Authenticity requires honesty which means risk and vulnerability, I believe that is the key element. Activism requires action in defense of a cause that is not always universally agreed upon or understood, which also requires risk.

Risk is anathema to most brands, and so they tend to shy away from it until it’s too late (public tide has turned against it).

I think many brands could use risk as a signal, and ask themselves a few questions:

• What is the payoff for this risk if we are right about a particular trend, cause, or idea?
• What is the risk for not doing something?
• What is true to our mission, as consumers would recognize it?
• What do we have to say that is unique?
• How could we set a positive example in the world?

The big challenge for many brands is they “drink their own Kool-Aid” thinking their corporate values on the wall are recognized by consumers. They need to be demonstrated every day.

Brands should really aim for common sense: treat everyone equally, be fair and just, and try to make the communities where they do business better places. Sometimes these things will intersect with politics and that can be problematic – especially where brands have a large and diverse consumer base – but it is important to take a stand on issues that matter.

All that said, brands should also push back when the circumstances warrant it. Trader Joe’s refusing to change its brand names on Chinese and Italian foods, is a good example.

Ultimately, brands have their own personality and the stands they take and the policies they support help shape that personality.

Customers can sniff inauthentic brands from a distance. When the public posturing is not based on the core values, it will result in inconsistent messaging and perception. It will feel fake and will backfire.

Some brands (Nike, Patagonia, etc.) wear their attitude on their sleeve and how they come across feels natural, and it is reflected in all aspects of customer experience, and probably internally as well.

Most of the examples given here are just brand reactions to social changes, not brand activism. For these brands, not changing would be tone-deaf. Real brand activism is rare, such as when CVS stopped selling cigarettes. That’s the sort of brand activity that drives meaningful change.

I think Delta airlines and Coca-Cola win the prize this week for taking a stand against the new voting law in Georgia. Truth be told, I’m not even sure most people realize Coca-Cola is headquartered in Georgia. Delta of course, is another story.

Do I think it was appropriate? Yes I do. Do I think it took some courage? Yes, I do.

If I were on the side of the law would I think it was pandering? Maybe. But then, Hobby Lobby took a stand, and has taken the heat.

It’s appropriate when it is in keeping with your corporate core values. And I like to know the core values of the places I give my money to.

How about just doing the right thing? Sometimes marketers get carried away. I find the Uncle Ben’s “We’ve listened. We’ve learned. We’re changing” pandering. Too much patting themselves on the back. What is wrong with just changing the label on going on with business? This is greenwashing to the Nth degree. Live it, don’t talk about it.

I have an entirely different opinion on company activism, meaning the company position is all-in on the issue. Companies and other organizations are pushing back against the North Carolina bathroom law, Coca-Cola and Delta and others are pushing back against the Georgia voting law. Nike supported American values with the support of Colin Kaepernick and now even U.S. Olympic athletes are permitted (permitted?) to kneel.

After the death of George Floyd many companies announced changes to strategies, hiring and marketing practices. Personally I’m delighted they took a step back to address institutional racism and where their practices may have contributed. We know that with consumers, with increasing frequency especially for younger consumers, social issues certainly influence their buying decisions. These changes are are important and honestly, not difficult to make. I hope they’re also indicative of bigger policy changes in areas that are more difficult implement like hiring and policy.

The rebranding of Uncle Ben’s and Aunt Jemima was long overdue. Both brand images evoked antebellum slavery, like something out of “Gone With The Wind.” But the other products that have changed their names or imagery smack of insincerity to this observer — for example, the Native American woman on the Land O’ Lakes packaging did not strike me as insulting, unlike the outgoing Cleveland Indians logo.

Speaking up proactively would be a more forceful way to bring about change. Atlanta-based companies like Coca-Cola and Delta are speaking out belatedly about the “voting rights” legislation in Georgia, but only after being shamed into making statements. Where was their opposition when the law was being crafted and debated in the first place?

As consumers increasingly shop with their values, brand communications now affect strategic success.

Consumers can sense when activism is a tacked-on, trendy tactic vs. a sincere strategy that permeates their brand. That’s why brands need to reflect on whether their activism is driven by a fear of missing out on a “fad” or by a long-term commitment to doing the right thing.

Sometimes it’s as simple as doing the right thing. Even when long overdue, like the name changes for Uncle Ben’s and Aunt Jemima. Brands have an identity in the minds of consumers and they need to live up to that identity. In some cases, like Nike, or Patagonia, that brand identity is clear, and their activism is not just expected it is embraced. For other brands, it can be unexpected and seem fake if not done with genuine authenticity. That requires explaining why you are doing what you are doing clearly. Even if it means accepting fault for not taking action earlier. During moments of great public activism, such as BLM during last summer, it can seem like pandering when brands take notice and take action, but in the long-term what will consumers remember? They will remember the outcome more than the reason why the brand took the action. In that sense, brands need to show they are on the right side of history and do the right thing.

I agree with Jeff – these examples aren’t activism, they’re reactions to the social climate. To me, activism is more like Ben & Jerry’s 2018 Pecan Resist flavor, which was dedicated to inclusion. The ice cream brand has been at the forefront of social justice for years now. It’s not about morphing to stay current.

Everyday citizens are realizing their dollars can impact meaningful change more quickly than the government voting process. And with the availability of online shopping and online info we can easily find a retailer who shares our values, but also see how authentic that retailer stays to those stated values. “Faking it” is no longer an option since it’s too easy to see whether a company walks the talk. Better to be legit about one’s efforts. There is more to lose than to gain.

Today’s U.S. consumers are significantly more likely to let their hearts and minds drive their wallets. Due to that, there is growing pressure on companies to express their brand values, illustrate their stand on key social or political issues, and become more purpose-driven. At the CAGNY conference 2021 (refer to my summary of the conference here), many companies talked about it. Unilever summed it up the best – “Purpose drives brand power, brand power drives growth; purposeful brands are growing 2X.”

There is also the other issue. The majority of America is repulsed by cancel culture but will not express that opinion except by tacit boycotts. NFL TV ratings reveal this. Marketers have to realize the need to celebrate common ground.