Purpose Not Profit
Another article from bubblegeneration
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2006/04/purpose-as-strategy-i-used-to-talk.cfm
An exerpt…
“I used to talk quite a bit about purpose. In the last few days, the idea is making the rounds again. I stopped largely because I felt my def of purpose had been hijacked by intellectually and morally bankrupt snake-oil salesmen like Rick Warren - because it had taken on the color of religion.But let's discuss for a sec. How can we define purpose? My def is simple: foregoing near-term profit (but not value creation). Put another way, trading financial capital for social, cultural, or intellectual capital. Put another way, not selling out…”
This guy is so much more interesting and on the ball than people like Naomi Klein, it's not even funny.
posted by KH @ 10:23 AM
9 Comments:
At 11:12 AM, April 05, 2006,
Anonymous said…
In hijacking concepts of morality and ethics, 'snake-oil' merchants squeeze the life out of value and help to desensitise many from the deeper potentials. Politicians are especially adept at this. One could call it the anaesthetising of respsonsibility. A Socratic approach would be useful here.
In anycase, aren't marketers in the business of doing something similar? Perhaps they do it more effectively though, manipulators of emotion, the velvet rope...
You know Kim that I have never been a fan of marketing and that kind of knowledge but one thing that that this guys' writing has reinforced for me is that if delved into with sincerity, ALL forms of knowledge have the possibility of leading to the fundamentalities.
Whether people avail themselves of the opportunity to direct themselves in that way is another question.
His definition of purpose is also very interesting, the foregoing of near-term profit for long term values. Isn't this a variation of process not outcome? What is profit but an outcome?
Like I said before, Dr G et al never realised how close to the truth they were...
At 1:14 PM, April 05, 2006,
Anonymous said…
This article just made realise something: when profit becomes the only bottom-line we end up with the economics of negatives and the economics of fear.
This is something that I have always wanted to ask you about, Kim. To me, there is something fundamentally misguided when profits are still being made yet jobs are cut in the name of competitiveness and to protect the 'share holder.
Help me out here Kim as, honestly, I don't know jack about economics...
At 9:38 PM, April 05, 2006,
KH said…
This is gonna be a long one…so buckle up.
OK - so first let’s deal with the concept of marketing. I think of marketing as the process of informing external parties about the principle party. When you write on this blog you are marketing your opinions to the readers. When someone asks what you do, or where you live, and you answer, you are providing semiotics in much the same a marketer of consumer products does, to provide them with clues about the product that is "you".
I give these examples so you see that marketing, in its purest sense, is a natural process. Taken into the marketplace, and with the aim of promoting product consumption of some sort, marketing still has a role in informing us of what's available and why we might be interested in it. Everything you purchase or consume has been marketed - including books like 'Dune' and so on. From this you can hopefully see that there are benefits to the marketing process in that we are able to find out about and choose things that have the highest utility, or worth, to us.
Which brings us to economics.
The first thing i have to clear up is that, by law, directors of a company must have as their primary consideration (as long as no other laws are being broken) the shareholders' interests.
The company, in and of itself, is an interesting beast and one that has many benefits - such as promoting investment, which arguably benefits all of society, as well as disadvantages - such as a focus on shareholder value and generally speaking separation and protection for the directors that have a role in guiding the legal identity that is the company.
Because of the above, the state has mandated that any moral responsibility, such as keeping people employed, is overridden by the responsibility to, essentially, make profit.
Apart from this, i guess the question is what would happen if companies started to focus on social responsibilities as opposed to financial responsibilities. One outcome might be a raft of bureaucratic organisations similar to the public service. Another outcome may be that not all companies agree to abide by these new moral guidelines (see game theory) and those companies that don't focus on being competitive (e.g. by minimising labour costs to keep costs and prices down) go out of business and everyone that was working there, as opposed to just some people, would lose their job.
I could go on and on but, to be honest, I think the point has been made. Capitalism has won over the world for now because its general utility (to once again use that particular economic theory) is higher to more people than a non-capitalistic approach.
From all of the above you can now see that the issues you have ought not to be with either marketing in general or companies that seek to make a profit (I realise that you could argue that registered businesses do not have the same responsibilities as Corporations, but let’s just leave that for now). Rather, once again, the issue is based on social issues – the success of marketing is based on the success of consumptionism which may very well be a result of failing traditional power structures within society…anyway, I digress…
I guess the point I want to make is that things are as they are, in general, because of democracy and its empowering of the masses. If you recognise democracy as a valid system of Government I feel that you have to accept the outcomes it leads to.
As a side note, I’ve started half-reading a book you can download for free - http://www.craphound.com/down/ - called ‘Down and out in the Magic Kingdom’. It speaks of a society and time where everything is available for free and societal position is based not on monetary considerations but social rankings determined by whether people think you are a good person or not…interesting thought…I guess we should both read the book then have a chat about it
K
At 1:16 AM, April 06, 2006,
Anonymous said…
"I think of marketing as the process of informing external parties about the principle party."
Is that the perspective of a marketer? Hmm, this could be an example of our seemingly different ways of thinking. I look for weaknesses in patterns of behaviour and thought and because I take this approach it seems to me that marketing is the process of convincing external parties that the principle party is a necessity. The more advanced the technique of the marketer, the less necessary the principle party actually is. I guess my definition could simplified into being called the cynic's approach.
This doesn't mean that knowledge such as marketing is inherently wrong. It just means that one can be trapped by such knowledge (like any other kind of knowledge). This has been the underlying theme behind everything that I have written on this blog (whether the reader - whoever he or she is - can see that or not).
This relates to the next major point that you made when you wrote that when "...you write on this blog you are marketing your opinions to the readers." This will seem abrupt but, in reality, I don't have any interest in promoting my views at all. I really don't. I am more interested in exploring my views bearing in mind my 'cynics' approach.
I do take your point though that marketing, ultimately, stems from a natural process and in this, I totally agree with you. Nonetheless, marketing is also very much a man-made process too. This is also why it is natural. This is related to my last post when I wrote that even though where we are may be the place to be, that doesn't mean it is fundamental.
When I speak about fundamentals, I am refering to something that can be discovered on one's own. How does one promote this except by example? Even then, if someone discovers this fundamental how can we be ready to 'purchase' it if we are not in the market?
If something requires being absorbed through being marketed and promoted then to me it is not a fundamental. Of course, no one said that it had to be a fundamental...
By the way, I don't even know what a fundamental is.
I want to make this very clear when I say that I am NOT trying to attack marketing and economics etc. It may come out that way because of my writing style but that too can change. What I AM trying to do is identify the loopholes so as to have a 'Get Out of Jail' card when someone tries to convince me to not pass go and to not collect that $200!
Finally, I would like to ask you, what makes capitalism so different from trade in the past? My initial thought on this was that the capacity to convince people to purchase has become more refined. I'm interested in seeing whether this thought of mine will change after reading your response.
PS: I downloaded the book and have started to read it. Stay tuned.
PSS: You'll note that there were no Chuck D quotes, but don't worry, this brother'll work one out soon...
At 9:13 AM, April 06, 2006,
Anonymous said…
One thing that I just noticed was that my writing style changes completely when I am making a comment as opposed to making one of my 'cryptic' posts.
Maybe my posting is an expression. While making a comment maybe an attempt to 'market' my opinions. Urgh...
At 1:22 AM, April 14, 2006,
KH said…
Sorry for the slow response...
Let's go through it...
"it seems to me that marketing is the process of convincing external parties that the principle party is a necessity. The more advanced the technique of the marketer, the less necessary the principle party actually is"
At first this made sense to me. It was quite an astute observation, I thought. Then i realised that your definition ignores my point about "natural" marketing and instead focusses purely on the selling aspects of marketing. As an example, let's look at "Smoking is bad for you" ads. There is nothing inherent in these ads that should put them in your "convincing external parties that the principal party is a necessity" category.
In much the same way, the fact that you post not for the purpose of selling your ideas, but for your own reasons, does not preclude your posts from selling your ideas.
I guess an analogy would be religion as far as your definition would focus on criticising religion because of the acts of churches/sects as opposed to its basic purpose, which (arguably) is the promotion of spirituality.
Take it back a step and you'll see marketing's pure purpose is to inform. If a variety of that information is promoting necessity, then so be it, but that sits on top of the core definition.
As for what makes capitalism different, I'm no expert, but a quick look at a definition from www.dictionary.com shows the movement towards private/corporate controlled economic systems where regulation is focussed on ensuring market forces rule (for the purposes of efficiency of markets).
At 11:26 AM, April 14, 2006,
Anonymous said…
You made the point before how you thought of marketing "... as the process of informing external parties about the principle party."
I totally agree with this but I think that there is much more to the basis and implications of such a belief.
I think that this is natural marketing BECAUSE it is based on a natural human tendency to 'promote one's self'. Perhaps we can call it the 'look at me' syndrome. To me, this syndrome is at a low level of human understanding, no matter how apparently sophisticated the vocabulary and society that is built up around it.
Basing a system on such a syndrome will inevitably lead, (after all, we are only human) to "the selling aspects of marketing". Perhaps I'm just stubborn and dense but I don't see a great divide between informing and informing for selling. Perhaps it's just a matter of degree.
Your 'smoking is bad' example however, really got me thinking about the implications of what I have been blabbing on about. I think that here there is a difference between informing and selling because obviously, there is no product asking to be bought. Clearly then, my 'theory' applies to profit motivated situations and that marketing or informing does have it's positives. I can accept this.
In my posts, certainly something of me is being presented to anyone who wishes to read what I write but whether they agree or disagree, or whether they think I am the new Messiah or Satan's bitch, does not really affect what is written. So, as you say, writing for my own benefit doesn't preclude my ideas from being sold but that is a far, far cry from writing for the express purpose of selling my ideas.
(PS: Stay tuned for the book version of The Wednesday Circle...)
I'll agree that marketing aims to inform (the quality of or the rationale behind that information is certainly up for debate...). However, it's my personal belief that the most useful and 'pure' information comes from an informer who ISN'T trying to inform. In other words, when someone wants to tell you something, something vital is lost because of that wanting.
As for capitalism, I'm not interested in dictionary definitions. I can look up a dictionary myself! I'm more interested in your feelings, thoughts and gut impressions...
PS: No Chuck D quotes were injured in the course of writing this post.
At 12:08 AM, April 15, 2006,
KH said…
I gave the dictionary definition for 1 main reason - sometimes its good to go back and see what a word/idea actually means when considering it. How many people actually know that capitalism is really just the boring, yet radical (when it was introduced), process of moving control of economic markets from Government (and similar) bodies to the average Joe.
Because of this, my thoughts are that, as with so many other things, it has a basis in altruisic purposes yet has been co-opted by Governments, corporations and individuals alike with alterior motives.
The notion of letting the market sort itself out is (like marketing :) ) a natural process. It can be seen in nature everywhere and is a fundamental way in which life exists and continues.
The fact that people seek to gain some advantage from this idea does not make capitalism bad, per se.
Again, everything comes down to people and the fact that most of the time, for what ever reason, people will act in their best interests over and above the interests of others, given a chance.
Even when people act in the interests of others, it is generally because their own self-interest (e.g. the need to feel good about doing the right thing) is being satisfied.
So, capitalism, in my opinion, is a great thing. The way in which capitalism is abused, is not.
I know this skirts around the issue, but i think the distinction is important to make.
At 9:41 AM, April 15, 2006,
Anonymous said…
I don't think that you've skirted around the issue at all.
As someone once said, 'don't believe the hype' but most people still do. It's one thing to agree with capitalism, it's a completely different thing to agree with it because 'well, what else is there?'.
While I have a lot of time for Socrates and his approach, a major weakness of his is that the meaning of words and concepts do change over time. For sure, capitalism means (meant?) one thing but it is also true that it could mean (does mean?) something else.
Self-responsibility is something that in the end, funnily enough, is one's own respsonsibility. If a person believes in something or claims to understand something, then like you suggested, it is imperative that they stop pussy footing around and actually KNOW the knowledge they are professing to know, rather than just memorising someone else's memory (mistakes?).
A final point, I read somehwere recently (though I can't remember where...) that the free market isn't actually as free as people would like to think. The amount of trade that is based on government regulations and NOT on market forces is apparently quite high. Factored into this are industries such as the military and oil...
PS: Only one Chuck D quote was injured in the course of this writing. He wasn't very happy about the injury but too bad, he had it coming...
Post a Comment
<< Home