Do Good by Anne Bahr Thompson

Author:Anne Bahr Thompson
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: AMACOM
Published: 2018-11-25T05:00:00+00:00

THE FINE LINE OF BRAND ACTIVISM

Anyone who may have questioned the rising influence of populism—or the anger toward Washington, Wall Street, and corporate elitism—that emerged after the Great Recession stopped doing so after Brexiteers won the day in June 2016 in the United Kingdom, and Donald Trump became the president-elect in the United States the following November. More so than ever, populism is a growing concern for businesses. As a resurgent movement that’s part of our social fabric in a politically charged climate, it impacts what some people perceive as good and bad corporate behavior. Healthcare. Gun control. Women’s rights. LGBTQ rights. Minimum wage. Outsourcing. The number of brands that have taken activist positions on issues in the public debate has grown significantly since 2010, and current events indicate more businesses, especially large corporations, may be increasingly pressured to declare their political leanings and points of view on social justice and civil liberties. Taking a public stand can be polarizing. Companies that do so run the risk of losing more customers than they gain, as well as angering employees, investors, and other stakeholders. In addition, not everyone defines doing good in the same way.

Beginning with our study at the end of 2011, CultureQ research first demonstrated the careful line that brands must walk between supporting causes and being political. Unsolicited, a small number of participants named brands such as Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby, which have been known for incorporating their religious beliefs about gay marriage and contraception, respectively, into company policy, as good corporate citizens, and a slightly larger number named each as a bad corporate citizen. The side a participant was on clearly was dependent upon some combination of their social and religious views and political leanings. The comments made about each of these brands were similarly divisive. Some participants applauded Chick-fil-A’s and Hobby Lobby’s actions, stating they “show[ed] they stand upon their beliefs” and “[were] not afraid to not be politically correct today.” A larger number, however, argued on the side of social justice, unfavorably and equally emphatically saying:

They discriminate.

They believe in religious extremism.

Exclusionary politics and branding.

Taking away income and benefits from retirees.

Awful food and forcing their morals on others.

Forcing their religious beliefs on employees.

Before being vocal about controversial issues, a brand must sincerely assess where it stands, so as not to violate Step 1 of Brand Citizenship—Trust. Importantly, Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby each strive to live their activism. Their company cultures and policies reflect their positions to the extent allowed by the law, and for people who are familiar with each company, neither’s stance was unexpected. For Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby, making a definitive statement about an issue in the public debate was not a marketing ploy or a community-building tool. It was about taking a responsible position based on their point of view.

Since our earlier CultureQ studies, brand activism has been increasing. Legacy and newer brands alike, such as American Airlines, BuzzFeed, Honey Maid, Ketel One, MasterCard, Spotify, Target, and Uber, flew the rainbow flag for marriage equality in June 2015.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.