Is "purpose-driven" marketing a lie?

Once upon a time, brands were just brands.

They sold us things, we bought them, and that was that. Then came the age of "purpose-driven marketing"—the promise that brands could be more than just peddlers of products. They could be moral leaders, cultural tastemakers, even agents of change.

And for a while, it seemed almost believable. Corporations plastered rainbow logos on everything during Pride Month, declared their commitment to sustainability, and ran ads urging people to vote. Marketing wasn’t just about making money—it was about making a difference. Or so we were told.

The problem is that "brand purpose" has always had a fundamental contradiction at its core: it still serves a profit motive.

That’s why the same corporations that promise to "empower women" also push impossible beauty standards. Why fast fashion brands can launch "eco-friendly collections" while dumping tons of textile waste into landfills. Why tech companies pledge to "connect the world" while hoarding our data like digital overlords.

At best, "purpose-driven marketing" is well-intentioned hypocrisy. At worst, it’s a cynical ploy that numbs us to the creeping influence of corporate power.

The decline of institutional trust left a vacuum. And of course, brands eagerly stepped in.

As governments struggled to keep up with social issues, brands presented themselves as the new ethical authorities. Need political guidance? Here’s an ad campaign. Want to fight climate change? Buy this reusable cup. Want to stand for democracy? Use our hashtag.

Slowly but surely, corporate influence blurred into spaces that should have been left to democratic institutions. It trained us to look to brands—not elected leaders—for moral direction. It made activism feel like a shopping decision. And it positioned profit-seeking companies as the gatekeepers of social change.

Whether intentional or not, this shift helped pave the way for a world where corporate interests dictate cultural narratives, control public discourse, and monitor our lives through algorithmic surveillance.

So, where does that leave us marketers?

Marketers exist in this messy intersection of profit and influence. We craft the messages, build the narratives, and decide which "values" get monetised. And that comes with responsibility. Can marketing ever be truly ethical when it’s tied to a business agenda?

Can brands be a "force for good" when their existence depends on consumption? Or is all of this just a more palatable way to sell the same system, wrapped in a prettier, more "purposeful" package? That’s the real question.

-Sophie, Writer