Should brands get political?
Last week has been a strange one in London. Offices shut down early, sending employees home to “keep them safe”. That’s felt absurd to me, mostly because I used to read post-apocalyptic novels with this kind of content and thought they were too far-fetched at the time. Things really do change. What happened–of course–was quite different from what was anticipated. Because London really is a city that doesn’t stand against racism disguised as “nationalism” (I have very strong views about that, but let’s save those for another day, another conversation).
Which made me wonder, should brands every get political? Politics come in different flavours for brands. Surely some brands do, but it seems we mostly see that when political statements feel safe, such as contributing to community organisations or lobbying for business-friendly policies. The relatively uncontroversial kind of politics.
The other side of politics is what this question is about. Which is social politics. The kind that involves flashpoint social issues, such as diversity, inclusivity, social or governance issues.
I’ve been doing some light reading about Nike’s case from 2018.
Nike's sponsorship of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick in 2018
At a time of intense political polarisation, Nike chose to back an athlete who had dared to protest racial inequality by kneeling during the national anthem. Some, offended by Nike's move, publicly burned their shoes. The resulting controversy was massive, leading to a 3% dip in Nike's stock (equivalent to a $4 billion loss in company value, which I admit, sounds like a lot of money).
However, within a month, the stock rebounded, regained its losses, grew by 5% and achieved a record high on the stock market. This was complemented by a rise in Nike's social media following.
Many brands saw Nike's stand and decided that boldly supporting social causes would invariably benefit them. By 2019, a Sprout Social study revealed that 70% of consumers felt it was essential for brands to take a stance (all data provided by Forbes).
What changed in 2023?
A recent CNBC study suggests that consumers are growing disinterested in brands championing causes. According to the study, 48% of younger individuals (between 18-34) believe it’s inappropriate for brands to take a stand against issues. A far cry from the 62% in 2018 or the 70% in 2019 who wanted brands to tackle political and social issues. So what caused this change? Remember this dark period of our lives–we so rightfully try to forget but keeps creeping back–called the pandemic? That was the big event that started a shift to a consumer that is:
Becoming more pragmatic
Rising prices and living costs make people prioritise product offers over brand ideologies. While they still hold brand value to heart, they might be less likely to prefer a brand simply for championing a sympathetic cause.
Feeling fatigued from political debates
People’s ideologies might be reserved for influencers or social media debates, not for the supermarket aisle. The only area that seems to have maintained interest over the past couple of years seems to be environmental issues, with political and social topics becoming less relevant.
Becoming more critical of opportunism
We’ve all seen brands with long-established ideological positions, that champion causes. However there has been a rise in brands supporting issues only on the surface and not wholesomely. Take for example all the Pride month product shifts. Does anyone even care anymore? They all just feel like a fake stance rather than a heartfelt cause. People are craving authenticity, not poorly slapped-on colour schemes that come out once a year.
Where does that leave us?
The truth is that today’s consumer expects brands to have a positive impact on the world. Brands cannot disconnect from social or political realities but they need to realised that making random statements to increase sales is not an approach that will fly with their current audiences. The responsibility is to be present all the time. That’s why brands nowadays, more than anything need strong purposes and missions. And more importantly, they need to act on them on every touch point, every step of the way, not just when it suits their needs.
