As social media continues to become a more ubiquitous force
in today’s world, users are more frequently utilizing these platforms to
divulge their political opinions, warranted or not. With all the thoughts,
accusations and even breaking news popping up on social mediums like Twitter
and Facebook, it can be hard for large corporations to ignore this
unprecedented opportunity to interact with constituents and consumers on
trending news items, especially if it is a topic the company or its employees
are particularly passionate about.
However, offering up a particular political stance in any
public forum can be incredibly risky for a corporation or client. The hazards
can include nationwide boycotts, dropped contracts, media backlash and more,
but the benefits could range from an increased customer base to stronger brand
loyalty.
Sometimes, corporations can find their brand in the middle
of a political hotbed without any intentions of getting there. Recently, the
shoe company Mizuno received excessive attention, and even increased sales, in
correlation to the shoes’ appearance on Sen. Wendy Davis’ feet during her
filibuster in the Texas Senate. Although the brand issued a statement
commending the senator and the shoes’ ability to withstand any challenge, be it
“a 5K, a marathon or 10+ hour filibuster,” they played it safe and clearly
stated that they did “not maintain a corporate position related to the topic in
discussion.”
In most cases, taking the neutral stance, as Mizuno did,
would be the recommended PR route for clients and companies of all sizes;
however, pulling off a successful and public political stance is possible.
Several companies have been able to enter the arena of discussing
politically-charged issues in social media and have emerged relatively unscathed,
but it takes precise planning and excellent timing and cannot be successfully
executed without a strong hold on the pulse of ever-swaying public opinion.
One company that has bravely featured divisive social issues
in ad campaigns with minimal repercussions is Svedka, a brand of Swedish vodka.
This company has voiced its opinion on often polarizing issues such as gay
marriage and the war in Iraq. Most alcohol companies steer clear of political
landmines and produce content with heavy overtones of a fun and carefree lifestyle;
however, Svedka has been able to push
the envelope by understanding the demographic of its core clientele. Its
customers, whom are mostly 20- to 30-year-old culturally diverse male and
females with moderate-to-high income, tend to be liberal in thinking and care a
great deal about social issues.
The brand touts controversial topics it knows the majority
of its target audience agrees with. Keeping tabs on the pulse of consumers is
imperative. A recent ABC
News poll states that 81 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds support marriage
equality. Knowing statistics like these, Svedka is able to align its brand with
social issues that increase brand loyalty and make individuals feel a more
connected relationship with the product. This strategy has worked
overwhelmingly in Svedka’s favor so far, and it is currently the second largest
imported vodka brand in the United States.
Companies have also publicly suffered backlash from speaking
out about political policies. Papa John’s earned national attention when its
CEO John Schnatter claimed the “Obamacare” act would cost the franchise
somewhere between 11 and 14 cents per pizza, and that he would consequently be
cutting work hours so employees would not qualify for benefits.
YouGov
BrandIndex is a survey that measures brand popularity and perception by the
public. On Election Day, Papa John’s held a relatively high score of 32, but just
eight days after Schnatter’s comments were published, the chain’s score
plummeted 10 points.
The key is to know your audience. Remaining transparent and
steadfast is also paramount in such situations. Companies whose politics seem
to flip-flop or who give ambiguous apologies often recover their positive
public image slower than those who stick with their initial stance, despite backlash.
Before deciding whether to dive-in, brands should fully
understand the risk of venturing into the realm of politics in social channels,
and they must decide if they are willing to endure potential profit loss for
taking a stand. If the brand can connect with its audience through politics or
cultural symbolism, the impact can be overwhelmingly positive and long-lasting,
but if the company misreads its public, or issues politically-charged
statements before fully evaluating the potential effect, its corporate image
could be permanently tarnished.
This blog was
contributed by Kristen Crosby. @KristenCrosby11
Posts
