It’s time for brands to take a stand on contentious social issues: Havas boss James Wright
The days of brands sitting on the fence over contentious social issues are over, Havas’ global PR boss has declared.
James Wright, global chairman of Havas PR Global Collective and CEO of Red Havas, delivered the keynote speech at Mumbrella’s CommsCon this morning, in which he dubbed “the three Ps” now haunting the public relations business.
Havas’ James Wright at Mumbrella’s CommsCon this morning
“It’s polarised politics, which we’re seeing pretty much all over the world, the pandemic, which is still with us, and protests that are seemingly happening everywhere about every issue,” Wright said.
“For businesses and brands, it’s never been a trickier time to navigate these shark-infested waters that can leave them bitten by the community, customers, stakeholders and even government.”
That has ushered in an “age of purpose” where brands must find their conscience – and declare it proudly, he said.
“It means moving away from mission statements and not just saying you support something but doing something about it to create change.”
Vague or broad-brushed comments without substance will not do either, Wright said, pointing to the now-infamous campaign from Pepsi featuring supermodel Kendall Jenner, invoking the Black Lives Matter movement.
“That went nuts,” he said. “It was seen as trivialising a significant and important issue. It shows how critical it is for brands to be authentic and genuine in what they do. The days of misleading consumers with marketing campaigns to drive sales – they’re over.”
Wright conceded taking these social stands are not without a cost for brands in some instances.
“Look at Florida’s ‘don’t say gay’ legislation, which was opposed by Disney. Disney is the biggest employer in that state and their employees really pushed them to take a position. As a result, their licence to operate is under attack by Ron DeSantis.”
The recent backlash against US beer brand Budd Light over a campaign featuring a transgender activist is another example, he said.
Campaigns that lack authenticity can be a disaster
“But the cost of doing nothing isn’t insignificant either. If you don’t make a statement or take a stand, it’s seen by many customers as an acceptance of a bad situation.
“Purpose goes off the table in a lot of organisations when the rubber hits the road. But the question of how seriously a brand should take its values [corresponds] to why customers purchase and why people show up for work.”
Mitigating those risks and responding to them when they eventuate is the role of communicators, he said, who must now adopt an ‘always-on’ approach to crises.
“Expect the unexpected. Always be prepared with strategy. Wear your crisis comms hat even when there’s no crisis. Constantly monitor the landscape and prepare tour clients accordingly.”
Brands should take a stand on issues they choose to stand for… not every issue. They don’t need to alienate half their audience on every political issue because a PR person invites them to bite. Choosing to take a stance on every topic is why brands often have a weak, unjustified stance. Better to put your resources behind a fight you truly care enough to defend than be accused of [insert cause here] washing.
I’d love to see James Wright putting money where his mouth is – what issues is the agency championing for the industry, or part of their own value set? Does it support The Voice referendum? Does it have a position on flexible work as many big corporates push for 5 days in the office? Does it have gender parity on pay?
User ID not verified.
Brands are not moral arbiters, nor should they be. To claim so suggests elevating their importance in society, and as your own company published in 2017, 74% of consumers couldn’t care less if a brand disappeared.
Holding this position is all well and good for the inner-city laptop-class however I’d argue that 99.9% of consumers couldn’t care less about the position a brand chooses to, or not to take on a given issue, more so in a cost of living crisis.
People still buy VWs even after the Dieselgate scandal.
People still buy products manufactured in China despite the well published atrocities (and slave labour claims) against the Uighur population (not to mention Foxconn).
People still buy products that use cobalt sourced from barbaric conditions in the DRC.
As Michael Jordan famously said, Republicans still buy sneakers…no brand that first and foremost has a fiscal responsibility to its shareholders is going to risk alienating a major part of its customer base by taking a true and firm stance on anything. It’s exactly why the posturing and statements that do get released are so vague.
User ID not verified.
This reminds me of when Hollywood actors attempt to convey some level of authority on subjects like child exploitation, modern slavery, etc
George Clooney can piss off, as can this point of view on brands being important in any way.
User ID not verified.
Bud Lite lost 6 Billion dollars you think that’s a good fight? Ha!
User ID not verified.
The whole industry needs to get over itself to be completely honest.
Focus on selling more stuff for your existing clients and less time trying to sell virtuous lies to potential clients and as an industry we might stop this relentless pitching merry-go-round.
User ID not verified.
I don’t agree with everything in this comment, but I celebrate the quality contribution. Mumbrella used to be a genuinely good forum for considered comments like this (amongst the anonymous toxic trolling).
More please! And it’s probably OK to put your name on it isn’t it?
I agree with the Dieselgate point and make it often. People love the VW brand. Did cost them a shit-ton of money in fines though. The reputational stakes, upside and downside, are frequently over-stated and for self-interested reasons by comms people either trying to sell something (agency) or make their lives easier (in house).
Same goes for Qantas in my view. People want to like that brand and will flock back once there are some fixes on the value equation.
But I do think that brands and companies have values and communities, some more explicit than others, that create both opportunities and obligations to “take a stand”. Not just for the brand’s CVP, but also for its EVP and social licence. It takes clarity, nuance and commitment to make it meaningful though.
User ID not verified.
If brands want to do good, do it. The organisations behind them should have a conscience, of course, and treat their people, customers, the planet, etc. ethically. But why do they need to ‘declare it proudly’?
User ID not verified.
Have your say