|
This month’s essay starts with a simple question that most people never ask about karma: good according to whom?
Karma operates on the assumption that the universe keeps score objectively. Doing good things results in receiving good things. But there is no universal agreement on what good means — and that changes everything for brand strategy.
The essay explores a philosophical fault line that is quietly dividing the world right now. I believe that there are two fundamental belief systems, and they’re in open conflict:
- The Pragmatist believes the ends justify the means. Outcomes are the measure. Results prove rightness.
- The Purist believes it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game. How you get there matters as much as where you arrive.
Here’s what’s interesting: most of us have both beliefs, and we use them selectively. We apply one philosophy in some situations and the other in different ones — based on what’s at stake and who’s affected. It’s not hypocrisy. It’s human.
When you consider the implications of these opposing viewpoints, brands must navigate complex dynamics:
- No universal moral code — good and evil are not fixed points, they are perspectives shaped by the belief system underneath
- Two beliefs, both valid — the Pragmatist believes outcomes are the only measure; the Purist makes principles and ethics the priority; neither is wrong on their own terms
- Karma is tribal — you can only earn good karma with people who share your definition of good; brand karma operates within belief systems, not across them
- Brands are tribes — people join brands to confirm their personal values; when someone shops at Erewhon they’re signaling something, so is someone filling a cart at Walmart; most of us do both
- Brand identity is instinctive but fragile — without being documented and shared it fragments; different people fill the gaps with their own judgment; the brand drifts and with it the karma it was building
- This is what brand strategy actually is — not marketing, which moves product, but the work that captures what an organization genuinely believes and makes it consistent enough to hold together over time
The essay uses two real leaders from opposite ends of the consumer economy — Amy Howe, CEO of FanDuel, and Manish Chandra, founder of Poshmark — to show how both the Pragmatist and Purist positions are completely defensible, and what that means for how brands take a stand.
If this got you thinking, the full essay is worth your time. Dig in.
Read the essay > |
