The Power and Peril of Brands Taking a Stand

"Consumers are increasingly using their wallets to vote for the brands that share their values." - Simon Mainwaring, branding expert

Today, with increasing consumer consciousness and social awareness, the role of brands has expanded beyond mere products and services. As many as 70 percent of consumers now expect brands to take a stance on issues that matter, reflecting a growing trend where consumers align themselves with brands that reflect their values.?

Amazon Ads has been conducting an annual study since 2021 to understand how exactly consumer values impact brand preference.?

Today, even though inflation has caused consumers to be more budget-conscious, 77% (11% more than in 2022) say that they make an effort to support brands that donate to causes they care about.?

This has driven many brands to discuss social justice and environmental issues. However, the decision to take a stance is like picking a lottery ticket, you never know if you win significant benefits or backlash.

Marketing leaders are aware of the uncertainty that comes with taking a stance. Many unsuccessful campaigns like Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner ad have shown how volatile consumer opinion can be. But, for every Pepsi ad in this world, there’s a Heineken or Goldiebox, giving hope to businesses that they too can connect with consumers.? To show the other perspective from the business side, a CMO survey was conducted by Christine Moorman at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. They were of course divided.?

So what are the potential benefits?

Consumers who align with a brand’s values are more likely to show loyalty. They see their preferred brands as reflections of their own values and expect these brands to share their views. When a brand takes a stand, it can cultivate strong bonds with its customers, who may even switch to a more vocal brand if their current choice remains silent.

"Washing shirts a little whiter or making hair a bit shinier than the next brand is still important, but performance by itself is no longer enough." - Hanneke Faber, President of Nutrition at Unilever

Nike’s partnership with Colin Kaepernick in 2018 is a compelling example of a brand taking a stand. Kaepernick, a former NFL quarterback, became a symbol of peaceful protest against racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem. Nike’s bold move to feature Kaepernick in its "Just Do It" campaign drew praise from like-minded consumers. Those who supported Kaepernick’s stance flocked to the brand, increasing sales and boosting Nike’s stock price.? Thus, taking a stance can attract new customer segments that resonate with the company’s values.?

Potential Harms and Risks involved

Brands that take a stance risk facing vocal backlash from consumers who disagree with their values. This backlash can manifest in the form of protests, boycotts, and social media outrage, leading to significant reputational damage.

Target faced backlash when it introduced a Pride clothing line, drawing criticism from those who oppose LGBTQ+ rights. The backlash illustrated the challenges brands face when they take a stand on issues that remain divisive.

Bud Light faced controversy when it featured a transgender influencer in its advertising. Critics argued that this move was not aligned with their values, leading to backlash within certain communities.

While some brands have seen stock prices rise after taking a stance, others have experienced declines. Unilever, a multinational corporation that owns a wide range of products, including food and beverages, personal care, and more, ventured into taking a stand on various issues, including sustainability and social justice. However, their share price dropped by 10%, demonstrating that taking a stand doesn’t always lead to financial gains. In contrast, competitors that remained silent or took a less public stance on such issues saw share price growth.

The Complex Decision-Making Process

The question of whether taking a stand influences purchasing decisions is not straightforward. It often depends on various factors, including the specific brand, the product category, and the consumers’ personal values. Consumers also have different standards for different types of products.

"Maybe we don’t care what our toothpaste says about us. But we do care about what our shoes say as we walk through the world in them." - Kristin Schwab at NPR’s Marketplace

This paper underscores the necessity for brands to carefully assess the risks and rewards associated with aligning themselves with particular values. In this evolving landscape, one thing is clear: the role of brands extends far beyond products and services, as they become intertwined with the values and convictions of their consumers.? In this study, we explore the complex relationship between consumer choice, personal values, and brand activism, specifically within the context of clothing, food, and personal care products.

Experiment Overview

As a consumer, our decisions are significantly influenced by social factors. Clothing is the most common way for one to express their identity compared to through food, beverage and personal care products. The clothes we wear can encompass a variety of factors such as social status, interests, personality, and values. Based on this, we hypothesize that a brand’s stance on a social issue is more likely to influence a consumer’s decision when it comes to clothing purchases, while having a lesser influence on choices made in the food or personal care product categories.?

To test our hypothesis, we created two polls that were shared within the LinkedIn community. The first poll focused on determining whether a brand’s position on social issues has an effect on consumer purchase behavior.?

We presented 4 brands: Nike, Patagonia, Ben & Jerry’s, and Colgate. Although there are many other brands that take a stand against different causes, we chose to include more gender-neutral brands to increase the relevance of this study.?

Which brand are you most likely to purchase based on their values?

Clothing

• Nike took a stance against racial injustice by supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.
• Patagonia focuses on environmental sustainability and advocates against climate change and pollution.

Food/Beverage

• Ben & Jerry’s is very vocal on issues such as racial injustice, LGBTQ+ rights, refugee rights, climate justice, and so much more.?

Personal Care

• Colgate’s launched their Smile with Pride campaign to exhibit allyship with the LGBTQ+ community.

As stated above, we hypothesized that brands taking a stance will have more of an effect on consumers when purchasing clothing as opposed to food or personal care products. Thus, we expected Nike and Patagonia to have the most votes compared to Ben & Jerry’s and Colgate.?

Our second poll aimed to find the connection between product categories and personal expression of values. Do we rely more on certain product categories than others to express our values??

In this poll we presented the 3 product categories: clothing, food/beverage, and personal care products. Participants were asked to select the product category that they felt most concerned about aligning with their values. Through this poll, we wanted to find out whether the brand or the product category matters more when it comes to the buyer decision process. We expected to see a strong correlation between the brands chosen in the first poll and their respective category in the second poll. We stuck with the expectation that clothing, as a primary avenue for self-expression, would receive the most votes out of the 3 categories.?

Poll Results

We received 95 votes for the first poll.? The vast majority of votes (81.1%) were split between the two clothing brands, with 46.3% for Nike and 34.7% for Patagonia.? This split between the two clothing companies could be explained by which social value resonates most with participants.? Nike may have been selected by participants who care more about racial justice, and Patagonia may have been selected by those who prioritize environmental justice.? This split could also be explained by the different recreation interests represented by each brand.? Patagonia targets outdoor enthusiasts, while Nike is aimed at competitive athletes.? The overall strong results for clothing brands confirm consumers really care about their wardrobe expressing their social values.? The remaining two categories received a minority, with Ben & Jerry’s receiving 10.5% and Colgate 8.4%.? This suggests these brand’s stance on issues matters less when it comes to actual purchasing habits.

The second poll only received 59 votes, so 38% fewer than the first poll.? Perhaps not providing specific brands made it harder for participants to form an opinion.? The two polls were rolled out in rapid succession, so it’s also possible that LinkedIn’s algorithm made the second poll visible to fewer users.? Interestingly, food/beverage was the top category participants were concerned about aligning with their values, receiving 44.1% of votes.? This suggests we rely more on food than expected to express our values.? Clothing was second at 39.0%, confirming this category’s importance in value expression.? Personal care products came in last but still had a strong showing at 16.9%. ? More people rely on personal care products to express their values than anticipated.?

Revelations

Several insights emerged that challenge expectations and offer valuable perspectives on how individuals connect with brands and products. First and foremost, the overwhelming preference for clothing brands in the first poll, with Nike and Patagonia at the forefront, was a confirmation of our hypothesis. The unexpected revelation was the impact of recreation interests. Patagonia’s appeal to outdoor enthusiasts and Nike’s alignment with competitive athletes revealed that consumers not only consider social values but also lifestyle and interests when making clothing choices.

The dominance of food and beverage in the second poll suggests that our dietary choices are a more prominent avenue for expressing values than initially anticipated.? Ben & Jerry’s poor performance in the first poll contrasts with how well food/beverage performed in the second poll.? Perhaps Ben & Jerry’s wasn’t the ideal representation of the food category.? Ice cream is more of an occasional treat, so it might not be a product people use regularly enough to consider an expression of identity and values. Despite being outspoken on issues and its commitment to sustainability, Ben & Jerry’s is not certified organic. People who use food to express values might do so by selecting organic foods, or avoiding animal products altogether, which is a clear mismatch to this brand.?

Personal care products were still the top pick for several participants.? While not visible, fragrances from lotions, toothpaste, and deodorant are still very noticeable to other people as we move about the world.? Many people may care about the sustainability of ingredients, packaging, and safety of these products we apply directly to our bodies.?

Summary

Our findings suggest that purchasing behavior may be influenced by a brand’s stance on specific issues. How consumers use products is closely related to their concern about brand alignment with their values.?

The poll results affirm that clothing continues to be a very important category for expressing values, and consumers expect their clothing brands to align on issues that matter to them. Nike and Patagonia are two brands that are very successful in converting their stances into sales. It was a surprising insight that food/beverage surpassed clothing in the second poll, highlighting a different perspective on how consumers prioritize expressing their values.

Despite personal care products receiving the fewest votes, they remain relevant when it comes to taking a stance that aligns with their consumers’ values. For example, many people care that the products they apply directly to their bodies match their values. However, this category has less to gain and may have to more carefully weigh the risks.