Should Marketers Advocate Companies Take A Stand On Roe V. Wade?

A media organization contacted me, asking about my views regarding PR firm Zeno's request that their employees stay silent on the Roe vs. Wade news. The media organization was concerned that staying silent would anger employees and consumers on the left and wanted to know if I agreed. Below, I share my perspective on this as a marketing strategist (and look forward to your thoughts). I will first, however, admit that my personal perspective on this is completely different than my marketing strategist one. I strongly and unequivocally support one side of this issue, so much so that I have donated and will be donating funds to that side. Those who share my personal belief on this issue will most likely disagree with my marketing strategist's perspective below. But as a former GM/CMO, responsible for driving brand and business growth, it is in this capacity that I share my perspective.

I highlight this because, as a marketing strategist, I don't believe my personal view is relevant. In interviews, I was never asked for my personal view; it was assumed that companies were paying me to represent the best interests of the firm, brand, and consumers in my capacity as a marketing leader. Marketers are employed by firms with a unique mandate--to strengthen brand health and grow the business. Consequently, we serve our consumers--all of them, not just those with whom we personally agree--as we are the champions of and advocates for the customer. Advocating for our political position is antithetical to this role, because it creates a blind spot that causes us to ignore, and through our decisions, potentially alienate those on the other side of the political spectrum. While other employees can be "self-centered" and advocate for their own positions, marketers are hired to represent consumers. This is a uniquely different (and difficult) role which takes training and skill. It is not easy to take off our personal hat and put on our "consumer scientist" hat, seeking to understand others and to create value for people who are not like us. But that is our role.

This is a core principle at the center of my answer to the question posed by the media. As a marketing strategist, I do not believe there is anything wrong with how PR firm Zeno advised its employees except for one suggestion I will highlight. As background, Zeno suggested :

"Do not take a stance you cannot reverse, especially when the decision is not final. This topic is a textbook "50/50" issue. Subjects that divide the country can sometimes be no-win situations for companies because regardless of what they do they will alienate at least 15 to 30 percent of their stakeholders… Do not assume that all of your employees, customers or investors share your view."

As you look at this advice, is there anything that is incorrect? The decision is not final. That is correct. This issue is one in which the country is deeply divided – there is not alignment. When you take a stand, you risk alienating consumers. That is correct as the company would be signaling to a swath of consumers that it does not share their same values.?“Do not assume that all of your employees, customers, or investors share your view.” That is correct. Those who support Roe believe they are virtuous and morally right. Those who are against Roe believe the same. What is “right” is defined by the position that you personally hold. From a company and marketing standpoint, there is no desire to alienate 50% of the consumer base. Therefore, the business objective is to navigate this in a way that is strategically smart and does the least damage to a firm's brand and business.

To provide greater perspective on the above, a Gallup poll indicates that views on Roe vs. Wade are nearly 50-50. What does this mean? It means that most firm's employees, consumers, and investors are not in agreement. Taking a stand on one side risks alienating the other side. The one difference is that those on the right are generally more open to brands staying out of politics and not picking a side. For example, a study that investigated how those affiliated with different political parties reacted to companies like Home Depot and Delta taking stands on the Georgia Voting Reform Law indicated that 70% of liberals wanted companies to take a stand while 26% of liberals wanted companies to stay out of politics. This flipped for conservatives where 85% wanted companies to stay out of politics and 11% wanted them to take a stand.

What this means is that there is no position you can take – staying silent, picking a side, or trying to appeal to everyone by threading the needle and employing universal principles – that will make all constituents happy. Firm leaders must get comfortable understanding that if the media turns their attention to you, you will get bloodied. However, as Adam Goodman, political and corporate strategist on navigating such political issues suggests, “it is better to get bloodied than buried” which is why he suggests the least harmful position is one in which you stay out of politics or pick a universal position ("we are for free and fair elections"). Overtly picking one side is likely to cause the greatest ire as a firm communicates it is aligned with one ideology. The consequence is a repositioning for many brands that have heretofore been politically neutral (as opposed to more political brands such as Ben and Jerry's). How many companies want to be seen as aligned with one party? None that want to appeal to consumers from both parties.

The more rigorous academic research is starting to line up and supports what Goodman suggests as it shows that there is an asymmetric effect. When firms take sides, those who agree with the side a firm takes are slightly more positive. However, those who disagree are significantly more dissatisfied. The net impact is brand health erosion which we witnessed with Nike, as Axios Harris and BAV show declines in brand reputation and usage since 2018 (see here for additional insight ).

There is some emerging research regarding "bystander brands" -- those that are staying apolitical and picking up customers who are disaffected by sociopolitical brands. The example shared in an article is of Gillette vs. The Dollar Shave Club. When Gillette produced an ad called "Toxic Masculinity" (I'm still perplexed at how a brand that targeted men could create an ad so offensive. Imagine if Venus created an ad called "toxic femininity".), Dollar Shave Club tweeted out the next day "Welcome to the Club". They were sending a message to, in some cases, decades-long customers who were now disaffected by Gillette, that Dollar Shave Club would welcome, rather than offend them.

There is a reason most brands are ducking this issue. They know that it is simply not good for business. That is the case for nearly all political issues that align with one side of the ideological spectrum -- unless your brand specifically caters to that political group. While I tend to think that from a business perspective, Zeno is right, it is unclear that publishing such a directive to employees was wise (as it was then leaked). The time to explain such policy and principle is not during an issue but during the interviewing and onboarding process. I was recently informed of a unique interview process employed by Spotify. The individual who shared the experience indicated that Spotify was transparent during the interview and discussed the policy (i.e., staying out of politics). The interviewee knew that if he accepted a job he would expect the company to stay out of politics and that there was an implicit expectation that he would as well when representing the brand. Setting such an expectation at the employment and onboarding stage would make the need to send out such a letter mute.

Join the Discussion: @KimWhitler