Why Do Some Brands Flounder when it Comes to Social Causes?

MLB’s decision to move the All-Star Game from Atlanta to protest the new Georgia voting laws and Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines’ somewhat tepid responses to the legislation shows how complex it can be for brands to navigate political and social waters.

Some would argue that brands should stay out of this; to quote a current Senator on the MLB action: “Why a large company, CEO or a commissioner of a major sport would want to get involved in this…I just don’t get it.”

I would argue the total opposite both for society’s sake and yes for the good of the brands themselves:

• 1 in 2 people are belief-driven buyers: they choose, switch, avoid or boycott a brand based on its stand on societal issues

• 53% of consumers believe brands can do more to solve societal ills than government

Source: Edelman Earned Brand Study 2018

The point here is that a large (and likely growing) part of the population want brands actively engaged in society vs simply driving the economy.

I’d also argue it doesn’t have to be that complex for brands to support causes that are important to them so long as they follow a simple playbook:

1. Address causes/issues that are directly relevant to your purpose/audience (otherwise get out of the way)

2. Take clear and decisive action vs just talk (otherwise shut up)

For example: Patagonia donated its 2017 corporate tax break of $10M to Climate Change Initiatives as a direct protest against the administration’s rollback of environmental restrictions. Environmental activism is baked into Patagonia’s DNA and the action was tangible and meaningful.

Nike did more than endorse Colin Kaepernik, they made him the centerpiece of their involvement in the Black Lives Matter movement. Many worried it would damage the brand to be associated with such a polarizing character… it had the opposite effect because it was true to the brand, and its cohorts.

MLB (while not a model organization) has some history in addressing racial inequity; many saw the breaking of the color barrier in the late ‘40s in baseball as a precursor to the civil rights movement. So, its stance on the Georgia voting laws is also in sync with its values but more importantly, they took decisive action in protest.

And so we come to Coca-Cola and Delta who seem to be floundering on this issue, caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Coca-Cola in particular can’t get a break; boycotted by the left for not doing enough to lobby against the legislation beforehand and now boycotted by the right for speaking out after the fact. Both these companies have taken a stance that seems so disingenuous relative to the MLB’s Nike’s, Patagonia’s, & Ben & Jerry’s of the world.

Why? Well perhaps it is because they’re not following the playbook:

1. Social justice and more specifically civil rights are not baked into their DNA.

2. They have not taken specific and tangible action.

As the LA Times put it:

“The only entity that has put its money where its mouth is has been Major League Baseball”

What we’re seeing from Coca-Cola and Delta is all talk and no action, and that is little help for voter rights or the brands themselves.