"Among critics was behavioral specialist Richard Shotton, who has drawn quite a different conclusion into the viability of purpose-led marketing from the data. The study compared and contrasted 47 brand purpose cases with 333 non-purpose cases over the same period. 57% of brand purpose campaigns studied were deemed to "perform strongly." These "well-executed" campaigns drove 15% more market share growth than standard ad campaigns, a fact many fans of purpose have grasped on to and championed."
"Field's claims were more grounded, however. He claims the research merely proves that "we shouldn't dismiss brand purpose out of hand" and that there can be "considerable benefits for companies in deploying brand purpose campaigns." The press release opened with the following sentence: "Blanket criticisms of brand purpose advertising are unjustified, according to effectiveness expert Peter Field." The research itself has garnered blanket criticisms instead."
An analysis compared 47 brand purpose cases with 333 non-purpose cases and found 57% of brand purpose campaigns performed strongly. The well-executed purpose campaigns drove roughly 15% more market share growth than standard advertising. Richard Shotton criticized the research, arguing that focusing on a subset of well-executed purpose ads versus all non-purpose ads skews conclusions. Peter Field cautioned that the findings show brand purpose should not be dismissed and that considerable benefits can accrue from such campaigns. Supporters note additional advantages including improved company culture, talent attraction, and extra media attention.
Read at The Drum
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]