Woke washing: what happens when marketing communications don’t match corporate practice
While consumers expect big brands to take a stand, they may not believe them when they do, write a team of marketing lecturers in this crossposting from The Conversation.
Brand activism has become the new marketing tactic of choice, and a brand’s stance on societal and political issues can offer a differentiating factor in a fast-paced corporate marketplace.
Historically brands have not engaged in social and political conversations for fear of potentially alienating customers, but our current research shows savvy brands are recognising that marketing budget spent on good causes can have the greatest reach and impact.
However, while consumers expect big brands to take a stand, they may not believe them when they do.
Courting controversy
Consider the recent controversial Nike advertisement featuring NFL football player Colin Kaepernick, the first athlete not to stand for the US national anthem. Nike’s message delivered by Kaepernick was “believe in something even if it means risking everything”. The ad triggered a boycott of Nike goods, but also earned $6 billion for the company and raised brand awareness among Nike’s target demographic.
As brands engage in more corporate social activism, however, the motives driving these actions are increasingly scrutinised. Crossing the line into appropriation may get brands into trouble.
Jumping on the bandwagon may be equally controversial for brands. When Chevrolet, Virgin and Ben & Jerry’s all took a stance on marriage equality, for instance, the issue became linked with so many companies that marriage equality was seen as a marketing tool instead of authentic brand activism.
Expected but not authentic
When asked about the recent Nike advertisement featuring Kaepernick, 60% of respondents in this research study indicated they felt positively about Nike after viewing the advertisement. Consumers increasingly expect brands to take a stand and see it as a brand’s duty or responsibility. Consumers we talked to said brands have the power to make a difference.
Of those who felt positively about the advertisement, 73% of respondents indicated this was an appropriate topic for Nike to engage in. Yet importantly, only 45% indicated they felt Nike had a genuine commitment to these values.
This is surprising. Brands can be perceived as being appropriate in their messaging around social and political causes, and yet not authentic. True brand equity for activism marketing thus hinges on whether or not the brand engages in practices that match its message.
Activism vs genuine practice
This research inspired the creation of a brand activism typology. The purpose of the typology is to examine the alignment between the degree of activism marketing (high vs low) with the degree of authentic practices (high vs low).
These dimensions represent the degree of brand practice that authentically aligns with social causes versus the degree of brand marketing and promotion around social causes. In other words, this approach measures whether brands are practising what they preach.
The resulting typology reveals when brands are more likely to be perceived as “woke washing” – inauthentic in their marketing, as their practices may not clearly align with their messaging. Some brands have neither messaging nor practices that are pro-social. Some have both high authenticity of practices as well as clear messaging around their practices and support for social causes. For these brands, expectations and perceptions match, and they are “honestly not woke” or “honestly woke” brands respectively.
Some brands, however, have authentic social engagement practices yet do not take many steps to market and position themselves as being corporate social activists. These “woke but silent” brands have an opportunity to use marketing to highlight authentic practices. Other brands have unclear or indeterminate records of social cause practices even though they use social activism marketing to position their brands in the marketplace, referred to as “woke washing”.
No room for neutrality
In today’s post-modern culture, corporate neutrality has been subject to criticism. Remaining ambivalent on controversial issues is now more of a failure than an asset, especially in the eyes of certain consumer groups. Yet, how can brands walk the line between consumer expectations and perceptions of inauthenticity?
Our initial findings show brands should be genuine, relevant to their core purpose or brand promise, and ensure their practices support their communications. Marketing communications and campaigns that centre on long-term brand engagement make the most sense to consumers.
Companies seeking to embrace corporate social activism must also have patience. Be in it for the long haul, and brands might just find customer support in the connected world.
Jessica Vredenburg, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Auckland University of Technology; Amanda Spry, Lecturer in Marketing, RMIT University; Joya Kemper, Lecturer in Marketing, and Sommer Kapitan, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
I have to say that this attitude of marketing and communications having to be neutral has come to an end.
Social media marketing directly leads to exacerbation of neuropsychiatric conditions, all over the world. Westpac Banking Corporation has ceased social media marketing.
We will soon too. But we have to get the message out first.
We are. Are you?
User ID not verified.
This whole article flows VERY similar to the BEME News video what was posted on YouTube yesterday…even to the examples used…c’mon mumbrella you’re better than just copying content
User ID not verified.
Hi George,
This piece is a crossposting from The Conversation, so it is quite literally copied content. Content we hope our readers will enjoy nonetheless.
Thanks,
Josie
Yeah, Nike is so woke they are still using slave labour to make their shoes.
User ID not verified.
Seriously, the Nike case can’t be looked at in isolation.
They have built the Nike brand off the back of people who change culture.
People who push us forward and not just in the sporting world. In America, that ain’t middle class white people who are burning their shoes right now. Those kinds of people sit back and suck up the culture – they don’t generally make it. (Obviously there are exceptions as this a massive generalisation)
It’s people on the edge and being on the edge, pushing us forward which means you have to back them to cross the line.
The other point to make is, when asking people ‘is this an appropriate topic for Nike to engage with’ that completely misses the point. It doesn’t actually matter what people think. It matters what they are going to think in five years time.
When you are dealing with people who are literally changing the world – what people think right now is almost always irrelevant.
As an industry we really need to stop looking at what we have in our hands but lift our eyes to the horizon.
User ID not verified.
It’s the ultimate in moral cowardice. None of the executives who pronounce a brand’s “position” on any issue has done it in their own right previously. They cower behind their brand, using it to virtue-signal in the hope that establishment elites will reward them with business or a directorship. They are as exploitative of the targets of their “benificence” as those they condemn. The poor, the black, the gay, the whatever are just chess pieces for their ambition. And worse, they impose their trashy, faddish ideologies upon their staff, in the most Stalin-eqsue ways, when those staff may rightly hold different opinions.
User ID not verified.
Your use of the term ‘virtue-signal’ gives away too much. The rest of your post is, at best, laughable.
Whether individuals have acted on these issues is entirely irrelevant, their job is to look at what the company stands for, and how their company acts to meet the requirements of stakeholders and customers.
If a company earns $6bn by speaking out, or supporting an athlete who speaks out, then by all shareholder metrics, they are doing their job.
User ID not verified.