In the immediate aftermath of last month’s shocking assassination attempt on U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, search engine giant Google has found itself in trouble. The reason? A technical issue with its autocomplete feature.
Search terms related to the attempted bombing were apparently omitted from Google’s automatic search bar suggestions. Conservative social media users were quick to leap on board, accusing a tech giant of political bias and energetic censorship.
Those claims turned out to be unfounded—the content moderation feature was responsible—but they were nothing recent. Many tech corporations, including Google, have long perceived as a leftist.
But actually not all. Elon Musk, CEO of X (formerly Twitter) and electric automotive maker Tesla, recently announced his full support for Trump, who in turn declared his own support for electric vehicles.
Political involvement is nothing recent for brands, and it extends far beyond tech corporations. It can include taking a stance on key social issues or supporting particular parties or candidates.
However, it is just not clear whether engaging in “brand activism” actually helps corporations overall, leaving many marketers and CEOs undecided to do it.
Taking a stand on issues that customers care about can in fact help construct stronger brand bonds – but what happens when a brand’s political views don’t align with those of its customers?
The risks of getting involved in politics
Our previous tests found that customers’ political views—whether or not they discover as liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between—can influence their attitudes toward brands that engage in activism.
Much of that is in step with what you would possibly expect. Liberal consumers like brands that promote progressive causes, akin to supporting immigration. On the opposite hand, conservative consumers are inclined to prefer it when brands stay silent on progressive issues or oppose them.
Julia Nikhinson/AP
But each liberal and conservative consumers dislike brands that appear inauthentic concerning the positions they support. This is a cautionary tale for brands that may wish to “jump on the bandwagon” and performatively support a particular social issue.
Always mean what you say
Brands that attempt to play each side on a social or political issue can find yourself alienating everyone.
Last 12 months, the American beer brand Bud Light faced conservatives’ response after hiring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to advertise the brand. Conservative consumers quickly targeted Mulvaney on social media and boycotted the brand in response to the campaign.
But on this case Bud Light was criticized for not siding with Mulvaney, who he said the corporate didn’t support her after the response. This cost her a part of her liberal customer base also.
Build a purposeful connection
Our research shows that while it may help brands if their public stance on a difficulty aligns with the political views of their goal consumers, in addition they have to exhibit that that is greater than empty words.
Share
Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, for instance, enjoys a loyal customer base amongst liberal-leaning millennials and Gen Z consumers. The company has also been vocal in its support for several progressive issues, akin to climate motion, refugee rights and racial justice.
The company has gained a repute for such activism and has been largely praised by consumers for it, despite recent tensions with its parent company Unilever.
Ben and Jerry working on racial justicefor instance, it involved issuing detailed statements and motion plans about what it believed could be vital for real social change.
If done well, consistent alignment of views on the general brand image can instill a deep sense of pride amongst consumers and a stronger identification with the brand values.
Stand with conviction
A brand’s public stance ought to be an authentic reflection of its core values, not something that adapts to the zeitgeist. Brands that exhibit this belief are sometimes rewarded.
In 2018, Nike maintained civil rights activist and former football player Colin Kaepernick and his stance on Black Lives Matter by launching the “Believe in Something” campaign. The move got here despite significant backlash from conservative consumers in addition to then-US President Donald Trump.
Initial response and fears of a boycott caused Nike’s stock price to fall. However, the corporate persevered with the campaign, and the stock price soon rebounded, and Sales have skyrocketed.
If you may’t be authentic, do not be anything
Our research suggests that brands that don’t have an authentic position on a social issue could also be higher off not taking sides. When a brand is perceived as turning over within the matter, it threatens to alienate everyone.
Brands should feel empowered to take social and political positions that align with their core vision and mission. But if issue-based advocacy doesn’t align with the brand’s image – and isn’t reflected in meaningful motion – the danger of being perceived as insincere means it’s higher to maintain quiet.