Brand Activism: Interfering in Politics is a Minefield

Not so long ago, global brands lived in a world of imagination where a sip of soda turns into a superhero, creams turn back the hands of time, telecoms mediate family gatherings without raised voices, and menstrual blood is always a discreet pale blue color. They would not change their utopia for anything if eager consumers had not forced them to find purpose, and partisans of brand activism like Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s or mainstream players like Nike and its iconic campaign with NFL player Colin Kaepernick showed that taking a stand can be lucrative.

Fast forward to 2023, brands still shy away from daily political events (the risks are significantly higher, and money does have limits), but they assure customers that they fight for the discriminated or cheer for green policies. However, recent research shows that consumers are turning the tide. A study recently conducted by CNBC showed that 58 percent of American citizens find it inappropriate for brands to express political views. The percentage is slightly lower (48 percent) among the younger audience (ages 18 to 34), but it is still higher than the share of those who consider it appropriate (43 percent).

Five years ago, 62 percent of young people wanted to engage in social and political issues, and in 2019, that number was even 70 percent. The audience of Lider, specifically 379 participants in a mini-survey conducted on LinkedIn, believes that brands do not belong in politics. More precisely, 89 percent believe that brands should not engage in political issues in their communication. Several factors have influenced this change in perspective. For starters, consumers in these dark times of economic uncertainty have become pragmatic – they are interested in savings and concrete benefits from certain products and services. On the other hand, they have discovered that many brands (what a surprise) have decided to ride the wave of activism purely out of opportunism, their communication is inconsistent, and they engage when it suits them. Now, should they completely remove politics from their communication and return to the world of imagination? Or will younger consumers continue to push them to participate in creating a better world, but this time more boldly and consistently?

We Sell Sneakers

As creative director and co-owner of the agency Utorak Jakov Vilović says, brands and politics have a shared history that is not new. However, he finds it problematic that it is assumed that some fundamental human values (including human rights) are politics (in the sense of daily political competition). Thus, for example, when a brand features a same-sex couple in a TV spot – it is called politicization, even though it is merely a representation of reality or a stand for values that should not be the subject of so-called daily politics.

—

Jakov Vilović, agency Utorak

photo

—

– Should brands highlight their values – absolutely. Many brands do this even without ads – said Vilović, who believes that there is no advertising without politics. – Then Nike’s slogan should be ‘We Sell Sneakers’, because if we start negotiating what the zero point of depoliticized advertising is, we will end up right there. I think all of this is neoconservative demagoguery aimed at normalizing the twisted thesis that human rights and fundamental democratic values are a matter of political option. Unfortunately, they are doing very well – emphasized Vilović.

According to him, the results of the mentioned studies are a consequence of general post-pandemic skepticism, as in 2018 the world was still a stable sphere, while consumers today expect authenticity in activist communication much more drastically. Therefore, it is not a question of whether brands belong in politics, as they have always been ‘there’, but rather how they highlight their political values. According to co-owner of Studio Sonda and president of HURA Jelena Fiškuš, in this context, political stances go hand in hand with the involvement of brands in the area of social responsibility in general. As she explains, if a brand has a clearly expressed strategy, clearly articulated values that are real, sincere, and woven into every segment of the business, and if the socio-political circumstances align such that speaking about them matches the brand’s real values and actions, then acting in that direction can be fruitful, even an obligation to users and society. If this is not the case, the brand, by delving into polarized topics, exposes itself to more risk than it can gain from it.

—

Jelena Fiškuš

photo

—

One Must Prepare Well

– I would emphasize the importance of very cautious implementation of such campaigns as they are sensitive topics and every move is observed under scrutiny. They need to be prepared very well and be ready for reactions, especially in today’s time of rapid and public exchanges of opinions. The decline in the mentioned studies may be a response to inconsistency, which does not mean that we do not have exceptionally bright examples that have brought change – said Fiškuš.

Regardless of how authentic and sincere a brand is, experts would not advise domestic companies to engage in open and direct political activism. For example, co-owner and CEO of Imago Ogilvy Damir Ciglar states that brand activism implies the promotion and direction of social, political, economic, or ecological reforms or anti-reforms with the desire to promote or prevent changes in society.

—

Damir Ciglar

photo

—

– Besides the regressive activities carried out by, for example, arms manufacturers in the USA, there are rarely examples of open political activism, especially if we do not consider donations to political parties as activist activities. Professionally, we would not advise a client to engage in direct political activism, but we would certainly suggest that they take a stance on social issues important to consumers, which necessarily reflect a political stance – emphasized Ciglar, recalling perhaps the most famous example of Imag’s activist action. By publishing two men holding hands on the beach and drawing a heart in the sand, they hit ‘mines’, but in the end, the brand had significantly greater benefits from minimal damage.

Counting Euros in Silence

That political activism in Beautiful Croatia is still, to put it mildly, challenging, is also considered by the owner of Manjgura, PR expert Krešimir Macan. According to him, Croatia is relatively closed to such breakthroughs, and anyone who dares to do so gets labeled as someone else’s or is doing it with hidden intentions.

– And any attack on the Church, no matter how well-argued, would provoke a similar reaction from fans of the accused side. These minorities are loud and very active in the age of social media. There is no dialogue here, it is one-sided shouting. Brands prefer to avoid such situations because who will explain and defend all that, it is better to count euros in silence. We are not a market that causes waves in any way, including market-wise. The main competitors more or less agree or follow in solidarity, so there are not many of those ‘incorrect’ ones who would shake the market. Although I am sure that a well-conceived campaign would be quite successful – explained Macan.

—

Krešimir Macan

photo

—

However, younger generations could change things, insisting on proving purpose, but in an authentic and consistent manner. As Professor at Ver’ Jadranka Ivanković reminds, Generation Z is curious, technologically literate, easily uncovers inconsistent and insincere practices, is very critical of political actors, and wants to actively participate in elections (according to a 2022 study in the USA, as many as 72 percent of Generation Z respondents are willing to volunteer in political campaigns in the foreseeable future). – Aware and concerned about preserving the planet, using digital technologies for communication and organization, Generation Z is ready to engage in issues they believe in and care about, not only when it comes to brands but also political issues – concluded Ivanković.

—

Jadranka Ivankovic

photo

—

In any case, the world remains in the hands of the young, as does the political activism of brands. One can only hope that they will know how to explain to brands that such communication requires courage and consistency. Otherwise, it is better to defend the rights of others in silence.

The Noise Around Russia, Silence for Palestine

After Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, Western brands collectively sided with the Ukrainians. However, in the case of Israel and Palestine, not a peep is heard. Krešimir Macan explained that it was relatively easy to support Ukraine because there were not so many Russians in the West who would be potential clients or some critical mass.

– In the case of Israel and Hamas, the West does not have a unified stance: it has divided after numerous civilian casualties in Gaza. Roughly, there is the Western world, which is with Israel, and the Arab world, which is with the Palestinians. Now imagine who has more presence in European markets, who can cause you a lot of damage with their activities if you provoke their anger. Israelis are certainly more influential, but pro-Palestinian protesters are certainly more numerous and aggressive, so brands have decided to stay on the sidelines – explained Macan.