Burger King Supports Net Neutrality

Should Your Brand Be Woke?

Here’s What You Need To Know

According to a new study by Morning Consult, more than half of both Democrats and Republicans say that a brand’s “stance on a social or political matter is important when it comes to buying a product or service.” So, should your company capitalize on today’s hyper-partisan environment by immediately taking a stand on political issues? Maybe not.

In our day and age of hashtag activism, companies face new political and reputational risks from activists that have nationalized, digitized, and professionalized their efforts. The need to tread carefully and anticipate these risks before taking a political stand is crucial, because companies can find themselves in a situation where activism in reaction to actions or statements – perceived or real – from their company can spread quickly and do lasting damage. Before getting political, here are the pitfalls companies need to consider:

  • Be Prepared For Today’s Fast-Moving Environment: Conventional wisdom has long dictated that companies should be apolitical to avoid alienating or angering customers, but the pressure – and scrutiny – on companies to insert themselves in today’s fraught political and social climate is greater than ever. Companies need to be prepared to respond to and mitigate an issue or event within 24 hours, meaning that if they are not doing the work to proactively anticipate such a public affairs challenge, they will be behind when the time comes. Comments made on a company’s banal earnings call can quickly launch a narrative that overwhelms it, and advertising decisions can make a company the subject of a viral boycott campaign or bring it under scrutiny from an influential, anonymous Twitter account.
  • Know Your Vulnerabilities: Taking a stand inherently attracts and alienates customers depending on their view of that stance, meaning that companies need to fully understand their customers and audience before starting any corporate advocacy. To do this right, the company must understand its vulnerabilities, paying particular attention to concrete actions like the way it does business or treats employees, that demonstrate to the public verifiable facts to support, rather than undermine or can be leveraged to undermine, the company’s advocacy. Look no further than the controversy surrounding Wall Street’s “Fearless Girl” statue, as a perfect example of the perils of not knowing and failing to anticipate your vulnerabilities.
  • Understand The Context Before You Weigh In: Particularly in this day and age, what may seem like a reasonable stance in a vacuum can be viewed by consumers as a partisan pander or virtue signaling well beyond the specific issue at hand and cause unintended damage to a company’s brand. Therefore, companies should choose to engage in a way that reduces the costs of alienating their customers.
  • The Nuance Between Politics And Values: According to cultural strategist Ben Grinspan, one effective way to anticipate a fluid issue and hedge against future risk is to promote values while avoiding political stances and endorsements. For example, rather than take explicit positions on race, refugees, or presidential candidates like Starbucks has, Grinspan looks to Whole Foods’ marketing to promote universal values like making good food available to everyone that do not come across as purely political. At a time when everything is seen through a lens of polarization, focusing on values over politics can help companies have more control over their advocacy and articulate what really matters to them and their customers.

There may be nothing stopping the slide into today’s politicized marketplace, but companies should determine the best way forward that allows them to insert themselves in the public arena on a foundation consistent with their values and over which they have control.

Subscribe to Receive Insights

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

News You Can Use

A FIVE-STAR PAY GAP

What can Uber teach us about the gender pay gap? Perhaps that despite the push for new government regulations to close it, there is little evidence showing the pay gap is due to outright discrimination. A recent Freakonomics podcast episode highlighted a new study that found male Uber drivers still earned 7% more than female drivers, despite the fact that the algorithms used in the Uber platform are blind to factors like race, gender, and sexuality.

This data suggests that individual driver choices, like how fast to drive and when to have a more flexible schedule, are responsible for the gap, and, as study co-author and Stanford economist Rebecca Diamond told Freakonomics, until things change “about how men and women are making choices about their broader lives,” the pay gap will not completely disappear.

ORGANIZING FOR DEFEAT

There is a growing class divide in organized labor, with recent campaigns succeeding for white-collar workers like journalists and failing for blue-collar workers like those in the auto industry. The latest target for organizers is campaign staffers, and Democratic challenger Randy Bryce’s campaign has recently reached a union contract with the Campaign Workers Guild. Among the issues the union will fight against are “hours that approach eighty per week and wages that are below $15 per hour.”

Given the mission-driven focus of a campaign, and the importance of stretching every dollar raised to its fullest, the burdens of complying with the union’s benchmarks seem unrealistic. Coupled with the tightening of the generic ballot between Republicans and Democrats going into the midterm elections, rather than organize for less hours and better pay, Democrats may ultimately be organizing for defeat.

SHUTTING DOWN SHUTDOWNS 

Let’s dispense with the notion that government shutdown politics are necessary or effective. Fortunately, there have been legislative proposals to ban government shutdowns and reform the current broken budget process, which has only worked as intended twice since 1985. Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes about Senator Rob Portman’s (R-OH) proposal that would make a continuing resolution automatic to remove the grandstanding used by politicians, at the same time implementing across-the-board cuts to incentivize them to stay at the table to make a deal.

Previous legislation to ban shutdowns has been blocked by Democrats, who may have opposed the automatic cuts, but with the recent spending deal that increases both domestic and defense spending, there may be no better time to pass legislation to ban shutdowns once and for all. Of course, in 2011 Congressional Republicans and President Obama agreed to punishing cuts to domestic and defense spending unless Congress passed a budget compromise proposed by a “supercommittee.” In the end, all the agreement proved was the Washington politicians are gluttons for punishment, so this proposal may fair no better.

A WEAKER GERMANY FOR A STRONGER EUROPE? 

Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a deal for a new coalition government after four months of negotiations. Although this government results in a weakened Chancellor Merkel and leaves the far-right Alternative for Germany as the main opposition party, the coalition was welcomed in western Europe as good news because the German austerity measures that were so unpopular on the continent will likely come to an end and cooperation with the European Union will increase.

Yet, this optimism may be short-lived should the fragile coalition fail to last for a full term, because snap elections could benefit the extremes of the political spectrum – and potentially lead to a nationalist government that leans away from the European Union.

STRAW MAN STATISTICS

“By some estimates, Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws a day.” However, those estimates are wrong. The source of that estimate is an unconfirmed phone study conducted in 2011 by a nine-year-old student who called three straw manufacturers and averaged the answers he received.

No harm, no foul, except California state lawmakers have cited repeatedly this nine-year-old’s study in support of legislation to criminalize the unsolicited offering of plastic straws in restaurants and other venues. A more credible estimate, from a marketing analytics firm, of the amount of straws Americans throw away is 172 million each day, proving that understanding the facts and their origin is a critical component of success in a public policy debate.