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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Bud Lite lost 6 Billion dollars you think that’s a good fight? Ha!
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.
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’?