Resolved: Do Companies/Brands Need to Speak Out and Take A Stand on Social/Political Issues to Be Successful?
In a debate, there are Pros and Cons.
To help you prepare your considered and essential arguments (that I urge you to share), I have prepared some source materials for you to help shape your arguments.
As I debated this very proposition in my own mind, taking first one side and then the other, I was struck by the need to go deep on the source material findings and connect the dots between disparate sources and cases—not to mention my own experience and writing.
Let’s begin…
Here are a few more thoughts for your consideration:
Allow me to unpack some of the above.
Consider the case of Patagonia and Gillette. Patagonia has always been true to its core—business-driven purpose and social responsibility. It’s their DNA. The ethos of Patagonia powers everything from their employee culture to their product development to their donations to nonprofits and, of course, is communicated by their marketing. It’s all in a direct…dot connected…"money where their mouth is" line.????
Gillette, no doubt, reacting at the time to Blackrock CEO Larry Fink’s annual letter (see my prior IMAGINEs) of “The World Needs Your Leadership,” saw an opportunity to follow Patagonia, who protested then President Trump's Executive Order eliminating public parkland and Levi’s and Dick’s taking a public stance on gun safety (not control) dropped a campaign called “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be.” Study it for yourself. The best that can be said is that it gave Gillette a multi-billion dollar write-down and joined Pepsi’s unfortunate attempt at showing Kendall Jenner stopping a riot with a can of Pepsi.
I’d add that it's actually a sign of our times (see my IMAGINEs) and inability to learn from history that Bud Light fell into the same trap.
The lesson is simple and to the point.
I will point out here, as I have previously, that this wonderful sentiment breaks down when price and convenience take precedence. You only have to look at the long list of questionably socially equipped companies that are hugely successful to prove the point.
All of which leads me to a recent Harris Poll and a quote from CEO John Gerzema...as I see it, the “money shot." Full disclosure: I work for Stagwell Global—the parent company.
领英推荐
The bottom line, they report, is that CONSUMERS ARE CYNCIAL…companies are seen as inauthentic.
What does all of the above mean? Speaking out requires a track record and relevance:
Gerzema summed it all up for me by sharing:
“Overall companies should understand the polarization and cynicism and tread lightly, only speaking out on things close to their business. Better yet, far more impactful to be seen doing rather than saying…companies are valued more for being true to their word and convictions even if they are disagreed with…I refer you back to Patagonia and Chick-fil-A.”
?Success?
?And it’s consistency I will emphasize as it’s roiling the corporate world right now. If you spoke out for one cause back when… You better have a good reason not to speak for another today…and visa versa. It’s not just your consumers at stake here; it’s your shareholders and, most importantly, your employees.
Bruce Springsteen said it well:
?“Getting an audience is hard. Sustaining an audience is hard. It demands a consistency of thought, of purpose, and of action over a long period of time.”
?Be consistent in this. Now, ON TO THE DEBATE…RESOLVED.
What’s your view?
President at Ilan Geva & Friends, Senior Strategy Director & Head of US and Americas office at Vmarsh Healthcare
1 年I think there’s a distinction between “companies” and head/owner/CEO of companies. Companies are not a single minded entity with one collective brain and soul. Their positioning and attitude to business is created either by committee or by the strong will of a leader. Apple was different under Steve Jobs, and changed under Scully. Most companies today are soulless entities driven by shareholders greed, and none of their social standings/opinions should be taken seriously.
Entrepreneur, strategist, creative thinker and lifelong apprentice.
1 年Good stuff David Sable, couldn't agree more. Brands do create trust and differentiation when they have a clear purpose (socially oriented or not) and it's increasingly important that they have an opinion on cultural and political issues, participating on the general discourse. Do they need to have an opinion on everything? Don't think so. Pepsi and Bud Light missed the mark completely. Stay in your lane, be true to your brands DNA and treat your target's core values as your own. They should be. Cheers!
Helping powerful people remember how powerful they are.
1 年Seems to me this question is valid to the degree companies and individuals buy into influence of stakeholder (not shareholder) capitalism (DEI/ESG) via the machinations of the World Economic Forum and the "Big 3". Is CSR and public/private partnerships not just lipstick on the pig of fascism? At some point we'll all get back to the reality that companies don't save people. People save people. Personal responsibility eats activism for lunch. It's a lot easier and safer to identify with the tribe than it is to do the work of thinking for one's self and of getting one's own affairs in order before trying to save the world. A nod to the silent majority on this topic: https://fortune.com/2023/10/31/blackrock-vanguard-state-street-esg-proposals-voting/
Associate professor of advertising emeritus at Boston University
1 年A very important topic, but frequently trying to come to a conclusion ia similar to a dog chasing its tail. So here goes, and you can call me Fido. I taught a unit on this during my graduate summer Global Marketing Communication course. During class discussion the students were very smart and we all came to several conclusions. Factors for assessing activism includes who is the brands target audience/share holders, what is the product/service category, is the brand always socially active or did it hop on a bandwagon, is the stand/cause connected to the brand or the prime prospects, how competitive is the product category, are competitors active on this issue? I'm sure there are other factors and perhaps I'll remember them and post an addendum later. The bottom line is one size does not fit all.
David Sable a great read, as always … I especially love your point on consistency, which can drive credibility