Should Brands Get Involved In Politics?

Buy direct email marketing list for your business.
Post Reply
sharminakter5
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:12 am

Should Brands Get Involved In Politics?

Post by sharminakter5 »

There is an unwritten rule in public relations that brands should avoid controversy. The bigger the name, the more careful it should be. When a story breaks that fuels consumer outrage or public debate, savvy marketers should be bystanders, not bystanders. We live in a polarized time. People with similar views and lifestyles tend to operate in their own tribes, separated by geography, social circles, and even the media they consume. To add to the division, the election of Donald Trump gave way to a new activism on the left, precipitating violent reactions among his supporters and vice versa. These political and cultural schisms have caused brands to “take sides” when dissent erupts. Recently, JP Morgan Chase pulled its ad from NBC's new "Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly" after a storm of outrage over a scheduled interview with conspirator and radio host Alex Jones. The network's week-long promotion of the interview backfired, as it gave activists ample time to protest before the interview aired. It even prompted Jones to release his unedited version of it before the show aired, treading on NBC's own story. Even Shakespeare had his time in the barrel this month. After New York's Shakespeare in the Park unveiled its production of Julius Caesar featuring a Trump -like Caesar (who is, of course, murdered at the end), activist groups swooped in and some advertisers lent ear to manifestation. Citing its lack of warning about similarities to Trump, Bank of America pulled its sponsorship of The Public Theater after 11 years. He explained that the presentation "was meant to provoke and offend," a rather interesting commentary on a work of art. Delta followed suit, explaining in a (more thoughtful) tweet that the production "exceeded the bounds of tasteful standards." These and other examples of brands reacting to customer pressure or acting quickly to prevent protests may be exaggerated, and the true damage is difficult to quantify. But most research indicates that taking a stand in the midst of controversy is risky.




According to a study by CivicScience, 67% of Americans don't think brands and companies should publicly comment on politics. What's more, a recent study by YouGov suggests that among consumers who abandoned a brand due to poor public relations, up to two-thirds never returned. But there are singular exceptions in research, And it is clear that consumers are regularly invited to vote with their handbag. Protest is the new brunch. Look at the controversy surrounding the programmatic ads that ended up on Breitbart. The Independent reports that Breitbart has lost advertising deals with 935 companies due to pressure from customers, including Kellogg's, BMW, Visa and Nordstrom. So when should brands take a stand? This is a question that is impossible to answer, clearly, because it depends on the brand. For products that have a strong militant identity, the answer is relatively clear. For a Kenneth Cole or a Patagonia, two brands 이메일 데이터베이스 구매 및 이메일 목록 작성 a history of activism, the new normal is likely a marketing opportunity. But for “ordinary” mass-market products, taking a political or cultural stance is more risky. This can make them relevant, but only if they avoid landmines. Here are some guidelines for navigating the waters of brand reputation when it comes to controversial positions. 1. Know your customer. No position or campaign will appeal to everyone, but a brand needs to know if a position will go against the values ​​of its “base”. When Trump signed the executive order banning travel from seven mostly Muslim countries, it wasn't a very difficult decision for Airbnb to take a stand against the executive order. Its position was perfectly consistent with the values ​​of a global clientele of discerning travelers. Patagonia founder Yves Chouinard has criticized Trump for his stance on climate change, but brand watchers would likely be more surprised by Chouinard's silence following the recent decision to leave the Paris Agreement, being given the company's history of activism on the issue.




Consider your stakeholders. JP Morgan Chase's decision to withdraw its ad from the Alex Jones interview strikes me as one that perhaps moved its own employees and business partners more than its ordinary customers. If so, that's a smart consideration. Its CMO Kristin Lemkau tweeted: “As an advertiser, I'm outraged that @megynkelly is giving a second of airtime to someone who says Sandy Hook and Aurora are hoaxes. Why?" Most likely no one moved their corporate account to JP Morgan or made the decision to invest with the company for the job, but the tweet likely inspired pride and solidarity among people. 250,000 company employees.It is a commendable business and a low risk position of Lemkau. 3. Explain the decision thoughtfully and with compassion. When former Fox TV host Bill O'Reilly's alleged sexual harassment story became public knowledge, the show suffered the loss of a series of advertisers, including BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Allstate, GlaxoSmithKline, Constant Contact and Eli Lilly, among others. Angie's List, however, announced that it would not change its advertising buy. The Indianapolis-based home services site explained its decision in a carefully worded statement: “We place advertisements on a wide range of sites … without taking a position on the views of the sites themselves. Just as we trust members to make their own hiring decisions, we trust them to make their own media consumption decisions. » For me, the statement was a little off-strategy because it was O'Reilly's behavior that was at issue, not the content of his show. But the brand's explanation made it a relatively defensible explanation until the decision was rendered irrelevant by O'Reilly's departure from Fox.




Stick to your guns. In some cases, consistency is more important than position itself. Nordstrom was under pressure from the #GrabYourWallet movement to drop Ivanka Trump's fashion line for months. When he phased out the range (probably because it was not selling well), the situation was already politicized and he faced a backlash. President Trump himself tweeted harsh criticism of the decision. But Nordstrom wisely stayed the course, issuing a diplomatic statement and hunkering down until the storm passed. In contrast, NBC intervened during the Alex Jones controversy when it attempted to find common ground by editing Jones' interview to make it harsher. This decision only irritated Jones and did not 5. Expect a reaction. Every action elicits a reaction, so planning ahead is smart. It is generally wise to inform allies and advocates of the position taken in advance provided that confidentiality can be maintained (premature disclosure could open the floodgates to protesters.). A smart marketer will explain the decision to stakeholders and advocates, provide talking points where appropriate, and work to control the message by addressing customer response and the social side of the business. The imperative here is that all consumer feedback, for and against, is heard and handled professionally. The AMA Executive Circle is the indispensable community of executive-level marketers who share their passion and expertise to ensure each member's success.
Post Reply