{"id":211411,"date":"2021-07-02T09:37:30","date_gmt":"2021-07-01T21:37:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pureseotest.wpengine.com\/?p=211411"},"modified":"2021-07-06T09:40:33","modified_gmt":"2021-07-05T21:40:33","slug":"brand-activism-earning-potential","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pureseo.com\/au\/blog\/brand-activism-earning-potential","title":{"rendered":"Does Brand Activism Impact Earning Potential?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Public outcry grew quickly as news broke about Georgia\u2019s voting law upheaval earlier this year, and many major American corporations grabbed headlines by joining the fray. Several companies were quick to condemn the passing of the bill, though some key players remained on the sidelines rather than try their hand at brand activism. This begs the question: Do companies have an obligation to weigh in on socio-political issues? And furthermore, does it affect their profitability? If so, how?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Origins of Corporate Brand Activism<\/h2>\n

Brand activism grew out of the practice of corporate social responsibility; the idea that companies should do what they can to better society and play a positive role in their communities. Classic corporate responsibility is generally apolitical, cultivating an image of an engaged organization, outwardly supportive of non-controversial groups and causes.<\/p>\n

Brand activism has proven more divisive, however, as corporations have courted controversy in recent years over issues that may not even be directly related to the business itself. Heavily politicized societal issues are precarious terrain for businesses, and they are made all the more difficult by increasing social pressure to take a side. Standing up and endorsing one view can alienate a whole group of people, who may include the company\u2019s target market or key investors. This is where navigating brand activism becomes so challenging.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What do consumers expect from businesses?<\/h2>\n

Research in this area is growing and points to the fact that consumers do expect businesses to speak out on societal problems. The 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer <\/a>study shows that 86% of consumers expect CEOs to address societal challenges. They don\u2019t just want a statement, either. The majority of consumers expect CEOs to actively support societal issues that the government doesn\u2019t address, believing that CEO\u2019s should take the lead rather than waiting for government direction.<\/p>\n

Consumers placing value on a company\u2019s social positions can have a real impact on business outcomes. According to the Edelman Earned Brand Study<\/a>, 64% of consumers worldwide now make purchase decisions based on beliefs. These belief-driven buyers will either buy, boycott, or switch brands based on the company\u2019s stance on societal issues.<\/p>\n

And this doesn’t just apply to young, trendy consumers. The study shows that belief-driven buyers make up a majority in all large markets worldwide, across all age groups, and even all income levels. Therefore, the way a company addresses social issues can have a big impact on business outcomes, either by attracting a wider range of customers or alienating their key market.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Getting brand activism right<\/h2>\n

Just because consumers want brands to speak out on social issues doesn’t mean all companies should, at least not without careful consideration. Authenticity is the primary factor. Whether it\u2019s a CEO statement or a large-scale campaign crafted by a digital marketing agency<\/a>, authenticity in the message is paramount.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take a look at some successful and failed attempts at brand activism to show the importance of taking authentic action.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nike\u2019s Colin Kaepernick Campaign<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

One of the most famous examples of brand activism from recent years is Nike\u2019s \u201cDream Crazy<\/a>\u201d campaign, which featured NFL player Colin Kaepernick and referenced his protest against police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. While the campaign did cause controversy, the adverts got the authenticity factor right, and it paid off in terms of financial gain. Nike\u2019s market value rose by $6 billion<\/a>, with shares up 36% during 2018 when the campaign took place.<\/p>\n

This highlights the importance of connecting social issues with a brand in a meaningful, logical, and authentic way. It made sense for Nike to advocate for the Black Lives Matter movement through the Colin Kaepernick ad, as their brand purpose is based on empowering and supporting athletes. It was also delivered with sensitivity and the right tone.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Pepsi\u2019s Kendall Jenner Commercial<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Pepsi\u2019s 2017 commercial referencing the Black Lives Matter movement endured widespread public backlash<\/a> and was almost immediately pulled from the airwaves. The ad showed model Kendall Jenner at a protest of unknown intent, where she uses a can of Pepsi to dispel tension between protestors and police.<\/p>\n

This campaign is considered a prime example of missing the mark in terms of communicating a genuine message relating to a social issue. Rather than doing anything to help the movement, Pepsi was perceived to have trivialized it. The ridicule on social media that the campaign received shows that jumping on the bandwagon with a social issue is not a good look. \u201cWoke-washing\u201d is seldom tolerated by the public and likely won\u2019t improve company image or revenue.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Gillette\u2019s #MeToo Campaign<\/h3>\n