If a brand cannot create happiness for its people, then there is no purpose for the brand to exist
We’re in Bhutan, the small Himalayan “Dragon Kingdom” (population 800,000) with a big reputation for making citizen happiness the nation’s core development goal.
We’re here because our digital agency – SYZYGY – seeks to put client happiness and user happiness at the heart of everything it does. So we’re here to learn.
Arriving on World Happiness Day 2018, our first meeting has been with Sonam Tsoki Tenzin, director of the Gross National Happiness Centre of Bhutan.
Tsoki explains that happiness has been a core goal of Bhutan for nearly four centuries. In 1629, (a century and a half before the 1776 US Declaration of Independence laid down unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”) Bhutan’s founding father Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel declared
“If the government cannot create happiness for its people, then there is no purpose for government to exist”
– Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel, founding father of Bhutan, 1629
Could this apply to brands as well as governments? If a brand cannot create happiness for its people, then is there no purpose for the brand to exist?
The pursuit of happiness as the nation’s goal is now written into Bhutan’s Constitution (articles 9 & 11). However, it was in 1972 that the country’s focus on happiness found global fame, when the former king of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, claimed that
“Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product”
– King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, 1972
But what is Gross National Happiness? To understand Gross National Happiness, it helps to understand what happiness means to the Bhutanese. Unlike Western notions of happiness as a personal experience, happiness in Buddhist Bhutan is conceived of as a social act – something we create for others. From this perspective, Gross National Happiness is the amount of happiness produced by the country (for a Western spin on this idea, see the short World Economic Forum clip below – click to play).
This is one infection you’ll want to catch. Learn more: https://t.co/5RZus1cDAo pic.twitter.com/wNceJiQOTf
— World Economic Forum (@wef) February 27, 2018
Until 2008, Gross National Happiness was more of an idea rather than a formal metric. This changed in 2008, when Bhutan launched its GNH Index to track progress in promoting the nation’s happiness. Although the GNH index is a single number (for simplicity), it is derived from 33 indicators across 9 domains that influence overall happiness.
As Tsoki explained the GNH Index to us, we realised that the Index was not a simple measure of happiness itself. Instead, the GNH Index measures ‘wellbeing’ and the enabling conditions for wellbeing to flourish.
- Subjective Wellbeing (SWB) is a more formal and accepted measure of happiness used by psychologists and demographers, which essentially measures the degree to which we subjectively experience and evaluate our lives positively. As a Buddhist culture, Bhutan combines this measure of subjective wellbeing with spiritual wellbeing to create a compound indicator of ‘psychological wellbeing’
- Wellbeing Enabling Conditions – a multi-dimensional measure of the conditions necessary for wellbeing to flourish, made up of health, living standards, education, time-use, cultural diversity and resilience, community vitality, psychological wellbeing, ecological diversity and good governance)
This was a first ‘aha’ moment for us as a digital agency concerned with client, user and employee happiness. Should we measuring our work in terms of the wellbeing we create or enable, rather than happiness itself?
We’ve often found that clients struggle with the idea of customer happiness, employee happiness or user happiness. Happiness is considered tricksy or vague, or both. This is despite good evidence that happy customers buy more, more often, for more and for longer, and that happy employees are more productive, more creative and more loyal.
So could the Bhutanese trick of measuring wellbeing as opposed to happiness help sidestep doubts over the validity and appropriateness of the more ‘fluffy’ notion of happiness? The advantage of adopting a wellbeing focus in assessing the impact of our work is that we can adapt or adopt simple scientifically-validated wellbeing measurement scales.
For example, mental health practitioners use a simple seven-question scale to measure wellbeing (SWEMWBS), which could be adapted to measure the quality of client, user or employee experience
Below are some statements about feelings and thoughts. Please tick the box that best describes your experience [with working with us/for this organisation] over the past two week (boxes are none of the time (score 1), rarely (score 2), some of the time (score 3), often (score 4), all of the time (score 5)
- I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future
- I’ve been feeling useful
- I’ve been feeling relaxed
- I’ve been dealing with problems well
- I’ve been thinking clearly
- I’ve been feeling close to other people
- I’ve been able to make up my own mind about things
To calculate your own personal wellbeing score, simply add up your score out of 35. Multiply by 2.86 to get a wellbeing score of 100.
Wellbeing is also measured in terms of the three dimensions held to underpin a positive mindset – positive experience, positive life evaluation and positive meaning
- How frequently have you experienced these feelings over the last four weeks? Positive, Negative, Good, Bad, Pleasant, Unpleasant, Happy, Sad, Afraid, Joyful, Angry Contented (on a scale of 1-5 where 1 is very rarely or not at all, 2 is rarely, 3 is sometimes, 4 is often and 5 is very often or always) – SPANE Model (or for alternative list of feelings to audit, see below for the influential “circumplex model of affect”)
- Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
(on a 0- 10 scale, where 0 is not satisfied at all, and 10 is completely satisfied) - Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile? – ONS
(on a 0-10 scale, where 0 is not at all worthwhile and 10 is completely worthwhile) – ONS
These three questions, used by positive psychologists like myself to research wellbeing could be readily adapted to measure the outcome of our work on client, employee or user wellbeing.
From this perspective, the measure of success for our agency is the degree that working with us is a positive experience, that our work is evaluated positively, and that it creates positive meaning for our client.
How frequently have you experienced these feelings over the last four weeks? [Circumplex Model of Affect]. Note – the emotions in the circumplex model could be adapted to include Bhutan’s Buddhist interpretation of positive emotions (calmness, empathy, forgiveness, contentment, and generosity) and negative emotions (anger, envy, guilt, resentment, selfishness, jealousy, pride, disappointment, sadness, and frustration).
Nuance aside, the big takeout from our first meeting in Bhutan is that if SYZYGY – or any other agency – is serious about client happiness, then we need to measure it. Using established wellbeing metrics, rather than tired satisfaction metrics that don’t capture the emotional nature of experience could be the answer.
Hope that everyone in the world is happy.
Great post
I like this article
This is a very good article
This is a really insightful point. I’ve definitely seen the hesitation around “happiness” in a professional setting. It feels subjective and difficult to quantify. Focusing on wellbeing, with concrete metrics like that seven-question scale, feels much more actionable and less “woo-woo.” It’s a smart way to bridge the gap between genuine care for people and demonstrable business results. I’m keen to see how this approach plays out in practice.
These three questions, used by positive psychologists like myself to research wellbeing could be readily adapted to measure the outcome of our work on client, employee or user wellbeing.
A beautifully written piece on Bhutan’s approach to measuring happiness
I really appreciate how you’ve broken down wellbeing measurement into these three dimensions. As someone who’s struggled with traditional “success” metrics in my own work, this client-focused approach resonates deeply. The shift from just deliverables to actual positive impact feels much more meaningful and sustainable. Thank you for sharing this framework!
It’s fascinating to see Bhutan’s centuries-old commitment to Gross National Happiness, especially the idea that a government’s purpose hinges on citizen happiness. That quote from 1629 about “If the government cannot create happiness for its people, then there is no purpose for government to exist” really hit home, and it makes you wonder how that translates to modern businesses. If a brand’s ultimate goal is to serve its audience, then shouldn’t creating happiness, or at least genuine satisfaction, be its primary objective? It’s a much deeper consideration than just profit margins. This whole concept makes me think about how we measure success even in something like gaming. We track wins and losses, sure, but the *feeling* of playing, the community engagement, and the overall enjoyment are arguably more crucial for long-term player retention. It’s a different kind of happiness, but still vital. I was just looking at some resources for Marvel Rivals Season 8, and they have some neat tools for tracking progress and understanding player engagement, which feels tangentially related to understanding what makes players happy with the game.
That quote from Bhutan’s founding father, “If the government cannot create happiness for its people, then there is no purpose for government to exist,” really hit home, especially when the article pivots to asking if the same applies to brands. It’s a bold claim, but honestly, if a brand’s entire existence hinges on *making people happy*, that feels like a much more noble mission than just selling stuff. It makes me think about how we measure success – is it just profit, or can it be something more holistic, like genuine user satisfaction? It’s a bit like solving a puzzle; you’re not just looking for the right answer, but the one that brings everything together in a satisfying way. Speaking of puzzles, I’ve found that diving into a good mystery, like the ones over at EveryClue, can really sharpen your focus on details and logical connections, which feels surprisingly relevant to figuring out what truly makes people happy. It’s all about piecing together the clues, isn’t it?
This idea of “Gross National Happiness” being more important than GDP is fascinating, especially coming from a country that officially enshrined happiness as a development goal centuries ago. It really makes you think about what we prioritize in our own societies and businesses. The article mentions Bhutan’s founding father saying, “If the government cannot create happiness for its people, then there is no purpose for government to exist.” I wonder how that translates to brands today – can *brands* really create happiness, or is that just a byproduct of good service and products? It’s a lofty goal, and I’m curious how they actually measure it.
It reminds me a bit of how we try to bring a little bit of creative joy to people through coloring. It’s not exactly “happiness” on a national scale, but there’s a certain satisfaction and calm that comes from engaging in a creative, focused activity. We even have a tool that uses AI to turn ideas into printable coloring pages, which is a fun way to personalize that creative outlet. What do you think it would take for a brand to genuinely contribute to someone’s happiness?
It’s fascinating how Bhutan’s concept of Gross National Happiness predates even the US Declaration of Independence! That quote from Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel about government purpose really resonated. It makes you wonder about other entities, like brands, and if that same principle of creating happiness should be their ultimate aim. The article touches on the difficulty of measuring happiness, which is so true – it’s not as straightforward as GDP.
It actually got me thinking about how we try to create happiness in our own spaces. For instance, when people are redesigning a room or staging a home, the goal is often to create a feeling of comfort and joy. Seeing a space transform and imagining yourself happy there is a powerful part of the process.
Bhutan’s centuries-old focus on Gross National Happiness is fascinating, especially when you consider how much we in the West often equate happiness with material wealth or fleeting trends. The idea that a brand’s purpose hinges on creating happiness for its people, as the article posits, really resonates. It makes me think about how much of our own environment contributes to our well-being. I was just experimenting with AI Interior Lab on some room designs, and seeing how different layouts and styles could instantly change the *feel* of a space was eye-opening. It’s a small-scale parallel, perhaps, but it highlights how intentional design can foster a sense of contentment and positivity. It makes you wonder, what would a truly “happy” digital space look like, or even a happy physical space, if we approached it with that same depth of intention?
This idea of “Gross National Happiness” being more important than GDP really hit me, especially coming from a place like Bhutan that’s been thinking about this for centuries. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it, how much of our modern focus on metrics and growth actually serves genuine well-being? The article’s question about whether brands have a purpose if they can’t create happiness for their people is a powerful one. It resonates with the constant drive in gaming to improve player experience and satisfaction – if the game isn’t fun and engaging, what’s the point? It’s a similar challenge to what Bhutan is tackling on a national scale, just in a different arena.
That quote from the founding father of Bhutan really hit home – “If the government cannot create happiness for its people, then there is no purpose for government to exist.” It makes you wonder, doesn’t it, if that same principle should apply to brands too? If a brand’s ultimate goal isn’t to bring some form of satisfaction or happiness to its users, what’s the point? It’s fascinating to see a country actively prioritizing happiness as a development metric, something we often just chase abstractly. It’s a whole different approach to progress. It reminds me a bit of how in Forza Horizon 6, the goal isn’t just about winning races, but about the sheer joy of driving and exploring that vast, beautiful map. Finding those hidden roads and perfecting your car builds brings a unique kind of satisfaction, a pursuit of happiness in its own way.
That quote from Bhutan’s founding father, “If the government cannot create happiness for its people, then there is no purpose for government to exist,” really hit home, especially when the article pivots to asking if the same applies to brands. It’s a bold statement that feels incredibly relevant today. Thinking about my own work in the gaming industry, we’re constantly trying to build experiences that players genuinely enjoy and find fulfilling. It’s not just about releasing a game, but about fostering a community and ensuring players have a positive, even happy, experience with it. It makes me wonder if that same principle of “purpose through happiness” is something more companies, even in tech and entertainment, should be actively measuring and prioritizing, rather than just chasing engagement metrics. It’s a tough challenge, but one that could fundamentally change how businesses operate.
This is such a fascinating idea, framing brand purpose around “client happiness.” It really struck me when you quoted the founding father of Bhutan from 1629, saying if government can’t create happiness, it has no purpose. It makes you wonder if brands, especially in today’s hyper-consumerist world, would even *exist* if they truly adopted that philosophy.
It’s a huge shift from the usual metrics of profit and market share. I’ve been looking at how AI models interpret “buyer intent” lately, and it’s interesting to see which brands they consistently recommend when users ask about products or services. Sometimes, the most recommended brands aren’t the biggest or loudest, but ones that seem to genuinely solve a problem or offer a positive experience. It’s a small piece of the puzzle, but it makes me think about how we *measure* positive impact, whether for a nation or a business. You can see some of our findings at recoindex.com – it’s an ongoing experiment in what “value” actually means to users. Curious to see how Bhutan’s approach evolves!