“Don’t talk about sex, politics or religion,” or so the saying goes. But, how does this apply to brands today, in a media landscape actively designed to amplify debate and disagreement?
Brands taking a stance on a range of potentially provocative issues has increased significantly in recent years, with powerful movements like Black Lives Matter encouraging more companies to join the conversation. In light of this, recent research by Kubi Kalloo has revealed that 59% say their willingness to buy brands is dependent on their stance on social and political issues. Provocation therefore isn’t something to be avoided but embraced by brands looking to engage with consumers.
However, there’s a fine line when it comes to striking the balance between getting your consumers to sit up and listen and causing offence. Unfortunately, this is sometimes a line that brands cross. Doing so results in long term damage to brand reputation, and also, potentially, business revenues.
This often occurs when a brand engages with a political or social issue but it appears to the consumer as an example of ‘performative provocation’. Although possibly stemming from the right intentions, ill thought-out provocation can be severely damaging for, not the brand, the social movement itself and those it aims to help.
Performative versus Purposeful Provocation
Taking a stance isn’t as simple as expressing support for a cause: the stance must be rooted in action and an authentic desire to change. Performative provocation runs the risk of simply fanning the flames of the socio-political turmoil. Modern brands must do, not just say. By creating respectful and tailored provocation with purpose, brands can engage on a personal level as well as inform and encourage positive change.
Research indicates that 55% of people believe brands are opportunistic when getting involved in a discussion about social and political issues, illustrating an enormous opportunity to make a difference through truly demonstrating their sincerity with tangible action.
The question then is not whether to be provocative, but how to be provocative without an air of empty performance.
Relaying, educating, committing
If a brand’s response to a headline socio-political issue correlates with how consumers view them, it’s important to provoke consumers in the right way. Many of the issues that lie at the heart of our debates today require considered responses in order to confront injustices without making matters worse.
Styles of provocative voice typically fall into three styles:
- Relaying the message – mentioning the issue and stating a stance, but with no educational flavour and no commitment to change
- Educating the consumer – educating the consumer about the issue, but making no commitment to change
- Committing to change – talking about what the brand has learned and outlining what they are doing, or going to do about it
Through the voice brands take, they can act as powerful agents in the sociopolitical discourse that often dominates modern media and modern consumers’ minds. By truly understanding and engaging with the issue, a brand doesn’t just offer disruptive ideas – they are the disruptive idea and this is key in tapping into the consumer’s ways of navigating the world in which they live and the choices they make every day.
Doing it right
Before brands take a stance, it’s important that they truly understand their consumers and what they are likely to respond to. Brands shouldn’t set out to make their stance on a controversial issue without clearly identifying the mindset of its desired target when it comes to the particular issues and the specific role it wishes to play in reinforcing or challenging this mindset.
Businesses typically have a defined consumer target and often the age of the consumer is a major influence behind their social and political perspectives. However, while the stereotypes of ‘Boomers’ and ‘Gen Z’ are often thrown around, digging deeper reveals a new way of segmenting consumers according to their expectations of brands in the social and political arena. Knowing these expectations is critical, alongside understanding how your brand values and behaviours fit with these different mindsets.
Misalignment is the number one reason why provocations can create backlash. This doesn’t mean brands have to pander to their consumers – it simply means they need to understand their socio-cultural expectations of your brand more than they do today, as often these are not obvious on the surface.
Regardless of your industry or your market, your stance must echo your own values in order to ring true for your consumer and steer clear of performative provocation. There’s no such thing as having a “suitable” or “unsuitable” brand for speaking out on these issues. The entire point of giving brands a sociopolitical voice is to empower brands to engage effectively and more humanistically with consumers. Provocation is, therefore, an opportunity to reveal your true values and provide richer, more authentic connections within the polarisation of today’s media landscape.
