Should Brands Take a Political Stand?
In today’s world, people are more interconnected than ever, largely thanks to social media. A potentially volatile incident taking place ten thousand miles away can dominate public discourse everywhere. The fact that so many Bangladeshis are currently following the turmoil of the US Presidency is evidence that we all are taking great interest in global social and political issues, even if they don’t directly affect us. Greta Thumberg’s speech on climate change at the UN and the resulting attention, both positive and negative, from all over the world is another indication that people deeply care about the biggest problems of the world.
More and more people today are shunning meat for veganism, going carbon neutral to do their part towards offsetting global warming, rallying against big businesses for fat executive salaries, boycotting institutions that display homophobic or racist behavior, and in general, speaking out against what they believe are activities that harm others or threaten our future. As such awareness and activism reach newer heights with each passing day, the question is whether brands get involved in these pressing matters as well.
I believe the days are far over when brands should spend all their marketing going on and on about their products and features. In a noisy world, brands that go beyond the usual sales pitches and take deeper interests in their consumers’ lives tend to perform much better. In the era of content marketing, the best brands strive to educate, entertain and enlighten their users. That is how they generate better value for the customers.
A brilliant example of cutting out the noise and delivering something unique and remarkable is Coke Studio, a highly popular live music television program. As the name suggests, Coke Studio is the brainchild of The Coca-Cola Company. In this show, established and emerging artists come together and mix different genres of music to create spectacular song performances. Many of these songs have gone viral over the internet, and helped the show generate a huge fan base. The subtle branding of Coca-Cola around the stage creates the association with the performances to the brand, and reinforces its youthfulness and energy to the viewers. Coke Studio has created a far more positive impression on the brand by consumers than any regular advertising skit can ever achieve. Instead of spending millions on advertising telling people how good coke tastes, Coca-Cola has delivered to the consumers a spectacular entertainment platform that resonates with them on a far deeper level.
While education and entertainment are lauded up by marketers as great means for building brand equity, opinions can be split when we delve into the world of social and political matters. In the past, the overwhelming impression was that brands should stay as far away from any political issue as possible. Commonly cited reasons include:
· Being a brand doesn’t automatically turn a corporation into an informed authority on issues outside their expertise
· Brands should stay neutral, and not pick sides in a political fight
· The risk of alienating consumers and facing a backlash is very high, thus affecting sales
· It forces all the stakeholders in a company to accept the brand’s overarching stance. For example, a brand may promote the idea that businesses should hire locals over foreigners, but some employees may hold personal beliefs that everyone should get a fair chance at employment, regardless of nationality.
On the flipside, such perspectives have not stopped many famous global brands from wading into political issues and expressing their stances. If we are debating whether brands should engage in these sensitive areas or not, there is no better way than to analyze few of such examples and see for ourselves the results they have generated. Let us look at some of them in details:
1) Dick’s Sporting Goods – Banning Gun Sales Over School Shootings
School shooting incidents are frequent affairs at the United States of America. But then a particularly horrifying incident at a high school in Parkland, Florida on 2018 which caused the deaths of 17 people spurred a reputed US brand into action. Following the carnage, Dick’s Sporting Goods announced that it would no longer sell assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and no longer sell guns to customers under age 21, in any of its stores. Dick’s didn’t stop there; its CEO called for local and federal officials to enact stricter gun control measures, including background checks and other legislation.
When it comes to guns, it is no secret that the USA has deeply polarizing perspectives. A majority of the population passionately defends their right to own guns, and tends to lash out at any entity, be it a political individual or a brand, which tries to infringe upon that privilege. So the move by Dick’s was seen as extremely risky by some observers.
What followed was not too surprising; outrage and threats of boycott by many consumers across the country, amidst a few praises here and there.
However, a year onward, in the view of the CEO, the impact of the decision on the company’s bottom line has been mixed. On one hand, the company enjoyed a wave of support from both the online and offline environment, including shoppers coming in with snacks for the store staff, restaurants offering discounts to diners producing Dick’s receipts etc. But on the other hand, such goodwill was short-lived, and the brand eventually lost out on about USD 250 million in annual sales due to the new measures, which includes boycotts by regular customers.
While stock did eventually surge more than 20% since the decision last year, the CEO attributes it more to the retail chain’s overall sales performance rather than any positive impact from the gun ban decision. In his view, good moves do not always pay off monetarily, but that shouldn’t be the only consideration when deciding to do the right thing as a company.
2) Nike – Promoting The Poster Boy for Black Rights
No matter which country you belong to, or what you are doing at the time, when your national anthem starts to pay, you stand up. But chaos erupted on social media in 2016 when NFL quarterback, Colin Kapernick, decided to kneel instead during the US national anthem before a match. Kapernick attributed his action to a visual protest of how the country continues to oppress and discriminate against its black population. Following his lead, several other NFL athletes began to do the same, sparking widespread condemnation on social media, and even inviting a rebuke by President Donald Trump. Many people saw his actions as highly disrespectful to the country and its armed forces, deeply unpatriotic and some also questioned why politics was being brought into sports. Since that season, Kapernick has also not been hired by any NFL team.
In the midst of all these controversy, Nike decided to wade into the debate in spectacular fashion. The brand snapped up Kapernick for a full length TV ad which featured the star along with messages such as “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything”. Nike was essentially supporting Kapernick’s bold bid to speak out against the racial injustices facing modern day America. It was as direct a plunge into social activism as possible for a brand.
What followed then was tumultuous; widespread outrage on social media, people protesting outside Nike stores and burning shoes, repeated assaults by President Trump on Twitter etc. Stock also dropped following these antics, amid a fear that sales will be affected adversely following the announced consumer boycotts.
However, Nike in the long run actually profited handsomely from their support of Kapernick. Overtime, their stock price jumped 18% netting the company over USD 26 billion, and sales have boosted considerably over most of their online and offline channels. The company also won an Emmy at the 2019 Creative Arts Emmy Awards for their Kapernick TVC.
Nike also enjoyed much higher mentions and engagements on social media (100%+) following this campaign, and was generally successful in boosting brand awareness with their controversial decision. By and far, analysts agree that this particular act of social activism brought great results for the company, both money and brand image wise.
3) Pepsi – Trivializing A National Movement
On February 26, 2012, an African-American teenager by the name of Trayvon Martin was returning to his fiance’s house from a convenience store, when George Zimmerman, a white resident of the neighbourhood, found his activities suspicious and fatally shot him over a resulting altercation. The resulting outrage over the death of an innocent African American sparked the “Black Lives Matter” movement, with rallies held all around the USA protesting the treatment of the country’s black population, and in particular, brutalities by the establishment and the police. It did not help that before and even after the movement started, scores of African American individuals were wrongly shot to death by overzealous cops in various parts of the country.
One such incident was the killing of a 37-year-old black man, Alton Sterling, by two white police officers in close range over a standoff, in 2016. The incident reignited the Black Lives Matter movement, and it is during such a tense period that the brand Pepsi decided to insert itself into the narrative. Pepsi released a TVC in which polarizing reality TV star Kendall Jenner comes across a scene of protest, joins them and then finds herself in front of a barricade of police officers. In the real word, such a situation would be extremely tense and would sometimes even lead to clashes and violence. In the reality painted by Pepsi, both sides burst into cheers and jubilation when Jenner offered them a can of Pepsi.
No matter how Pepsi saw the ad, the overwhelming majority of the audience saw the entire campaign as an attempt to forcibly push a product into a sensitive national resistance movement to drive sales. Most people found the TVC to also trivialize the entire Black Lives Matter movement, as if a few cans of coke are all it would take to bring warring communities together. It also did not help that a significant portion of the American society views the Kardashians as a controversial figure. People deride them as a family with little talent and tangible life skills who ended up becoming rich by promoting concocted dramas online, and showing off their wealth more than necessary. Not to mention the fact that Kendall is white, and the TVC essentially portrayed a white as the savour of a movement for blacks.
The response, in general, has been so negative that Pepsi was ultimately forced to pull out the TVC and issue an apology.
And in the aftermath, while sales were not strongly affected by the faux pas, reports suggest the brand has an all-time low “consideration” score amongst millennials.
4) Airbnb – Standing Up For Human Rights
In 1967, Israel fought an intense six days’ war with its neighbour Palestinians, following which it managed to capture a large portion of Palestinian territory. One such region is the West Bank, where for years Airbnb faced accusations of profiting from listings by Israeli settlers in the area. Thus, in 2018, Airbnb made the decision to remove around 200 listings from the West Bank, with a message that businesses should not be making money from occupied territories where people faced displacement.
If Airbnb hoped that the decision would invite widespread cheers from consumers and observers, that was not to be. The attention from customers was mostly muted, but on the flipside, elected officials in the US took great offense to the new stance. Which is not unexpected because Israeli interests command great influence in US governance. Even the US Vice President Mike Pence directly condemned Airbnb for their actions.
To add insult to injury, the brand’s decision was also short-lived, as it had to reverse the decision this December 2nd, following scores of lawsuits by hosts and Israeli lawyers. In fact, even the Israeli government involved itself in the matter, speaking directly to the US government to push Airbnb to change its stance. But for the company, the reversal was not an admission of a mistake, but more so the acceptance of reality. To compensate for its failure in delisting houses from occupied territories, the brand announced that no profit generated from the West Bank will be accepted into its coffers. Rather, the money will be dominated to non-profit humanitarian welfare organizations.
5) Uber vs Lyft – Why You Can’t “Ride Out” a Social Crisis
In his first speech where he announced his run for the US Presidency, Donald Trump promised that one of his first actions if he were to be elected, would be to impose a total ban on travelers from Muslim nations until the government figured out “what the hell is going on”. It was on the assumption that Muslims from these countries were causing terrorist activities after migrating to the US, even though actual data suggests otherwise.
On January 2017, soon after being elected, Trump as he promised signed into law a ban on travelers from seven Muslim countries into the US. Immediately, condemnation was pouring in from all quarters, with the New York Taxi Workers Alliance calling on taxi drivers to avoid John F. Kennedy International Airport for a specific duration as a form of protest towards the decision. This was widely praised.
Uber, in such a situation, announced that it would remove surge pricing at JFK airport at that exact duration. Surge pricing is a mechanism through which the fare at a particular location is significantly increased in response to heightened demand, the idea being that a higher fare would incentivize more drivers to take up rides and thus meet the demand. Since taxis would not ply at JFK airport at that time, there would be a shortfall of available drivers, thus kicking in surge pricing to increase supply of Uber cars. By removing this surge pricing, Uber was announcing that it would not profit from the increased demand because the matter is sensitive.
However, consumers did not buy into the narrative. In an example of how in today’s socially charged environment, a brand cannot get away by being passive or “half-assing” their commitments, a large portion of users were outraged over Uber either trying to break up the strike through its latest announcement, or not doing its part by completely suspending its services from JFK airport, like the taxis.
The move by Uber spurred the infamous “#DeleteUber” movement, with more than 200,000 users eventually deleting the app from their phones as a protest over perceived greed by then CEO Travis Kalanick, and also his perceived support for Trump’s policies. Social media outrage was epidemic, and even some well-known celebrities joined in on the Uber bashing.
Uber was eventually forced to issue an apology clarifying its stance on the issue. On the other hand, its competitor Lyft seized the narrative in a good way by announcing its public opposition to Trump’s ban and committing USD 1 million to help the affected. Many of those deleting Uber publicly pledged to begin using Lyft instead.
The move by Lyft created a remarkable positive association with the brand that still exists to this day.
6) Airbnb - Standing Up For Immigrants
This is another political communication by Airbnb that deserves a review. Following Trump’s ban on immigration as discussed in the previous section, in just 9 days Airbnb prepared a campaign and booked a slot at the highly expensive Super Bowl with the overarching message “We accept”. The TVC featured a diverse range of faces, later revealed to be the company’s employees, with words displayed such as: "We believe no matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love, or who you worship, we all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept," followed by the hashtag #weaccept.
The brand topped it up with two goals announced by founder Brian Chesky: Airbnb would provide short-term housing for over 100,000 refugees, disaster survivors and other displaced people over a period of 5 years, and the firm would also donate USD 4 million to the International Rescue Committee, a global humanitarian aid, relief and development organization.
Audience sentiment over the campaign was overwhelmingly positive. Social media was flooded with messages of support from people of different backgrounds, with the hashtag quickly gaining traction. As a bonus, even celebrities such as American football legend Joe Montana, and famouls politicans like former Labour foreign secretary David Miliband and former US secretary of state John Kerry tweeted their support for the brand’s messages.
So this can easily be chalked up as a major win for Airbnb, so far as uplifting brand equity through positive social gestures is concerned.
7) Unilever Surf Excel – Navigating religious sensitivities in Modi’s India
It is no secret that the Hindu-Muslim relations in India is at an all-time low, largely thanks to the support of hate and rhetoric by its prime minister Narendra Modi and the ruling BJP. In such a scenario, Unilever’s popular detergent brand Suft Excel decided to strike up a conciliatory tone of religious harmony with a new TVC on the eve of the annual celebration of Holi.
The TVC featured a young Hindu girl in a white attire intentionally getting stained in Holi colours as she protected her Muslim friend, who had to go to the mosque for prayers. While some of the audience praised the TVC for its message, the world of social media was also overwhelmed with scathing criticism deeming the advertisement “Hindu phobic” and apparently insinuating that Islamic prayers are more important than Holi. Even some Muslims complained about the campaign, claiming that it shows that Muslim children needing the help of Hindu girls to do their prayers.
In a hilarious turn of events, many viewers ended up giving a 1-star rating to the mobile app “Microsoft Excel”, thinking that this Excel is the same as the brand Surf Excel. Humour aside, this is also a reflection of the extent people wanted to go to voice their displeasure to Unilever over the campaign. Some videos also showed people emptying Surf Excel into the toilet.
While there has not been any update on any monetary damage incurred by Unilever over this TVC, by and large they have ended up garnering much more criticism than appreciation in Modi’s India.
8) Zomato - Navigating religious sensitivities in Modi’s India (Again)
This is another notable incident of “trying to do good gone bad” in the current Modi-led Indian culture. Basically, it all started when a Hindu customer tweeted his anger over not being able to cancel a Zomato order when he learned that the delivery personnel was a Muslim. Zomato directly replied to the tweet claiming “Food has no religion”. Even its founder weighed in on the issue.
That is when all hell broke loose. The internet was awash with stinging criticism of Zomato, mostly centered on the fact that the brand was being hypocritical with its statement since Zomato identifies halal food and halal restaurants for its Muslim consumers. Morever, many pointed to a different scenario where a Muslim complained that he couldn’t cancel his order because it was non-Halal, and the company replied positively saying they will look into the matter. The Hindu consumers argue that Zomato did not pull the “Food has no religion” card in this predicament, and demanded to know why.
Zomato was eventually forced to release a detailed explanation on the issue of identifying halal foods and halal restaurants, and why that is not hypocritical. But it did little to stem the damage, as two separate trends took over on the internet: a campaign to leave 1-star ratings on its mobile app, and a #ZomatoUnistalled campaign basically calling users to stop using Zomato and delete the app from their phones.
All in all, the brand experienced more than 100,00 negative tweets over the controversy, had its ranking drop 10 places on Google Play Store, and got hit with more then 6,000 1-star ratings. There is no data on how sales have been affected, but it would not be silly to assume they experienced a dip in revenue because of the backlash.
So what do you think? While obviously there are many other examples of companies getting political, the above few should give you a good idea on how some notable brands went about it and how they were received. Given the chance that a political message can be misinterpreted to inflict serious damage on a brand, do you think this is a risk worth taking for businesses today? Or should brand simply steer away from such messaging and just focus on their core product?
About Me: I am a co-founder of a young food venture, Alpha Catering. My passions include digital marketing, personal development, reading, writing, and entrepreneurship. At Alpha, we are striving to change the perception of catering in Bangladesh through tech, innovation and awesome customer experiences.
Link to our FB page: https://www.facebook.com/alphacateringservices