Editorial: Branding a belief

It’s becoming more common to see big-name companies take political stances, even in a time when partisan divides cause some individuals to shy away from social change.

When Nike released a Colin Kaepernick ad to celebrate the 30th anniversary of its “Just Do It.” campaign, the brand became the center of controversy. The ad alluded to Kaepernick’s protest of police brutality. Despite unfavorable reactions — and the sight of Nike shoes going up in flames — the ad was a huge move by Nike to appeal to consumers who would appreciate the brand taking a stand. 

Nike isn’t the only company to do this.

Keurig pulled its advertising from “The Sean Hannity Show” after he attacked women who spoke out against sexual assault. Dick’s Sporting Goods stopped selling assault weapons during the ongoing gun control debate. Starbucks conducted racial bias training after two black men were arrested in a Philadelphia store. And Patagonia joined a lawsuit to try and block President Trump from shrinking Bear Ears National Monument in Utah.  

These are not random stances. They are new and old missions of companies that want to signal their takes on political and social issues.

People are not inherently neutral — we all take stances on issues that are important to us. 

Just like consumers, brands have identities, and with identities come different stances and opinions. Consumers want to see brands take stances they support and believe in.

For companies that attempt to stay neutral, their silence is taken as a stance within itself. A brand is not just selling a product or service, but a way of life. Stances have now become important for companies because some consumers will make purchasing decisions based on a brand’s beliefs and positionality.

But these moves by name brands and high-ranking CEOs aren’t just random stances taken based on personal decisions. They are also highly predicted, calculated and analyzed.

Research from Sprout Social shows that two-thirds of consumers find it important that brands take political and social stances. According to Forbes, that figure jumps to 73 percent of consumers when the age bracket is set to 18-34 years old. Even out of those who were 55 and over — a group that is sometimes stereotyped as apathetic toward social issues — 62 percent of consumers say they want to hear from brands.

For companies such as Patagonia, the product naturally pairs with its position — outdoor clothing pairs well with environmental conservation. However, when a company like Nike chooses to use Kaepernick as the face of a campaign, it’s a choice that clearly fits into the new-age approach of appealing to younger, socially conscious buyers while running the risk of alienating some consumers who do not agree with the decision. 

When brands see these numbers, they’re able to adjust their social stances toward the views of the consumers they’re targeting. Strategically, companies make branding decisions based on information they’ve projected, whether it be intuition or fully fleshed-out market analyses.

While it might be risky for brands to take a stance, in an age of social and political activism by youth, it is a chance worth taking. It’s impossible to tell whether decisions are made out of goodwill or another marketing strategy, however, brands’ willingness to speak up could motivate consumers to do so themselves.

Political apathy was and still is the norm for some large companies, however, we must applaud those who are brave — or savvy enough — to speak up about what matters to them, and perhaps it’s time we follow their lead.