Brands taking a political stance. Boom.

Brands taking a political stance. Boom.

Early this week, President Trump issued an executive order to greatly shrink two national parks in Utah. The controversial decision is the largest rollback of protected federal land ever. In response, numerous businesses have come out against the decision, using their brand to make a political statement.

As news feeds were lighting up, I saw Patagonia post about the issue on Facebook, leading readers to their website that was redone with a stark black-and-white statement: “The President Stole Your Land.” Shortly after, I received an email from backcountry.com, urging people to protect these parks. Other outdoor recreation companies followed suit within the day.

Traditionally, brands have shied away from taking such a clear stance on political issues. Not only do they risk offending employees from various parts of the political spectrum, but they risk offending the customers who oppose their viewpoints. Taking the role of Switzerland seemed to be the best business bet.

But in today’s political climate where the country is more polarized than it has been in decades, the rules are changing. Taking a political stance is an option in the playbook, and when done right, can boost sales and brand loyalty. The key is to know your audience well, align your statements precisely with your corporate cultural beliefs and be cautious your stand doesn’t cross over into discrimination.

Modern times mean many people want to support companies that align with their values. They want to put their dollars toward a business they feel good about. A large part of this is being driven by socially conscious millennials, whose buying power grows with each passing year.

Some of the most recent examples of brands taking a stand come from the more liberal side. Target took on gay rights, numerous companies came out against Trump’s travel ban, and sponsors reacted to the NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem.

Conservative companies are taking a stand, too. One of the most noteworthy examples is Hobby Lobby, which cited religious reasons for not offering certain types of birth control through its health insurance programs. (This resulted in a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby won.)

Another conservative example: When Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy spoke about the company supporting “the biblical definition of a family unit” in 2012, there were boycotts and protests. Despite the negatives, sales soared 12 percent.

There’s no doubt that taking a political stand as a business is a risk, particularly for small businesses. Take, for example, the Colorado baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. He took a stance, but it may have crossed a line into discrimination, and the Supreme Court is hearing the case this week.

While the court deliberates, he has decided to stop making wedding cakes completely, which he notes was previously 40 percent of his business. This has caused him to reduce staff size from 10 to four. The future of his business is unknown.

If businesses want to stand up for what they believe in by making a public statement, they have every right to. However, it’s important to pick the most meaningful battles, maintain relationships with key influencers and, if possible, be the first to take a stand. If you do so in a way that appeals to your target audience, you’ll stand out in a positive way that won’t soon be forgotten.

What do you think? Have you every boycotted a brand for taking a stance?

#careers, #management, #work, #marketing, #brand

Jim Vinoski

At Cosgrove Content and Consulting, we speak manufacturing! Providing advisory and copywriting services for industry. Forbes Contributor. Keynote speaker. Host at ManufacturingTalks.com. Followed by everyone who's cool.

6 年

People love the idea of brands taking a political stance - so long as it matches their own. But showing contempt for half your customer base is really stupid business, no matter which side of the political wars you're on.

回复
Ben Barham

Fumex Air Filtration Systems

6 年

I think this is a death sentence for a brand. When you ostracize 51% or 49% of your market by chiming in on something outside of your core function (in this case making overly expensive fleece) you run the risk of financial ruin. Dumb business Patagonia.

Jim Jutzin

Compensation & Federal Compliance Professional

6 年

This falls into the category of “Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!”

FDA Compliance and Quality Engineering

Management Consulting / FDA Compliance / Quality Mgmt Systems - 2017 - >2500 connections

6 年

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us The political stance I believe is a tad excessive given the amount of land currently controlled by the government.. please review the attached link.. The data in the attached article I suspect does not include state controlled land or native American Indian lands or critical US military installations, all of which should be considered when talking about our countries protected nature and lands

回复
Jeff "JD" Dalessandro

High Energy Transmission T&D Construction

6 年

Holy smokes Mike that ridiculous! Not to mention no petroleum no plastic. No plastic no wicking fabric lol! Ignorance is bliss.

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了