Corante Network contributor Grant McCracken dares to cry out "the emperor has no clothes!" regarding Clayton Christensen, Scott Cook, and Teddy Hall's WSJ article of Nov. 29, "It's the Purpose Brand, Stupid" (sub reqd):

"To reduce the brand to 'purpose' is to dumb down the enterprise, diminish the art and science of marketing, begger the consumer, and so displace the marketer, that our three wise men must be seen to conduct themselves as proverbial bulls in the china shop of marketing concept, method and action, destroying the advances made over the 100 years."

Grant's got lots of Corante support on this one -- Corante-r Francois Gossieaux chimes in, while Network contributor Tom Asacker comments,

"And I wonder if the "purpose brand" is blow back in response to billions of dollars being wasted by businesses as they attempt to SIMPLY sell the sizzle with advertising, sponsorships, events, viral nonsense, etc. al la Carly (NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Hewlett-Packard co. is reviewing up to $2 billion of ad business as it sweeps away the corporate-branding vision favored by the deposed CEO Carly Fiorina.)? Perhaps we should meet somewhere in the middle."

On IdeaFlow I've written a great deal about Christensen's theories that new products should aim to get customers' jobs done, and as a new-product strategy I say "Amen!" to that. But I agree with my fellow Corante-rs on this one. This strikes me as a classic logical fallacy -- mistaking the part for the whole. Purpose is part of a brand. It's not synonymous with or exchangeable with the totality of a brand. Here's Grant again:

"Brands, at their best, and among other things, bundles of meanings, some of them robust, some of them delicate, all of them poised to speak to one or more segments and to deliver unto them an understanding of not just what the product does but what it stands for, how it may be used, for whom it may stand, and where it is located in the larger scheme of things, commercial and cultural. (These values are not functions. They are values that create value.)"

One more thing -- I know that Christensen et al didn't write the headline -- some WSJ copy editor is to blame for that -- but calling readers stupid is, well, stupid. And the phrase it's playing of off -- "It's the [fill in the blank], stupid" -- is so 90's! Come on, WSJ -- get into the 21st century.