As brands get behind political and social movements, do they win over staff or alienate them?
The days when a company simply had to offer a good product to market, sit back and wait for the sales figures to flow in are long gone. The power of consumer loyalty, the sting of poor consumer feedback, are all facilitated by social media. Values are front and centre especially when it comes to high profile brands, and consumers are willing to reward brands that stand up for values that they share. And remember, employees are consumers too and they want to work for brands with whom they identify and respect.
Ben and Jerry’s ice-cream, among the family of Unilever brands, was one of the first to embrace political activism, politicising the flavour names of its ice-creams to show its left-leaning allegiances.
Nike was one of several big companies that threw their weight behind the Black Lives Matter movement, after the death of George Floyd, producing a video named ‘For Once, Don’t Do It’. It hasn’t always worked. When they made American civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick the face of a recent Just Do It campaign, investors reacted negatively at first and Nike’s share price dipped three per cent. Some consumers didn’t like it either - but more did and the company quickly saw sales jump 31 per cent and the share price recover and grow.
The point is, from an employer point of view, a business that authentically proclaims its values, shows integrity, builds loyalty among customers also has higher employee engagement.
That word ‘authentically’ is very important.
Nitika Garg, Associate Professor in the School of Marketing at UNSW Business School, says it’s “the number one thing” for companies looking to dip their toe in brand activism.
Her co-authored study of consumer responses to brand activism explains that brands need to first make sure that they are committed to the issue and that it reflects in their policies, not just in their marketing.
When brands engage in superficial brand activism (or “slacktivism”) they risk drawing criticism from both right and left-leaning consumers, says Garg.
For brand activism to be seen as authentic, it needs to be driven by top management and there also needs to be a long-term commitment to it so that it becomes part of the identity of the company. Top management also needs to be clear on their vision for the brand and be willing to take a stance, despite potential blowback.
“For example, people expect Nike to do certain things. They're not just selling shoes, they're part of the community, part of the society driving the discourse. And they are willing to take a stance – even if they lose some consumers, because that’s a risk you take when you engage in authentic brand activism,” she says. “It's not enough to just post on your social media feeds and say, ‘Oh, I support this issue.’”
But what about brand activism’s impact on employees? Consumers can react for or against, but employees are stuck inside an organisation whose position on a certain issue they may not agree with. It can open up divisions within a company and pit employees against each other.
Garg agrees it could be tricky and dependent upon how well the company takes its people along with it, in the messaging around its values.
“We can speculate that there may be a spectrum of responses, depending on how strongly someone feels about the issue. They can choose to openly endorse the company, such as by posting a shout out on Linkedin, or they may disagree but just want to keep quiet and not attract any backlash, or if they really disagree, they may quit the firm, says Garg.
One option may be to canvas employee opinion or give advance notice to employees that the company intends to go public on its position.
What a brand stands for can increase employee engagement. By taking a stand on a worthy cause, a company can rally the support of its employees and create a sense of pride and unity, and enrich the meaning and purpose of work. This may be particularly important among millennials, who care deeply about social issues and activism.
There are also advantages to be had in attracting diverse talent by publicly backing social and political movements, says Garg. If it’s clear that company leaders are the ones driving meaningful change, it will draw more diverse people into the ranks which adds to a diversity of thought that benefit the company.
Brand activism is still risky despite the shift in the consumer/employee landscape. It could be argued that rhe current political climate is even more partisan than it was in 2015 when, in the US, GE took a stand on LGBTQ rights, taking issue with religious freedom laws and bathroom bills in states where the company had a presence. It met with resistance and criticism from some employees who posted their feelings on the company website. While it didn’t change GE’s position, the company apologised for not recognising that there were two sides to the debate that should have been aired.
“There has been a shift in the landscape. It’s not just price and value that matter to people. When they think and feel strongly about a brand, they share it on their social media which can act as word-of-mouth on steroids, so brands have to pay attention to what people – consumers and employees - are saying,” says Garg.
“We expect these stakeholders to play a bigger role and question the brand on what it stands for. And if they don’t like what the brand stands for, they are happy to switch to someone else.”
