Should brands be social beacons, or just stay in their lane?

Brand activism is on the rise. But does purposeful action come at the expense of profits? Two marketing experts explain the risks and potential rewards for brands that take a stand on hotly contested sociopolitical issues.

Brands are increasingly aligning themselves with social issues. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Roy VanDerVegt

Nike and racism, Airbnb and immigration, Uber and women’s reproductive rights. Increasingly, brands are taking a stand on hotly contested sociopolitical issues and finding themselves in deeply polarising conversations – such as reconciliation with
and equality for Indigenous Australians, LGBTQIA+ rights and the human right to safe housing. This strategy is called brand activism and it’s on the rise.

But the question of whether brands should be social beacons or not is inherently complex. Brand activism can be hit or miss. Patagonia is as well known for its fight against the climate crisis as its jackets and duffel bags. The company’s original mission “We’re in business
to save our home planet” transcended everything it does. Last year, Patagonia took its most radical stance yet; it gave the company to an environmental not-for-profit.

But what about the misses? Last year, Anheuser-Busch InBev-owned Bud Light partnered with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to promote the brand. This move was derided by conservatives, many calling for a boycott. Incidentally, this was primarily a business decision to overcome stagnation by targeting a new audience – strategic marketing 101, yet the execution was off.

Amanda Spry is a senior lecturer of marketing at RMIT University

This was because Bud Light shifted too far away from their core audience. Also, rather than supporting their initial position, which adds to an authentic brand activism approach, Bud Light caved into pressure from conservative groups and consequently deserted Mulvaney.

So, with the risk of backlash, should brands stay silent? Not necessarily. Saying nothing can be interpreted as being complicit. Recall the internal and external disdain towards Disney for keeping shtum on Florida’s anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

Complicating matters further is ascertaining the consumer response. Public polls show consumers expect businesses to address social justice and human rights issues. But myriad factors shape reactions. Does the brand’s stance on the social issue align with consumers? Do consumers feel the brand shares their values? Is the brand trying to mask negative publicity?
Does focusing on social matters compromise the brand’s ability to deliver core products/services? Importantly, do consumers believe the brand’s activism is authentic?

Brand activism is not just about doing “the right thing”. It’s also a marketing tool that, when wielded creatively and strategically, differentiates brands in a cluttered marketplace. But people do question whether a brand is motivated by profits or the desire to drive social change.

This brings us to the very recent example of Woolworths, which announced it would not stock merchandise specific to Australia Day. Was this an act of activism?

Woolworths called it a business decision. However, if purely profit-based, why publicly declare it? When was the last time we heard Woolworths release a statement about taking a line of biscuits off the shelf?

Surely, Woolworths expected a backlash. But positioning it primarily as a business decision with social motives playing second fiddle made their “activism” more palatable, especially for shareholders. And consumers? Will consumers really avoid purchasing from Woolworths over Coles in protest? Unlikely. When it comes to our groceries, convenience wins. Woolworths would know this.

Daniel Rayne is a lecturer of marketing at RMIT University

Social movement research suggests that for change to occur, marginalised groups must gather support from the “dominant” group. Rarely do isolated social stands like protests – or in this case, discontinuing controversial products – make an immediate difference. Beyond profit, perhaps this decision supported a marginalised group Woolworths actively supported previously (via the voice). Maybe, this is one small act of many that sees actual social change occur over time.

What does all this push-pull mean for marketers pursuing brand activism? An optimal strategy delivers both socially and financially. While it’s easy to use social media to proclaim support for a sociopolitical issue, doing this without concrete actions risks the brand wading into “woke-washing”.

Authenticity is paramount. To effect genuine change, brands must show resolve and that the solution to the problem is not just buying their product – which is always a red flag. Doing this may sacrifice the bottom line.

Amanda Spry is a senior lecturer of marketing at RMIT University. Daniel Rayne is a lecturer of marketing at RMIT University.