Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geetanjali Saluja, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Technology Sydney
In the immediate aftermath of last month’s shocking assassination attempt on US presidential candidate Donald Trump, search engine giant Google found itself in hot water. The reason? A technical issue with its auto-complete function.
Search terms relating to the assassination attempt appeared to be omitted from automated suggestions in Google’s search bar. Conservative social media users were quick to pile on, accusing the tech giant of political bias and active censorship.
These claims turned out to be unfounded – a content moderation feature was to blame – but they were hardly new. Many tech companies, including Google, have long been perceived as left-leaning.
But certainly not all of them. Elon Musk, chief executive of both X (formerly Twitter) and electric car maker Tesla, recently announced his full endorsement of Trump, who in turn declared his own support for electric vehicles.
Getting political is nothing new for brands, and extends well beyond tech companies. It can range from taking a stance on key social issues to backing individual parties or candidates.But it is not clear whether engaging in “brand activism” actually helps companies overall, leaving many marketers and chief executives hesitant to do so.
Taking a stand on issues that consumers care about can obviously help build stronger brand connections – but what happens when a brand’s political views don’t align with those of its customers?
The risks of getting political
Our previous research has found that consumers’ political allegiance – whether they identify as liberal, conservative or somewhere in between – can affect their attitude towards brands that engage in activism.
Much of this is in line with what you’d expect. Liberal-leaning consumers tend to like brands that promote progressive causes such as supporting immigration. Conservative consumers, on the other hand, generally like brands to either be silent on, or oppose, progressive issues.
However, both liberal and conservative consumers dislike brands that seem inauthentic in the position they support. That offers a cautionary tale to brands who might seek to “jump on the bandwagon” and performatively support a particular social issue.
Always mean what you say
Brands that try to play both sides of the fence on a given social or political issue can end up alienating everyone.
Last year, American beer brand Bud Light faced a backlash from conservatives after hiring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to promote the brand. Conservative consumers were quick to target Mulvaney on social media and boycotted the brand in response to the campaign.
But in this aftermath, Bud Light was criticised for failing to stand behind Mulvaney, who said the company failed to offer her support after the backlash. This cost it some of its liberal customer base as well.
Build a purposeful connection
Our research shows that while it can help brands if their public stance on an issue aligns with the political views of their target consumers, they must also demonstrate it is more than lip service.
InFocus.ee/Shutterstock
Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, for example, enjoys a a loyal customer base among liberal-leaning millennials and Gen Z consumers. It has also been vocal in its support for several progressive issues, such as climate action, refugee rights and racial justice.
The company has become famous for such activism, and largely been rewarded for it by consumers, despite some recent tension with its parent company Unilever.
Ben & Jerry’s work on racial justice, for example, has involved issuing detailed statements and action plans on what it believes real societal change would require.
Done right, consistent alignment of views across a brand’s whole public “character” can instil a deep sense of pride amongst the brand’s consumers and stronger identification with the brand’s values.
Stand with conviction
A brand’s public stance should be a genuine reflection of its core values, not something that adjusts to suit the zeitgeist. Brands that demonstrate such conviction are often rewarded.
In 2018, Nike supported civil rights activist and former footballer Colin Kaepernick and his stance on Black Lives Matter by launching the “Believe in Something” campaign. The move came despite serious backlash from conservative consumers as well as then-US president Donald Trump.
An initial backlash and fears of a boycott saw Nike’s share price fall. But the company held firm on the campaign, its share price soon recovered, and sales soared.
If you can’t be authentic, don’t be anything at all
Our research suggests that brands without an authentic position on a societal issue might be better off not taking sides. When a brand is seen as flip-flopping on an issue, it risks alienating everyone.
Brands should absolutely feel empowered to take on social and political stances that align with their underlying vision and mission. But if issue-based support doesn’t genuinely align with the brand’s image – and isn’t reflected through meaningful actions – the danger of appearing insincere means it might be better to stay silent.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Should brands take a stance on social and political issues? – https://theconversation.com/should-brands-take-a-stance-on-social-and-political-issues-235688
