By: Lily Bridgewater
Nothing polarizes people quite like politics. Stated opinions can quickly escalate to full blown arguments and it can turn your nice Sunday dinner into a pretty uncomfortable situation. If often turns into some sort of a 'who can be the loudest?' competition.
Big brands are placed in an interesting spot because they do have a loud voice. With millions of dollars going towards their advertising campaigns, they can reach a lot of people. A brand is a good brand once they have a lifestyle attached to it. Brand's who have personalities brands who have values are strong. People associate themselves with brands that share their values.
For example: When Dove launched their campaign a few years ago (see here) created by Hugo Veiga of Ogilvy & Mather (one of the top advertising agencies in the world) brand association and sales shot up. Dove was making a statement that true beauty is within and that we often don't see how beautiful we are. The campaign went viral. People shared, liked and reposted. Dove attached themselves to the value that women are naturally beautiful and it hit home for the consumers, and a home run for Dove. The reason this campaign was so successful was because the human truth they hit on was something that all women related to. It was a topic of discussion, but there weren't polarized opinions because it wasn't exactly a political statement.
So what about when brands want to make political statements? I'm not talking just hitting on human truths, I'm talking full blown political stands about the United States government. You can imagine how heated it can get.
In 2016, Colin Kaepernick who was playing quarterback for the San Francisco 49-ers caused a big stir when he sat during the national anthem in protest. Colin sat because he was making a statement about the police brutality aimed towards African Americans and minorities in the United States (read full explanation here). In the article he says, "'I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,' Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. 'To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.'" There was obvious backlash. People were angry that he wasn't supporting the nation, they were angry that there was such an 'un-American' display at such an American sporting event and they were mad because they didn't agree with him politically. This last August, Nike latched a campaign about standing up for what you believe in with Kaepernick as the spokesperson (view ad here) and it blew up. Twitter had nike and Kaepernick trending, everyone had something to say. Even though there was significant backlash, sales shot up 31%. People who didn't agree with Kaepernick but loved the brand Nike suddenly felt like they needed to choose. Their values no longer aligned with Nike's and people made sure Nike heard them. They even started burning their nikes to make a statement (read here).
Although attaching political views to a brand can be dangerous, it can be effective if done well. If brands use their shared ethos with their consumers to make political statements, it will be heard, however they need to be careful about who represents and why said person has been selected.
Personal Component:
Class topic components:
I like the statement you make about a brand being a good brand once it has a lifestyle attached to it. Even as consumers we feel the need to fit in or belong. If we feel we relate to a brand, we fit in with a group of people and have something in common. Interestingly, all people are beginning to have more of a voice. It seems like we are beginning to develop a repeat of the plough boys we have learned about. All are forced to weigh in, and all feel strongly about it because of their need to associate themselves with brands.
ReplyDelete