Attention Companies
Posted by Erin Koch
As a rule, most companies, from small storefront shops to multinational corporations, try to avoid the appearance that they favor one political viewpoint over another … and with good reason. If I am a strong supporter of Candidate A, and I see a sign for Candidate B in the window of my regular dry cleaner, I might choose to have my shirts pressed elsewhere. Likewise, if I am a supporter of progressive causes, but learn that the former CEO of a nationwide pizza company gave millions to conservative groups, I might order my pepperoni pie from a competitor.
So, most businesses remain (publicly, at least) neutral, rather than risk alienating half of their customer base. Two well-known companies recently contradicted this apolitical strategy – with very different results.
Since it was sold to a major food company in 2000, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s has worked hard to maintain its image as a progressive, forward-, and free-thinking company. Earlier this year, the company renamed one of its ice creams “Yes Pecan” to honor Barack Obama’s swearing in as President (a play on his campaign slogan “Yes We Can”.) Then earlier this month, the company renamed its popular “Chubby Hubby” flavor “Hubby Hubby” to commemorate the fact that the state of Vermont legalized gay marriage. (That new name will only be used in Vermont.)
While some may be annoyed at the ice cream maker’s partisan spin, I think their strategy is sound. Why? Because it remains authentic to their brand and their core principles. Their loyal and generally liberal customers will probably love it. And they’ll get lots of media attention, which means more mindshare and the potential for more customers. (My favorite flavor is chocolate fudge brownie and, come to think of it, I haven’t had any in quite a while!)
A contrary example comes from similarly progressive mainstay Whole Foods. Company CEO John Mackey wrote an op ed that was published in The Wall Street Journal critical of President Obama’s health care plan. The resulting reaction has included storefront protests as well as a growing “Boycott Whole Foods” group on Facebook (now approaching 34,000 members). There has even been speculation in the financial media that the CEO was going rogue, and acting based on his personal beliefs rather than what is best for the company.
While I certainly agree with John Mackey’s right to self expression, I don’t think the critical op ed was a wise move from a reputation management perspective. Given the company’s progressive and politically active customer base, voicing a personal opinion that likely runs contrary to what most of his core customers believe could have been strategically misguided, leading to long-term damage to the brand image.
In sum, taking a highly visible political stand is almost always risky, particularly if (as for most companies) “being political” is not part of your corporate reputation and image. But if you do find your company thinking about making such a leap, look first:
- Who is in our customer base and what will they think of this?
- Does this align with our core values and principles?
- What are the short term risks and benefits?
- And what are the long term risks and benefits?
Photo credit: zoovroo
Tags: branding, Crisis PR, facebook, issues management, media, news, planning, politics, positioning, promotion, reputation, social media
