that they are ceding control of
Brand Purpose to consumers as opposed to genuinely committing to co-creation?

 How should brands navigate competing pressures when consumers, employees and investors
offer competing interpretations of Brand Purpose?

 Given the power and influence today’s consumers exercise via digital and mobile media, do
“insurgent” brands such as Glossier enjoy a competitive advantage over established
“legacy” brands such as Procter & Gamble?

33
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2014/01/21/southwest-airlines-motivates-its-employees-with-a-purpose-
bigger-than-a-paycheck/#2d24c1cf5376

17
References

Arvidsson, A., & Caliandro, A. (2016). Brand public. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 727-
748.
Aßländer, M. S., & Curbach, J. (2014). The corporation as citoyen? Towards a new understanding of
corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 541-554.
Bauman, Zygmunt (2000), Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Bennett, L. W., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action digital media and the
personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company
relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of
Business ethics, 85(2), 257-272.
Biraghi, S., & Gambetti, R. C. (2017). Is brand value co-creation actionable? A facilitation
perspective. Management Decision, 55(7), 1476-1488.
Biraghi, S., Gambetti, R. C., & Schultz, D. E. (2017). Advancing a citizenship approach to corporate
branding: A societal view. International Studies of Management & Organization, 47(2), 206-
215.
Carah, N. (2014). Watching nightlife: Affective labor, social media, and surveillance. Television &
New Media, 15(3), 250-265.
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New media & Society, 12(3), 347-364.
Juris, J. S. (2012). Reflections on #Occupy everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging
logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39, 259–279.
Halupka, M. (2014). Clicktivism: A systematic heuristic. Policy & Internet, 6(2), 115-132.
Kozinets, R. V. (2019). YouTube utopianism: Social media profanation and the clicktivism of
capitalist critique. Journal of Business Research, 98, 65-81.
Kozinets, R., Patterson, A., & Ashman, R. (2017). Networks of desire: How technology increases our
passion to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 659-682.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Milan, S. (2015). When algorithms shape collective action: Social media and the dynamics of cloud
protesting. Social Media+ Society, 1(2), 1-10.
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2014). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Shulman, S.W. (2009). The case against mass e‐mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public
participation in US federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1(1), 23-53.
Suarez-Villa, L. (2012). Technocapitalism: A critical perspective on technological innovation and
corporatism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized
networking. International journal of urban and regional research, 25(2), 227-252.

18