Holiday thoughts from Brittany

You know how it goes. You leave for vacation with grand plans (books, deep conversations, finally working out that one idea) and end up with sand between your toes, a croissant in your hand and exactly zero need for Wi-Fi.

I'm now in a remote corner of Brittany. Life has its own pace here. Internet is there occasionally, but it behaves like a teenager: now yes, later no, and always just when you want to upload something important. Shops are closed in the afternoon, because here people still actually lunch as if it's a sport. Oysters aren't ostentatious luxury, but a kind of seaweed with status: they're literally there for the picking. And the ocean doesn't do subtle either. Eight meters of tide, strong waves, rocks that get a new look daily. Coastal couture, but wet.

There are tourists, but you hardly notice them. Everyone is mainly busy cycling (hills, so lots of sporty types and remarkably many e-bikes) and walking along that pink granite coast. During the day the beaches are almost empty, except for a few tough surfers who act as if cold water is their second language. Towards the end of the day, more people trickle in: families playing ball, flying kites, building sandcastles. You hardly see topless. Young mothers sit in circles together, children nearby, and fathers shuttle somewhat awkwardly around them: from the circle to the surf and back again, staring at the endless sea as if the answer is floating there.

Life here is carefree and beautiful. And precisely then, when your head doesn't keep saying 'ping', there's room. Then you suddenly think about work again, about the profession, about the world, about your own group. And because I know myself, I forced myself to tame that thought spaghetti. So: made a list. Then clustered. And then came the question: what gives me the most energy?

The great divide (with free choice stress)

What strikes me: the social discussion is quite polarized. It seems like you have to put a sticker on everything immediately.

• You're for climate measures, or you're against them.
• You're for market forces, or you're against them.
• You're for women at the top, or you're against it.
• You're for weapons, or you're against them.
• You're for refugees, or you're against them.
• You're for organic food, or you're against it.
• You're for electric cars, or you're against them.
• You're for socialism, or you're against it.
• You're for getting off gas, or you're against it.
• You're for shareholder value, or you're against it.
• You're for banks, or you're against them.
• You're for flying, or you're against it.
• You're for Muslims, or you're against them.
• You're for capitalism, or you're against it.
• You're for Christians, or you're against them.
• You're for climate girl Greta, or you're against her.
• You're for equal opportunities, or you're against them.
• You're for taxes, or you're against them.
• You're for more green in the city, or you're against it.
• You're for windmills, or you're against them.
• You're for more asphalt, or you're against it.
• You're for more tourists, or you're against them.
• You're for racial mixing, or you're against it.
• You're for less meat, or you're against it.
• You're for nuclear, or you're against it.
• You're for less plastic, or you're against it.
• You're for Brexit, or you're against it.
• You're for tobacco and alcohol restrictions, or you're against them.
• You're for the boreal world, or you're against it.
• You're for soft drugs, or you're against them.
• You're for the euro, or you're against it.
• You're for monogamy, or you're against it.

And yes, I could continue for a while. But then everyone will drop out. Including me.

Nowadays, you're almost expected to have an opinion about everything. Preferably immediately. Preferably sharp. Preferably in 280 characters. And if you say: "I don't know yet, I want to understand it better first", that doesn't feel like strength, but like weakness. While it's actually quite mature to sleep on it. Or to admit: it's complex. It remains an open question that may resolve itself later.

Brands with opinions (and a megaphone)

What I also see: more and more organizations take a stand. Not only internally, but also in their marketing. What are they for? What do they stand for? What do they fight for, as if they're on a mission?

A few examples that come to mind spontaneously:

• Rabobank is for solving the food problem in the world.
• KLM is with 'Fly responsible' for less flying.
• Adidas is against the use of plastic and wants to stop it.
• Heineken is for diversity through the World Apart initiative.
• Unilever is for growth, but in such a way that the impact on the environment relatively decreases and more positive impact arises.
• Ikea is for all people, with democratic design and sustainable materials.
• Tony's is for slave-free chocolate.

And then naturally comes that question: what are you for? And your organization? What's your thing?

Purpose, purpose-washing and the reality in between

Within the branding world, this has been called 'purpose marketing' for a few years. Brands communicate their purpose through communication, so that more people know that 'beautiful, noble' position.

At the same time, you hear the criticism: it can also be 'purpose-washing'. A moral sauce for commercial profit. And sometimes that criticism is understandable. It feels bitter, for example, if on the one hand you want to sell more flight tickets and on the other hand call on people to fly less.

I'm less straightforward about it myself. My reasoning follows a somewhat more crooked line: every form of communication that makes social and environmental problems visible, also helps somewhere. Awareness comes from multiple corners. The national government also does it, with campaigns like One against loneliness.

But, and that's a strong but: it goes wrong when it becomes opportunism.

Like with AkzoNobel. They started a campaign in 2017 to tackle poverty in slums in Indonesia and the Philippines. Millions went in, but after two years they quietly withdrew. The CEO and the sustainability manager have since left. Pretty sour.

In this article in Trouw you can read more about it. By the way: I have nothing to do with AkzoNobel and I wish them all the best. It seems like a solid organization that makes excellent paint and has taken good care of people for years.

The human need for meaning

Organizations have been searching for meaningful meaning that connects people and provides direction for years. That's why we think so much about mission, vision, values and now also purpose. Concepts that should inspire, touch hearts, and especially: incite action.

What strikes me: the last decade it's less and less about operational excellence, shareholder value or customer satisfaction, and more and more about social goals and our living environment. Themes that used to mainly lie with governments and charities are now also being taken up by commercial organizations.

How come?

• Because social media makes abuses visible faster?
• Because profit thinking is now being balanced by more compassion?
• Because populist leaders provoke a counter-reaction?
• Because a new generation of leaders is rising?
• Or is it a fashion trend that will fade again soon?

The latter would be a shame.

And BR-ND then?

I also pause again at our own convictions at BR-ND. Last year we re-examined them after five years. With the whole team we discussed what we individually and together really find important. We made a beautiful story out of it. It's here. It now stands neatly on the website, but more importantly: we know it and we try to act on it. We are actually our own story. It belongs to all of us.

Sometimes, when I'm a bit more philosophical, I wonder which part I find most important. The BR-ND story is rich.

It's about:

• contributing to happy people and organizations with a positive culture,
• genuine interest in people and their ideas,
• exploring boundaries and experimenting,
• a healthy balance between science and creativity,
• and open relationships, collaboration and trust.

All true. And yet difficult to choose.

Maybe this is the core: people are the brand

Maybe ultimately it's this: people make the brand. It's in their heads. Credible and attractive brands are not built in the boardroom, and also not only by the marketing manager with an agency on the sideline.

We believe that brands should be developed together with the people inside and outside the organization who really matter. People get the chance to share ideas, give their opinion, and be involved in strategy and decision-making. The search and the choices come closer to operations this way.

You can summarize it as an inclusive approach. And that touches on what emotive branding is also about, I think: inclusivity and empowerment.

Great holiday everyone, and see you soon.

Alexander Koene