With a general election announcement back in May, the last two months have been very, very important for UK politics. Open any social media site, turn on the television, read a news article - you’ll almost definitely be bombarded with opinions on the current state of affairs. It’s impossible not to consume politics. But the question is; should we, as marketers, be joining in on the conversation? Should our brands have political opinions?
Unfortunately, the answer is not as black and white as we’d like. Political marketing is a strategy - but it’s an extremely high-risk one. It puts a brand at risk of alienating a huge portion of its customers, being perceived in the wrong way, or even ruining its entire reputation. We’ve seen this happen before, and we’ll no doubt see it happen again. On the other hand though, engaging in political discussions, like any form of reactive marketing, is a means of staying relevant and demonstrating an awareness of societal issues. There’s also the potential to build a loyal customer base - if it’s done correctly.
So, how do we navigate the complex landscape of politics? How do brands decide whether to be part of the conversation or whether to do everything in their power to avoid it?
The case for a political strategy
Reactive content keeps you relevant
An event as major as a national election is going to be the first thing on a lot of our audience members’ minds. In the same way that reacting to, say, a current social media trend or a big sporting event will tap into consumer interest, a reference to the political climate will capture attention. It portrays your brand as current and it shows you know what’s happening in the world. Brands shouldn’t appear oblivious to topics outside of their own marketing goals. For example, a self-promotive post released moments after an election announcement may not be the best idea.
Shared views lead to loyalty
The market is saturated with adverts for various products and services. Marketers are in constant competition not only for consumers, but also for their loyalty. We want a long-term audience who align with our values and is completely on board with our brand. The best way to achieve this? Tell people what they want to hear. Political issues are important - they divide communities and evoke strong opinions. Striking this type of chord with your audience is what leads to deep connections and lasting loyalty.
Transparency builds trust
Especially in recent years, we’ve seen a huge growth in humanised companies - consumers highly value transparency and authenticity. Being transparent about your brand’s stance on political issues shows that you're honest and open, as well as giving your voice that “human” element. An audience who sees you as a trustworthy brand is far more likely to engage.
You’re using your influence
It’s often argued that brands have the power - and therefore even the responsibility - to influence public opinion. By taking a stand on a political issue, you’re demonstrating your brand’s corporate social responsibility and showing that you’re not just here to sell - you’ve got morals. This can even lead to positive societal change; we are influenced by what we consume, and so your opinion has the potential to impact a large audience base.
The case against
You’re risking your reputation
We all know that political opinions provoke strong reactions - and strong reactions are what lead to backlash. There’s a difference between reacting to a trending meme and reacting to a current political issue. Somebody is bound to disagree with or misinterpret the stance you choose to take, and depending on the profile of that somebody or the number of people who agree with them, the backlash can be swift and severe. No brand wants bad press. It tarnishes your reputation and can instantly undo the years you’ve spent vying for trust.
An alienated audience
The above point that somebody is bound to disagree with the stance you choose to take makes political marketing extremely high-risk. Politics is perhaps the most divisive topic in society, and by aligning your brand with a specific viewpoint you will, if you’re lucky, alienate some of your audience, and if you’re unlucky a significant portion of it. When customers who disagree with your stance feel excluded or are angry, you lose their loyalty. This divisiveness creates an “us vs. them” mentality, which is exactly the opposite of what a brand should aim for when building a community.
Inconsistency of identity
A good marketer understands the importance of a consistent tone of voice. Successfully maintain one and you’ll have a unique brand identity. Political marketing, though, can completely disrupt this consistency, creating confusion and misalignment. A brand that suddenly takes a political stance (especially if its main purpose is entirely non-political) may dilute its messaging, throwing its audience off-focus and detracting from its overall image.
Complications with compliance
Nobody wants a lawsuit, and owing to the intricate nature of politics, the legal risks a brand takes when it voices a political opinion are substantial. There are numerous regulations and rules held in place by the all-powerful ASA (the Advertising Standards Authority - the UK’s advertising regulatory body). A politically driven advert may inadvertently go against laws surrounding lobbying and/or opinion influence. In the UK, our adverts are monitored by the ASA to ensure they comply with Advertising Codes, and the last thing any brand needs is to be pulled up for violation.
Lessons from the past…
A political piece that paid off
Perhaps one of the most high-profile recent examples of political marketing is Nike’s 2018 sponsorship of Colin Kaepernick. The American football star sparked an uproar when he refused to stand for the US national anthem as a protest against police brutality and racism - but that didn’t stop Nike from making him the face of their anniversary campaign, featuring him in ads along with the slogan “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”
With the previous points about the pros and cons of referencing politics in marketing in mind, it’s not surprising that Nike’s decision caused controversy. The brand saw a 3% dip in stock - that equates to a $4 billion loss in company value - as well as a more visible social backlash when #BurnYourNikes started trending and offended customers publicly burned their trainers.
Up to this point, sponsoring Kaepernick seemed like a poor decision from the sportswear giant. However, the stock recovered within just one month, then proceeded to grow by 5% and hit a record high in the market.
… and one that didn’t
A less successful political campaign came the year before Nike’s protest in the form of Ryanair’s “Brexit Special'' ad. UK budget airline offered flights home from €19.99 for ex-pats who wanted to “fly home to vote ‘remain’” on referendum day - but experienced real legal repercussions.
Whilst the ad did line up with Ryanair’s reputation for witty, cheeky campaigns, the issue of Brexit was probably best left untouched - by travel companies, at least. The Vote Leave campaign director, Dominic Cummings, accused the offer of being “corrupt” and claimed it broke referendum rules and section 1 of the 2010 Bribery Act. This led to an investigation by the Metropolitan Police.
Being a large-scale enough company to overcome this advertising mishap, Ryanair weathered the storm… but not without alienating a large portion of its audience and receiving a huge amount of negative press for attempting to influence public decisions.
What we’ve learnt
The key lesson to take from these two examples is that a brand must have a deep understanding of both its audience and the issue at hand before launching any form of political campaign.
Nike's sponsorship of Colin Kaepernick resonated with its core customer base, who clearly value social justice and activism. Despite the initial stock plummet and public backlash, their decision ultimately reinforced brand identity and resulted in longer-term growth. Ryanair's "Brexit Special" ad, on the other hand, severely misjudged the political climate. The airline faced serious accusations of violating legal standards, which damaged its reputation and sparked a formal investigation.
Is a political ad a risk worth taking?
Similarly to many elements of politics itself, the question of politics in advertising is full of contradicting answers. An advert or a campaign that references a significant political issue can demonstrate social responsibility and reinforce customer loyalty, but it can also do the opposite. And to return to our earlier point… there is no black-and-white answer to “Should brands be political in their marketing?”. It depends on many factors - the nature of the issue in question, the profile and industry of the brand, the audience, timing - to name just a few.
Any successful campaign requires informed strategising, but we need to put in even more consideration when deciding whether or not to incorporate politics into our strategies. As marketers, we should have a deep understanding of our customers. What sort of content will provoke the most positive engagement? Take our first case study - the politically-driven advert that paid off.
Nike knew that its audience had a high enough proportion of socially-minded Generation Z members to outweigh the backlash from the more traditional, patriotic Republicans. It’s also a brand that’s spent years crafting a subtle yet undeniable “woke” tone of voice, frequently tapping into issues that go beyond sport. The decision to feature a controversial figure in a campaign will not have been taken lightly - it was a strategic move that sparked debate and angered some customers, but ultimately led to positive press and growth.
The key is to approach these campaigns with meticulous planning. There must be a clear alignment between your brand's ethos and the political stance it chooses to take, you must be sure that this stance will strike the right chord with your audience demographic - and all without violating any advertising regulations. So think carefully before putting opinion into your marketing - because, after all, not many brands could pull off a Nike. And if you’re not sure yours could, then political issues are best left untouched!
Comentários