10 minute read
If it ain't woke – fix it.
2020 has seen significant shifts in how history and culture are perceived — how can those in PR and comms stay ahead of the curve?
Advertisement
BY ROSE STOKES
In 1964 one of Atlanta’s local residents was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His name was Martin Luther King Jr. In order to celebrate this prestigious occasion, the city of Atlanta organised a dinner in Luther King’s honour. The problem was that the elites of the city — still deeply segregated and replete with racist attitudes — refused to attend.
Atlanta was at that time — and still is — where Coca Cola’s headquarters is based. In those days, the company’s president was John Paul Austin, who was sympathetic to the cause of anti-racism after having witnessed the negative effects of the apartheid in South Africa. He sent a clear message to Atlantans: “It is embarrassing for Coca-Cola to be located in a city that refuses to honor its Nobel Prize winner Martin Luther King Jr. We are an international business. The Coca-Cola Company does not need Atlanta. You all need to decide whether Atlanta needs the Coca-Cola Company.”
The dinner immediately sold out.
On the face of it, this anecdote might not seem extraordinary; a big brand intervening in a social issue and using its influence to sway popular opinion. But in 1964, this was radical, and a rare demonstration of the extent to which big business can help to drive forward progress on social issues if they so choose.
Coca Cola’s influence in this incident was based on two things: its importance to the local economy — and therefore to the livelihoods of local workers — and the prestige that being home to the headquarters of such a recognisable global brand brought the state. Combined, these two factors meant that Austin’s statement carried a weight hefty enough to make people move in a certain direction — and he knew it. He was able to use his influence for good.
The point of this anecdote is not to extol the virtue of the Coca Cola brand, (which has found itself in the middle of numerous controversies over the years since), but rather to demonstrate that although we often talk about “corporate social responsibility” and “brand activism” as relatively modern concepts, their roots can actually be traced further back in history.
TAKING A STAND
Although the concept of brand activism is not new, it has certainly grown in importance over the past ten years. The old principle that you shouldn’t mix business and politics has been thrown out, and been replaced instead with an expectation on the part of consumers that companies should not just be good, but that they should do good too.
It makes a lot of sense. In the capitalist world we live in, where multinational behemoths like Amazon, Apple and Google generate more money than some national economies — and where their owners are sitting atop fortunes far beyond anything any individual could ever want or need — there has to be some pay off. As demonstrated by Coca Cola’s case in Atlanta, businesses are in the unique position of being able to make or break the fortunes of a country or city owing to their role in supporting local economies, and with that power comes great responsibility.
At the same time, social media has influenced the way that consumers interact with brands in a very fundamental way, changing the relationship between customer and vendor into something closer and less formal. The once solid boundary between the roles of businesses and individuals is now a little blurrier.
Savvy brands have capitalised on this proximity by becoming friendlier in their messaging and enlisting the help of individuals with big followings to “influence” consumers to buy certain products. This confluence of the roles of friends and vendors on social media has proven incredibly successful in terms of helping businesses to sell more products and increase the number of eyeballs on their brands. But it’s also shifted the goal posts on what the average consumer expects of the brands they spend their money on, because they feel far more emotionally invested.
And so, in this strange new world we find ourselves in, where mistakes are so quickly amplified publicly via social media, the challenges for brands are manifold.
“Everything is political now,” says Kate Hartley, co-founder of Polpeo and author of Communicate in a Crisis, “so not taking a stand on an issue can be really damaging for a brand.”
THE WINNERS AND THE LOSERS
In many ways, 2020 has pushed the dial forward on many issues. Against the backdrop of a pandemic that is exacerbating already grave global inequalities, a fervour has swept across the world with almost the same ferocity as the virus. People are angry about the state of the world, and they are rightly demanding change.
The roving target of collective anger has hit many issues since the start of the pandemic, but none quite so as impactful as the #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement. The murder of George Floyd in late May by a US police officer sparked an ire that subsequently burned across the globe, as citizens started to demand evidence from governments (and then brands) showing how they were proactively driving forward the anti-racism cause.
As companies piled onto social media to show their support, there were soon casualties as individuals pointed out inconsistencies in the internal and external messaging of certain brands. On June 2nd, people working within the music industry instigated a day called #BlackoutTuesday, encouraging employees of the big labels to post a black square to their social media pages in solidarity with BLM. The intention was to flood people’s feeds with the squares — to cease sharing content — and create the digital equivalent of a moment of silence.
But the day was soon co-opted by individuals and brands in other industries who wanted to show support. The problem was that many of those that got involved didn’t have the best record on antiracism themselves. And the backlash was fierce.
“Blackout Tuesday was very interesting because there were so many organisations putting black squares alongside bland statements,” Harley explains, “they had failed to grasp that consumers want brands to communicate actions and not ideas — and that they expect evidence.” Labels such as Estée Lauder felt the heat after posting a black square and being challenged on their skin lightening products. Taco Bell also faced criticism for firing an employee who wore a BLM branded mask after posting a black square on June 2nd, and the lifestyle publication Refinery29 was challenged on Twitter for its treatment of black employees, leading to the resignation of the editor at the time, Christene Barberich.
Outside of BLM, other brands such as Oatly, a UK-based oat-milk brand, and Lucy and Yak, an “ethical clothing brand” have felt the heat around perceived inconsistencies in their messaging. In both cases, calls for boycotts have swiftly followed. For Oatly, a brand that encourages people to move away from dairy to reduce their carbon footprint, a decision to receive investment from Blackrock (which has links to companies destroying the Amazon Rainforest) led many to question its integrity. The message was clear: if you’re going to take a stand publicly on an issue, then you’d better make sure that you’re not being hypocritical.
LEAD WITH EMPATHY
“Companies often make mistakes when they think of themselves first, rather than the people they are providing goods or services to,” Hartley says. “Traditional communications centres around what companies need to do or say to look good,” she explains, “I advise clients to switch that around: think about what you need to do first and then what you want people to know you’ve done. Consider who the crisis is affecting — what do they need from you?”
Although this sounds relatively straightforward, it requires a level of flexible thinking that can be challenging in practice — particularly for larger, less agile businesses. So, what advice does Harley have for companies conscious of staying relevant and empathetic in their communications in a rapidly changing world?
“The best thing to do is not to behave badly in the first place!” she says. But failing that, there are five mistakes brands commonly make that can trigger a negative backlash, which are a useful guide for what not to do — a good place to start. Each of the mistakes is firmly rooted in human psychology, and understanding why people respond the way they do is a fundamental part of learning how to do better.
The first thing that triggers negative behaviour in consumers is if an activity or statement made by the brand contradicts a core belief or value. Examples of this might be that they don’t support animal rights, or that they oppose equal marriage. Think of New Balance and their support of the Trump administration in the US or Barilla and its chairman’s homophobic comments, both of which had a calamitous effect on each brand’s external reputation. Second is if a brand attacks or disregards social norms and accepted moral ways of behaving, for instance by avoiding paying taxes or failing to address a sexual harassment case adequately. Good examples of this are Starbucks, Google or Amazon on tax, or the Weinstein Company’s bankruptcy following the publication of allegations of prolific sexual harassment and abuse of power by one of the company’s founders and chief executive, Harvey Weinstein.
Third, if something a brand is doing or has done takes away the consumer’s control, it is sure to be met with anger. A good example of this is the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the resultant impact on Facebook. People trusted Facebook to protect their data, and instead it was sharing it with malevolent third parties. This led to a huge loss of faith in the brand and drove huge numbers of people to delete their accounts.
Fourth, if it hurts something the consumer relates to personally — so if a company’s stance or behaviour directly affects someone they hold dear, such as a parent or friend. A good example of this on an individual level can be seen by the “cancellation” of JK Rowling and her books following comments she had made that were widely deemed to be transphobic. Many people took to social media to declare they would boycott her work in solidarity with trans people they either knew or cared about.
Finally, consumers will turn on a brand that appears to go against its own ethics. This is one issue that the BLM movement is trying to draw attention to; a gap between what a brand says are its values, and how it behaves.
THE INTERNET NEVER FORGETS
As 2020 has shown us, the collective mood can change quickly, making it harder still for brands to remain relevant and avoid missteps. One hazard of social media is that as accepted social norms and ideas shift in line with the political environment, evidence of past transgressions is readily available for those looking for it.
Platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram also make it easier than ever for people to publicly call out brands and amplify their disapproval. As the National Trust found out earlier this year when it came under fire for links between its properties and the slave trade — there is no statute of limitations when it comes to human rights abuses.
Although it may seem like a confusing and difficult time to be navigating PR and communications, the simple truth is that organisations that are willing to hold their hands up and admit their errors, while also committing to improve, are those more likely to weather any storms.
Social media is an effective tool in enabling companies to be more transparent with their customers. In a year when many of us suddenly have a lot more time on our hands, investing some of that into learning about big issues facing humanity and how your brand can be part of a movement for positive change can only be a good thing.
And if you don’t know where to begin, then listening is a good place to start.
