Brands Competing on Social Purpose

Competing on social purpose is sure to attract criticism—virtually all social issues have both advocates and detractors—which can stall or even derail a program. Thus, managers must evaluate whether key stakeholders will accept and support the proposed social-purpose strategy. As with customer associations, some stakeholders may embrace a brand purpose while others reject it. Our research has found three drivers of negative reactions: inconsistency between the brand claim and the company’s actions, politicization of the claim, and suspicion about the firm’s motives.

Consider again Dove brand’s Campaign for Real Beauty. The marketing program challenged traditional standards of beauty and promoted the idea that true beauty has limitless forms. Its success made the brand a leading example of how to effectively integrate a social purpose into an existing brand strategy. But as its popularity grew, the campaign also attracted criticism. Some detractors noted an inconsistency between Dove’s position and those of its parent company Unilever, particularly in the marketing of the Axe line of men’s grooming products, whose advertising featured the seduction of scantily clad women. That Unilever was simultaneously fighting and reinforcing stereotypical notions of beauty struck its critics as hypocritical. Unilever eventually repositioned Axe and removed sexist stereotypes from its marketing. When competing on social purpose, inconsistencies between your operations and your brand claims will become more salient and should be quickly resolved—or, better, avoided in the first place.

Another obstacle to stakeholder acceptance occurs when companies, unwittingly or not, adopt a controversial social purpose. This was the case with Coca-Cola’s Arctic Home program, a partnership launched in 2011 with the World Wildlife Fund to protect polar bears. The social mission fit well with the brand, which had long used the animal in its advertising. However, despite the fact that its leaders never intended to equate a conservation initiative with the politics of climate change, the program catapulted Coke into the middle of a political debate. A significant segment of the population regarded global warming as a serious problem. But climate skeptics saw the Coke campaign as a mass media effort to promote a political agenda. Coke’s program was interpreted by some as a position on climate change and became a talking point in a Senate debate. As a result, some retail customers refused to use the campaign in their stores. While the company succeeded in containing a more general outcry, its experience highlights the risk of politicization around a brand’s social purpose. It is unlikely that any social-benefit claim can escape criticism, but management’s goal must be to maximize the fan-to-foe ratio.

Finally, stakeholders may question a brand’s motives if the initiative appears to be driven primarily by commercial interests. Stakeholders understand that companies are profit-driven, but if the company’s initiative offers no apparent social benefit, they may feel manipulated—as often happens if a brand is found to be “greenwashing.” To mitigate this risk, it’s critical to select a social purpose for which the brand can make a material contribution.

 

 https://hbr.org/2017/09/competing-on-social-purpose