I love your take Zoe. I feel that the fault is with us agency folks when we try and peddle Purpose to brands that don't need it or aren't yet ready for it. I think we should take equal responsibility in pushing that agenda for clients sometimes. I agree that brands today are powerful to have a voice and stand up for issues just like people. But these issues should be aligned with the brand values, personality and overall business. Without that, it's greenwashing. I absolutely love Influencer Architecture as a concept and need permission to use it please.
Love that you wrote about this! I'm absolutely biased here since I work in the purpose-first space but the major problem for me has always been that many Marketing and Product teams are so desperately siloed that the right hand doesn't know what the left is capable of. Painting a picture of a potential future without fully accepting the process (and time) required to get there. Change takes time. That's what I'd want to be baked into any future architecture - reality!
Really enjoyed this take, Zoe. I don’t find the dark mode discourse that useful either. I feel like it pushes us into dystopian thinking at a time when we need more hopeful futures involving brands.
I agree, more grounded expectations of brands would mean we’re learning from history. That said, I’m not sure ‘influence architecture’ goes far enough in the age of polycrisis. When you say brands should spotlight what matters, who decides what counts? If impact only lasts while profit does, we get the same fragility that gave us greenhushing.
Personally I lean more towards stewardship over architecture. Something like The North Face’s Explore Fund Council for example. Would love to see more brands step back and support individuals and communities doing the real cultural work.
Thanks for sharing this, Zoe. As someone who’s worked primarily for human rights nonprofits, I’m interested in this topic and pleasantly surprised to stumble upon it here on Substack rather than on LinkedIn — but I plan to share on LinkedIn soon!
Completely agree with your false binary analysis, especially this: "What this overlooks is the sheer fucking cultural power that brands wield, and the difference between wielding it poorly versus wielding it well."
Thank you for calling this out and keeping this conversation moving -- it's an important one to have given the power of this work when done well, and it is certainly not without nuance.
Really smart response here. I thought both pieces were well done, honestly. Important issues being raised and it remains to be seen how the public responds to the evolving messages and tones brands are hoping to achieve
I love your take Zoe. I feel that the fault is with us agency folks when we try and peddle Purpose to brands that don't need it or aren't yet ready for it. I think we should take equal responsibility in pushing that agenda for clients sometimes. I agree that brands today are powerful to have a voice and stand up for issues just like people. But these issues should be aligned with the brand values, personality and overall business. Without that, it's greenwashing. I absolutely love Influencer Architecture as a concept and need permission to use it please.
Cheers,
Ravi
Love that you wrote about this! I'm absolutely biased here since I work in the purpose-first space but the major problem for me has always been that many Marketing and Product teams are so desperately siloed that the right hand doesn't know what the left is capable of. Painting a picture of a potential future without fully accepting the process (and time) required to get there. Change takes time. That's what I'd want to be baked into any future architecture - reality!
Really enjoyed this take, Zoe. I don’t find the dark mode discourse that useful either. I feel like it pushes us into dystopian thinking at a time when we need more hopeful futures involving brands.
I agree, more grounded expectations of brands would mean we’re learning from history. That said, I’m not sure ‘influence architecture’ goes far enough in the age of polycrisis. When you say brands should spotlight what matters, who decides what counts? If impact only lasts while profit does, we get the same fragility that gave us greenhushing.
Personally I lean more towards stewardship over architecture. Something like The North Face’s Explore Fund Council for example. Would love to see more brands step back and support individuals and communities doing the real cultural work.
Thanks for sharing this, Zoe. As someone who’s worked primarily for human rights nonprofits, I’m interested in this topic and pleasantly surprised to stumble upon it here on Substack rather than on LinkedIn — but I plan to share on LinkedIn soon!
Completely agree with your false binary analysis, especially this: "What this overlooks is the sheer fucking cultural power that brands wield, and the difference between wielding it poorly versus wielding it well."
Thank you for calling this out and keeping this conversation moving -- it's an important one to have given the power of this work when done well, and it is certainly not without nuance.
One of your best essays ever IMO!
And creatives using social issues to win some Cannes Lions are also part of the problem..
Really smart response here. I thought both pieces were well done, honestly. Important issues being raised and it remains to be seen how the public responds to the evolving messages and tones brands are hoping to achieve