table of contents - wrightimc · table of contents 3 5 10 23 28 introduction real-world brands...

2

TABL

E OF C

ONTE

NTS 3

5

10

23

28

Introduction

Real-World Brands Taking Stands

Survey Results

Answers & Analysis

Conclusion

3

The rise of content marketing as a viable corporate strategy

is a welcome development to most digital marketers.

Especially those who view the marketing world through a

search engine optimization (SEO) tinted lens. For years,

SEOs have been hollowly repeating the mantra that

“content is king” in public, while utilizing algorithm-hacking

tricks behind closed doors. Recent changes by the major

search engines have made marketers of all types re-think

their content strategy – and the good news is marketers

are now creating increasing volumes of quality content

that users actually want to read.

At WrightIMC, we encourage clients to be bold in

their content marketing. Based on our experience and

observation of the current digital landscape, brands that

cultivate and embrace a strong personality create more

opportunities for interaction, brand-building and sales.

Just as with individuals, a prominent tactic that solidifies a

brand personality is having an opinion and taking a stand

on controversial issues.

The benefits to taking a stand are numerous. From an

SEO point of view, controversy generally spurs other sites

to link to the brand taking a stand. For those not familiar

with SEO, links are arguably the most important factor that

the major search engines use to rank and determine the

relevancy of sites to specific search queries. In addition

to the SEO benefits, strong stances from brands can help

solidify brand preference with those who agree with the

stand. And, many consumers who aren’t passionate about

the topic a brand supports are unaffected by the stance

but exposed to the brand through news and social media

coverage.

The increased effectiveness of real-time marketing

also provides opportunities for brands to get in front of

audiences with engaging, yet controversial, material and

further promote the brand’s identity to extremely engaged

consumers. We believe that, in many cases, the old PR cliché,

“I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name

right,” is very applicable in today’s digital environment.

Many companies are reluctant to implement the added

transparency that comes with identifying a brand with a

controversial or semi-controversial stance – and with good

reason. Taking a stand can alienate customers, incite a

vocal opposition to the brand, require extra resources to

respond to inquiries about the stand, and in general be a

big pain.

We know that there can be benefits from a digital marketing

perspective – especially SEO – for brands to take a stand.

But for many marketers, alienating any customer seems

counter-intuitive. For years, public relations practitioners

have taken the approach that the best practice is for

brands to stay away from controversy and remain neutral

on social and political issues. Especially in publicly-traded

companies, taking a stand that might endanger the stock

price is seen as corporate communications suicide.

In the end, money usually makes the decision. Traditional

risk-management usually dictates that taking a controversial

stand is simply not an option. Our question and the impetus

for writing this paper, however, is how much of a risk is

there to the bottom-line by taking a well-researched stand?

INTRODUCTION: SHOULD YOUR BRAND TAKE A STAND?

When brands take a controversial

stand, how is their bottom line

affected?

Do consumers say that a brand’s

social or political stance affects their

propensity to buy that brand’s

product or service?

What items should a brand consider

before taking a stand on a

controversial subject?

PurPose of this rePort

The purpose of this paper is to create baseline answers to the following questions:

1 2 3

4

rePort Methodology

In order to answer the questions above, WrightIMC researched incidents where companies took a stand on controversial or

semi-controversial subjects and examined the outcomes from a digital marketing as well as bottom-line effects standpoint.

Most of the incidents that presented enough data for analysis were high profile and received national news attention. WrightIMC

avoided citing incidents where companies were put into controversial situations or crises without a conscious decision from

the brand. Examples of this would include BP’s oil spill in the Gulf Coast, Carnival Cruise Lines’ engine malfunctions, Apple’s

customer service woes in China, or other situations where the company was put into a controversial limelight without a

calculated stance.

WrightIMC also conducted a survey using Google’s Consumer Survey Tool. In this survey, 3,012 random Google users were

asked the degree to which they agreed with one of the following two statements:

1 2When I make a purchase, I consider the social stance of

the company that makes the product I am purchasing.

I won’t buy a product if I disagree with the product maker’s

political or social stance.

Survey recipients responded by checking one of the

following choices to the question:

• Agree

• Strongly Agree

• Disagree

• Strongly Disagree

• Neither Agree nor Disagree

Google’s Consumer Survey Tool collection methodology

can be found at:

http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/how

For this report, we have chosen to highlight significant

items uncovered in the survey results. The full results of

the survey data can be obtained upon request by sending

an e-mail to [email protected] with the subject line

“Survey Data – Brand Controversy Study 1.” Be sure to

include the e-mail address where you would like the data

to be sent.

http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/how

5

stand taken:

In perhaps the most-publicized, controversial stand of the

last decade, the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A® confirmed its

conviction on the matter of same-sex marriage.

Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer, Dan

Cathy, told Baptist Press that Chick-fil-A “is very much

supportive of the family – the Biblical definition of the

family unit.” He also said that his statement, “… might not

be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a

country where we can share our values and operate on

Biblical principles.” (Published July 16, 2012)

ChiCk-fil-a’s resPonse:

• “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our

restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and

respect—regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual

orientation or gender.”

• Chick-fil-A did not directly address the company stance

on gay marriage, but let Facebook fans know that it was

going to try to step out of the spotlight on the issue by

stating, “Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy

debate over same-sex marriage to the government and

political arena.”

• On September 19, 2012, a brand-issued neutral

statement was announced, “its corporate giving had been

mischaracterized for many months.”

BaCklash:

• The Jim Henson Company, provider of Chick-fil-A’s

kid’s meals toys, will not partner with the company on any

future endeavors. The company also decided to donate

its payment from Chick-fil-A to the Gay and Lesbian

Alliance Against Defamation.

• Politicians got involved:

San Francisco Mayor, Edwin Lee (Against)

Boston Mayor, Thomas Menino (Against)

Chicago Mayor, Rahm Emanuel (Against)

• Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee deemed August

1 “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” to support consumers

eating at the chain.

• According to YouGov Brand Index, which tracks

consumer sentiment for 1,100 brands on a daily basis, it

looks to be the sharpest perception drop of any fast food

dining chain in the past 2 years. Its ratings have been

climbing back since mid-August, but still have not reached

its same rating prior to the stance.

• Irv Schenkler, New York University’s Stern School of

Business said, “Mr. Cathy, who is trying to expand further

into Northern cities, took a risk by stepping into a sensitive

social issue. The backlash has established an identity

for the CFA (Chick-fil-A) brand in areas of the U.S. that

generally feel differently about gay marriage.”

REAL-WORLD BRANDS TAKING STANDS

CoMPany:

6

• Following August 1, 2012, “Chick-fil-A Appreciation

Day,” same-sex couples retaliated against the brand by

participating in “kiss-ins” at various Chick-fil-A locations

across the U.S on August 3, 2012.

• One particular Chick-fil-A location in Torrance, Calif.,

was tagged with graffiti on the side of the restaurant

that read, “Tastes like hate” and had a painting of a cow.

Monetary/interaCtive Marketing iMPaCt:

• According to Chick-fil-A, it did record business on

“Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” on August 1, 2012.

• “While we don’t release exact sales numbers, we can

confirm reports that it was a record-setting day,” said

Chick-fil-A’s executive vice president of marketing, Steve

Robinson

• Chick-fil-A added 524,238 new Facebook fans in July

2012.

• Its Twitter account, prior to the stance, averaged

400,000 Tweets per quarter. Afterwards, in the first week

alone, 498,000 Tweets mentioned Chick-fil-A.

7

stand taken:

On January 31, 2012, Susan G. Komen® cut off funding

for Planned Parenthood clinics allegedly because the

clinics were under investigation by Congress. Planned

Parenthood previously received approximately $680,000

per year, for the past five years, from the foundation.

According to Planned Parenthood, these funds were

used to provide more than 170,000 clinical breast exams

and 6,400 mammogram referrals, mainly to low-income,

minority women across the U.S. According to Planned

Parenthood®, the groups that prompted the Congressional

investigation are anti-abortion advocacy organizations that

have long criticized Planned Parenthood because some of

its clinics offer abortions.

The public perceived that the funding cuts by Susan G.

Komen were made for political reasons in response to

Planned Parenthood’s pro-choice stance.

susan g. koMen’s resPonse:

• On January 3, 2012, Susan G. Komen’s president and

founder Nancy Brinker said, “We want to apologize to the

American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon

our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

We have been distressed at the presumption that the

changes made to our funding criteria were done for political

reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.

They were not. Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary

duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made

by organizations under investigation. We will amend the

criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must

be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That

is what is right and fair.”

• Planned Parenthood’s response stated, “Our only goal

for our granting process is to support women and families

in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria

will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process.

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those

of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to

apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our

affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of

their communities.”

• Susan G. Komen’s new senior vice president for public

policy, Karen Handel, was allegedly behind the decision

to cut off Planned Parenthood funding. “Let me be clear,

since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned

Parenthood,” Handel wrote on her campaign website in

2010.

BaCklash:

Politicians got involved:

• Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) stated, “I was

perplexed and troubled to see the decision by Susan G.

Komen to cut off funding for life-saving breast cancer

screenings through Planned Parenthood because of a

political witch hunt by House Republicans. I truly hope

that they will reconsider this decision and put the needs of

women first.”

• Representative Jackie Speier (D-California) stated on

the House floor, “I have been a big booster of the Susan G.

Komen organization, but not anymore.”

• Planned Parenthood’s response was: “Bullying and

trying to make political women’s access to health care is a

losing political strategy,” said Cecile Richards, president of

Planned Parenthood. She also said she “… looks forward

to resuming a partnership with the Susan G. Komen

Foundation.” She praised the move and the “outpouring

of support” her organization has received since the

announcement was made. She also dubbed it a “learning

opportunity.”

• Susan G. Komen’s top public-health official, Mollie

Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the

®CoMPany:

8

decision to cut off Planned Parenthood funding. Williams

was the managing director of community-health programs

and was responsible for allocating $93 million in annual

grants.

• A number of Komen foundation board members resigned

in the wake of that decision.


• Susan G. Komen has faced a massive social media

backlash since its announcement, with numerous people

saying they will no longer donate to the breast cancer

charity. Many Facebook comments were complaints

that Komen is scrapping some of the more negative

comments.

• According to a new Polipulse analysis of online

conversations about the issue, only 26 percent of people

believe Komen made the right decision. Nearly a quarter of

the people who expressed criticism of Susan G. Komen’s

decision online said they were going to pull their donations

from Susan G. Komen.

• In a recent study by Harris Interactive, Komen’s “brand

health” score fell 21 percent from 2011 to 2012. In the 23

years Harris has done the study, only Fannie Mae in 2009

had a bigger drop.

• According to Fox News, organizers of Komen Race for

the Cure events saw significant declines in participation –

some as high as 30%. The group also reported a drop in

fund-raising.

9

stand taken:

In February 2013, Hobby Lobby® refused to comply with

a mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services requiring all employer health plans to

provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-

inducing drugs. The Christian-owned retail chain wished,

“… to remain true to their faith and not pay for abortion

inducing drugs,” according to the attorney representing

Hobby Lobby.

Subsequently, they filed a lawsuit requesting that a judge

overturn the mandate to businesses that requires them

to provide those services in their insurance coverage.

A government lawyer said that the drugs “do not cause

abortions,” and that the U.S. “… has a compelling interest in

mandating insurance coverage for them.” Despite the fact that

the company considered the requirements objectionable,

a judge denied their request.

hoBBy loBBy’s resPonse:

• “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to

comply with this mandate,” David Green, Hobby Lobby

chief executive officer and founder, said in a press

release.

• Green said his company has no objection with covering

birth control, but it refuses to pay for two specific drugs:

Plan B and Ella, the morning-after pill and the week-after

pill, respectively.

• “Our faith is being challenged by the federal government,”

Green said in a statement. “These abortion-causing drugs

go against our faith, and our family is now being forced

to choose between following the laws of the land that we

love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made

our business successful.”

BaCklash:

• Politicians got involved:

On February 19, 2013, Senate Minority Leader Mitch

McConnell (Ken.) and 10 other GOP lawmakers including

Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)

filed an amici curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the 10th Circuit in Denver supporting Hobby Lobby’s fight

against the government mandate. “It’s deeply troubling to

see this White House trample on the religious freedom

the law seeks to protect,” Hatch said in a press release.

“Religious freedom is an issue our country was founded

on.” The lawmaker’s Feb. 19 brief specifically says the birth

control mandate runs counter to the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act of 1993.


• By refusing to comply, Hobby Lobby faces fines of up to

$1.3 million per day, adding up to more than $40 million in

January alone. Supporters of Hobby Lobby’s stand have

launched a nationwide support campaign, asking people

to shop at the store on Saturday to show their support.

• In just two days after the filing of the amici curiae brief,

more than 24,000 people accepted a Facebook invitation

to show their support.

CoMPany:

10

®

stand taken:

J. C. Penney Company, Inc.® showed its support for

gay and lesbian couples by naming Ellen Degeneres as

its spokesperson, and featuring a lesbian couple in its

Mother’s Day catalog.

J.C. Penney’s resPonse:

J. C. Penney’s then CEO, former Apple executive Ron

Johnson, explained to the Associated Press why the company

chose Degeneres, “I think Ellen is someone we all trust.

She’s lovable, likable, honest and funny, but at her soul, we

trust her.”

BaCklash:

• OneMillionMoms.com, a division of the American Family

Association, called for Degeneres to be replaced by the

Texas-based chain because she is a lesbian.

• “Funny that J. C. Penney thinks hiring an open

homosexual spokesperson will help their business

when most of their customers are traditional families,”

OneMillionMoms.com said in a statement. “DeGeneres is

not a true representation of the type of families that shop at

their store. The majority of J. C. Penney shoppers will be

offended and choose to no longer shop there. The small

percentage of customers they are attempting to satisfy will

not offset their loss in sales.”

• The group’s statement concludes, “By jumping on the

pro-gay bandwagon, J. C. Penney is attempting to gain a

new target market and in the process will lose customers

with traditional values that have been faithful to them over all

these years.”


• The protest of One Million Moms seems to coincide with

positive jolts in J. C. Penney’s consumer perception with

mothers.

• YouGov BrandIndex measurement scores range from

100 to -100 and are compiled by subtracting negative

feedback from positive. A zero score means equal

positive and negative feedback. Before the catalog

was delivered, J. C. Penney’s score was 80 on April

27. After those catalogs arrived and One Million Moms

posted its missive on May 1, the store’s Index score

rose to 88 two days later. That same day, the Index

score for Kohl’s, J.C. Penney’s competitor, was 81.

CoMPany:

http://www.trackur.com

11

stand taken:

Starbucks®, along with Microsoft and Nike (70 corporations

in total http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/03/360937/70-

corporations-come-out-against-defense-of-marriage-act/),

joined together in support of Washington state’s legislation

that would legalize gay marriage. This move sparked the

National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a conservative

Christian group against gay marriage, to organize a “Dump

Starbucks” boycott campaign two months later.

On March 21, 2013, at Starbucks’ annual shareholder

meeting, a disgruntled investor blamed Starbucks’

recent poor stock performance on the boycott. Starbucks

CEO, Howard Schultz, responded by saying, “If you feel

respectfully that you can get a higher return [than] the 38%

you got last year, it’s a free country. You could sell your

shares at Starbucks and buy shares in other companies.”

BaCklash:

• The NOM’s website says more than 60,000 people have

joined its boycott.

• NOM formed http://www.dumpstarbucks.com/ and

encouraged Starbucks customers to ‘Dump Starbucks’

because of its corporate-wide position to support gay

marriage. As of April 12, 2013, the petition has received

61,415 signatures.

• In April 2012, NOM announced it would be expanding

internationally with DumpStarbucks.com online ads

running in Egypt, Beijing, Hong Kong, the Yunnan region

of China, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman and

Kuwait. Its strategy is to target countries that criminalize

homosexuality.

• The same group formed a Facebook page, https://www.

facebook.com/dumpstarbucks, which has a total of 18,169

Likes (10,000 of those ‘likes’ occurred during the first seven

days), as well as https://twitter.com/dumpstarbucks, which

has 512 Followers.

• In retaliation, SumOfUs, launched its own campaign

with a giant card titled, “Thank You, Starbucks,” and it

encouraged Starbucks supporters to sign it, with a total of

652,340 signatures as of April 12, 2013. (http://sumofus.

org/campaigns/thank-starbucks/) The campaign even

created a theme song: http://youtu.be/S9VN61qgfvo.

The Twitter handle @pumpstarbucks currently has 265

Followers.


• Starbucks shares were trading at about $53 a share the

day NOM announced its boycott. One month later, shares

were trading at about $58 each. (http://www.mediaite.

com/online/conservatives-boycott-starbucks-over-coffee-

chains-support-of-same-sex-marriage/) SBUX stock since

NOM’s ‘Dump Starbucks’ boycott began. (http://www.

goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/04/sbux-stock-since-

the-nomtweets-dumpstarbucks-boycott-began.html)

• According to Zack Hutson, a Starbucks spokesman, the

company is feeling no effects from the campaign.

• The social media world buzzed mostly support for the

company’s stance.

(http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com/2012/02/

starbucks-says-i-do-to-same-sex-marriage-sees-social-

media-backlash/)

CoMPany:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/03/360937/70-corporations-come-out-against-defense-of-marriage-act/

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/03/360937/70-corporations-come-out-against-defense-of-marriage-act/

http://www.dumpstarbucks.com/

https://www.facebook.com/dumpstarbucks

https://www.facebook.com/dumpstarbucks

https://twitter.com/dumpstarbucks

http://youtu.be/S9VN61qgfvo

http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservatives-boycott-starbucks-over-coffee-chains-support-of-same-sex-marriage/



http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/04/sbux-stock-since-the-nomtweets-dumpstarbucks-boycott-began.html



http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com/2012/02/starbucks-says-i-do-to-same-sex-marriage-sees-social-media-backlash/



12

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

26.5% (+2.5 / -2.4)

20.4% (+2.4 / -2.2)

11.7% (+2.0 / -1.7)

35.1% (+2.7 / -2.6)

6.2% (+1.7 / -1.4)

ALL (1333)

Neigher agree nor disagree 35.1% (+2.7 / -2.6)

Agree 26.5% (+2.5 / -2.4)

Disagree 20.4% (+2.4 / -2.2)

Strongly Agree 11.7% (+2.0 / -1.7)

Strongly Disagree 6.2% (+1.7 / -1.4)

Methodology conducted by Google Consumer Surveys, March 20, 2013-March 30, 2013 and based on 1333 online responses. Sample: National adult internet population.

single answer

When I make a purchase, I consider the social stance of the company that makes the product I am purchasing.

Results for respondents with demographics. Weighted by Age, Gender, Region. (1333 responses)

Order statistically significant.

1 2When I make a purchase, I consider the social stance of

the company that makes the product I am purchasing.

I won’t buy a product if I disagree with the product maker’s


Survey recipients responded by checking one of the

following choices to the question:

• Agree

• Strongly Agree

• Disagree

• Strongly Disagree

• Neither Agree nor Disagree

Overall, our survey results show that the majority of

consumers either didn’t want to answer the question or are

apathetic about a company’s stance and chose to answer

“Neither Agree nor Disagree” on both questions. However,

it is important to note that those who did choose to answer

do claim to base their buying decisions on a company’s


SURVEY RESULTSIn order to better understand general consumer’s attitudes towards brands that publicize their social and political views on

perceived controversial subjects, WrightIMC conducted a short survey utilizing Google’s Consumer Survey tool. More than

3,000 consumers with diverse regional, economic and age differences responded to the survey. These consumers where

asked to answer one of two questions:

13

ALL (1318)

Neither agree nor disagree 35.1 % (+2.8 / -2.7)

Agree 28.6 % (+2.6 / -2.5)

Disagree 16.5 % (+2.3 / -2.1)

Strongly Agree 15.0 % (+2.2 / -2.0)

Strongly Disagree 4.8 % (+1.6 / -1.2)


Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

28.6 % (+2.6 / -2.5)

16.5 % (+2.3 / -2.1)

15.0 % (+2.2 / -2.0)

35.1 % (+2.8 / -2.7)

4.8 % (+1.6 / -1.2)

single answer

I won’t buy a product if I disagree with the product makers political or social stance.

Results for respondents with demographics. Weighted by Age, Gender, Region. (1318 responses)

Winner statistically significant.

The survey also uncovered several statistically significant findings. These findings pointedly show that age, regional

affiliation, urban or rural settings, as well as income level are all important factors in understanding the different attitudes of

consumers toward brands that take stands.

single answer


39 insights investigated. 7.8 false discoveries expected on average (p value: 0.02).

Among people in the US Midwest, those earning $50-$74K picked disagree 2x more than those earning $25-$49K.

16.3 %

34.7 %

14

Among people earning $25K-$49K, age affected how

many people picked neither agree nor disagree.

Among people in suburban areas, age affected how many

people picked neither agree nor disagree.

Among 45-54 year olds, women picked agree more

than men.

Among men, those aged 55-64 picked agree more than

those aged 45-54.

Among 45-54 year olds, women picked agree more

19.9 %

35.9 %

Among men, those aged 55-64 picked agreegree more than more than

19.9 %

36.4 %

Among people in urban areas, age affected how many people picked neither agree nor disagree.

29.8 %

56.7 %

31.6 %

18-24

25.34

55-64

single answer


385 insights investigated. 7.7 false discoveries expected on average (p value: 0.02).

23.5 %

44.0 %

Among Women, those in the US Northeast picked agree more than those in the US South.

28.8 %

41.4 %

Among people earning $25K-$49K, age affected how

28.6 %

46.2 %

The US Midwest picked neither agree nor disagree

more than the US Northeast.

18-24 year-olds picked neither agree nor disagree more

than those aged 25-34.

38.5%

61.8 %

26.9 %

36.3 %

18-24

45-54

55-64

65+

34.0 %

60.4 %

33.6 %

31.5 %

18-24

45-54

55-64

65+

15

While other results did not conclude with statistically significant differences, insights can be gleaned from the survey

respondents that can help guide brands know whether or not they should take a stand.

Both men and women agreed overall that a brand’s political or social stand did affect them in their purchase behavior. Men

were more likely to agree that their perception of a brand is affected by a stand, but women were more likely to respond they

would not purchase an item because of a brand’s social or political affiliation.

single answer

When I make a purchase I consider the social stance of the company that makes the product I am purchasing.

Results for all respondents. Weighted data unavailable for this view. (1506 responses)

Strongly agree / Agree (592 responses)

Men (642) Women (711) Gender Unknown (153) ALL (1506)

Strongly Agree / Agree 41.9 % (+3.9 / -3.8) 36.6 % (+3.6 / -3.5) 41.2 % (+7.9 / -7.5) 39.3 % (+2.5 / -2.4)

Neither Agree nor Disagree 32.2 % (+3.7 / -3.5) 38.7 % (+3.6 / -3.5) 34.0 % (+7.8 / -7.0) 35.5 % (+2.5 / -2.4)

Disagree / Strongly Disagree 25.9 % (+3.5 / -3.2) 24.7 % (+3.3 / -3.0) 24.8 % (+7.4/ -6.2) 25.2 % (+2.3 / -2.1)


36.6 % (+3.6 / -3.5)

41.9 % (+3.9 / -3.8)

41.2 % (+7.9 / -7.5)

Male

Female

Unknown

Overall

24.7 % (+3.3 / -3.0)

25.9 % (+3.5 / -3.2)

24.8 % (+7.4 / -6.2)

Overall

Disagree / Strongly disagree (380 responses)

Male

Female

Unknown

16

single answer




24.8 % (+3.3 / -3.0)

25.9 % (+3.5 / -3.2)

24.8 % (+7.4 / -6.2)

Overall

Male

Female

Unknown

Male

Female

Unknown

45.3 % (+3.8 / -3.7)

44.0 % (+3.8 / -3.7)

47.6 % (+7.6 / -7.5)

Overall

Men (662) Women (680) Gender Unknown (164) ALL (1506)

Strongly Agree / Agree 44.0 % (+3.8 / -3.7) 45.3 % (+3.8 / -3.7) 47.6 % (+7.6 / -7.5) 45.0 % (+2.5 / -2.5)

Neither Agree nor Disagree 36.0 % (+3.7 / -3.6) 34.1 % (+3.6 / -3.5) 32.9 % (+7.5 / -6.7) 34.8 % (+2.4 / -2.4)

Disagree / Strongly Disagree 20.1 % (+3.2 / -2.9) 20.6 % (+3.2 / -2.9) 19.5 % (+6.7 / -5.3) 20.3 % (+2.1 / -2.0)



The survey results indicate that age is also an important

factor in how people report their perceptions toward

brand stance. All age groups were more likely to say

that a company’s political and social stance does affect

their buying behavior and perception of a brand. Across

the board, the older the participant, the more likely they

were to agree that a brand’s political and social stance

affects their perceptions and likelihood of purchase of

specific brands.

The youngest audience, aged 18-24, was least likely to say

that a stance affected their perception or purchase choice

for a particular brand – however, it is important to note that

this audience also had a much higher rate of “none of the

above” responses. Thus, this result may be somewhat less

reliable. Interestingly, respondents age 25-34 were much

more likely to disagree that a brand’s stance would affect

their purchasing decisions than any other age group.

17

single answer




36.7 % (+6.4 / -6.0)

32.2 % (+8.8 / -7.7)

38.6 % (+7.5/ -7.0)

Overall

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Unknown

Age 4 18-24 (121) 25-34 (229) 35-44 (171) 45-54 (307) 55-64 (309) 65+ (209) Unknown (160) ALL (1506)

Strongly Agree 32.2 % 36.7 % 38.6 % 39.7 % 40.5 % 43.1 % 41.3 % 39.3 % Agree (+8.8 / -7.7) (+6.4 / -6.0) (+7.5/ -7.0) (+5.6 / -5.3) (+5.6 / -5.3) (+6.8 / -6.5) (+7.7 / -7.3) (+2.5 / -2.4)

Neither Agree 45.5 % 31.0 % 33.3 % 31.3 % 38.2 % 39.2 % 34.4 % 35.5 % Nor Disagree (+8.9 / -8.6) (+6.3 / -5.6) (+7.4 / -6.6) (+5.4 / -4.9) (+5.5 / -5.2) (+6.8 / -6.4) (+7.6 / -6.9) (+2.5 / -2.4)

Disagree 22.3 % 32.3 % 28.1 % 29.0 % 21.4 % 17.7 % 24.4 % 25.2 % Strongly Disagree (+8.2 / -6.5) (+6.3 / -5.7) (+7.1/ -6.2) (+5.3 / -4.8) (+4.9 / -4.2) (+5.7 / -4.6) (+7.2 / -6.0) (+2.3 / -2.1)


39.7 % (+5.6 / -5.3)

40.5 % (+5.6 / -5.3)

43.1 % (+6.8 / -6.5)

41.3 % (+7.7 / -7.3)

32.3 % (+6.3 / -5.7)

22.3 % (+8.2 / -6.5)

28.1 % (+7.1 / -6.2)

Overall

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Unknown

29.0 % (+5.3 / -4.8)

21.4 % (+4.9 / -4.2)

17.7 % (+5.7 / -4.6)

24.4 % (+7.2 / -6.0)

Disagree / Strongly Disagree (380 responses)

18

single answer




44.3 % (+6.9 / -6.7)

45.7 % (+7.2 / -7.0)

Overall

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Unknown

39.3 % (+5.6 / -5.3)

50.0 % (+5.7 / -5.7)

50.2 % (+6.5 / -6.5)

48.3 % (+7.3 / -7.2)

Age 4 18-24 (116) 25-34 (201) 35-44 (184) 45-54 (308) 55-64 (294) 65+ (223) Unknown (180) All (1506)

Strongly Agree 31.9 % 44.3 % 45.7 % 39.3 % 50.0 % 50.2 % 48.3 % 45.0 % Agree (+8.9 / -7.8) (+6.9 / -6.7) (+7.2 / -7.0) (+5.6 / -5.3) (+5.7 / -5.7) (+6.5 / -6.5) (+7.3 / -7.2) (+2.5 / -2.5)

Neither Agree 46.6% 30.3 % 34.8 % 37.7 % 32.0 % 35.0 % 31.7 % 34.8 % Nor Disagree (+9.0 / -8.8) (+6.7 / -5.9) (+7.1 / -6.5) (+5.5 / -5.2) (+5.5 / -5.1) (+6.5 / -6.0) (+7.1 / -6.4) (+2.4 / -2.4)

Disagree 21.6 % 25.4 % 19.6 % 23.1 % 18.0 % 14.8 % 20.0 % 20.3 % Strongly Disagree (+8.3 / -6.5) (+6.4 / -5.5) (+6.3 / -5.1) (+5.0 / -4.4) (+4.8 / -4.0) (+5.3 / -4.1) (+6.4 / -5.2) (+2.1 / -2.0)


25.4 % (+6.4 / -5.5)

21.6 % (+8.3 / -6.5)

19.6 % (+6.3/ -5.1)

Overall

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Unknown

23.1 % (+5.0 / -4.4)

18.0 % (+4.8 / -4.0)

14.8 % (+5.3 / -4.1)

20.0 % (+6.4 / -5.2)

Disagree, Strongly Disagree (305 Responses)

31.9 % (+8.9 / -7.8)

19

As with other factors, respondents all over the United States were more likely to agree with the notion that their brand

perceptions and buying habits are affected by a company’s political and social stance. However, respondents in the Northeast

were far more likely than their counterparts in other parts of the country to say that they would not purchase an item from a

brand with a political or social stance they disagreed with. Respondents in the Midwest were more evenly split, highlighting

a geographical difference that should not be ignored by marketers.

single answer

When I make a purchase, I consider the social stance of the company that makes the product that I am purchasing.



Overall

35.3 % (+4.9 / -4.6)

42.3 % (+6.4 / -6.2)

40.2 % (+4.2 / -4.1)

40.2 % (+5.2 / -5.0)

46.2 % (+24.7 / -22.9)


28.2 % (+4.7 / -4.3)

22.2 % (+5.8 / -4.9)

26.5 % (+3.9 / -3.6)

22.8 % (+4.7 / -4.1)

7.7 % (+25.6 / -6.3)

The US Midwest

The US Northeast

The US South

The US West

Unknown

The US Midwest

The US Northeast

The US South

The US West

Unknown

The US The US The US The US Geography ALL (1506) Midwest (380) Northeast (234) South (528) West (351) Unknown (13)

Strongly Agree 35.3 % 42.3 % 40.2 % 40.2 % 46.2 % 39.3 % Agree (+4.9 / -4.6) (+6.4 / -6.2) (+4.2 / -4.1) (+5.2 / -5.0) (+24.7 / -22.9) (+2.5 / -2.4)

Neither Agree 36.6 % 35.5 % 33.3 % 37.0 % 46.2 % 35.5 % Nor Disagree (+5.0 / -4.7) (+6.3 / -5.9) (+4.1 / -3.9) (+5.2 / -4.9) (+24.7 / -22.9) (+2.5 / -2.4)

Disagree 28.2 % 22.2 % 26.5 % 22.8 % 7.7 % 25.2 % Strongly Disagree (+4.7 / -4.3) (+5.8 / -4.9) (+3.9 / -3.6) (+4.7 / -4.1) (+25.6 / -6.3) (+2.3 / -2.1)


20

single answer




Overall

43.4 % (+5.0 / -4.9)

51.9 % (+6.7 / -6.8)

44.2 % (+4.3 / -4.2)

43.8 % (+4.9 / -4.8)

42.9 % (+24.6 / -21.5)

17.6 % (+4.2 / -3.5)

18.9 % (+5.9 / -4.8)

22.7 % (+3.8 / -3.4)

20.0 % (+4.2 / -3.6)

28.6 % (+26.1 / -16.9)

The US The US The US The US Geography All (1506) Midwest (380) Northeast (206) South (511) West (395) Unknown (14)

Strongly Agree 43.4 % 51.9 % 44.2 % 43.8 % 42.9 % 45.0 % Agree (+5.0 / -4.9) (+6.7 / -6.8) (+4.3 / -4.2) (+4.9 / -4.8) (+24.6 / -21.5) (+2.5 / -2.5)

Neither Agree 38.9 % 29.1 % 33.1 % 36.2 % 28.6 % 34.8 % Nor Disagree (+5.0 / -4.8) (+6.5 / -5.8) (+4.2 / -3.9) (+4.9 / -4.6) (+26.1 / -16.9) (+2.4 / -2.4)

Disagree 17.6 % 18.9 % 22.7 % 20.0 % 28.6 % 20.3 % Strongly Disagree (+4.2 / -3.5) (+5.9 / -4.8) (+3.8 / -3.4) (+4.2 / -3.6) (+26.1 / -16.9) (+2.1 / -2.0)


Overall




The US Midwest

The US Northeast

The US South

The US West

Unknown

The US Midwest

The US Northeast

The US South

The US West

Unknown

21

Respondents in rural areas seem to be more likely to not purchase an item from a brand they disagree with than those

in suburban and urban areas. Suburban, rural and urban respondents all were very likely to consider a brand’s stance

when making a purchase. Interestingly, respondents with unspecified geographies were more likely to say that they did not

consider a brand’s stance when making a purchase – one of the very few segments in the survey to do so.

single answer

When I make a purchase I consider the social stance of the company that makes the product I am purchasing.



Overall

Urban

Rural

Suburban

Unknown

41.1 % (+5.0 / -3.9)

37.2 % (+6.6 / -6.2)

39.0 % (+3.7 / -3.6)

22.7 % (+20.7 / -12.6)

Overall

26.4 % (+3.7 / -3.4)

24.7 % (+6.2 / -5.3)

24.3 % (+3.3 / -3.1)

27.3 % (+20.9 / -14.1)

Urban

Rural

Suburban

Unknown


Urban (579) Rural (215) Suburban (690) Unknown (22) All (1506)

Strongly Agree 41.1 % 37.2 % 39.0 % 22.7 % 39.3 % Agree (+5.0 / -3.9) (+6.6 / -6.2) (+3.7 / -3.6) (+20.7 / -12.6) (+2.5 / -2.4)

Neither Agree 32.5 % 38.1 % 36.7 % 50.0 % 35.5 % Nor Disagree (+3.9 / -3.7) (+6.6 / -6.2) (+3.7 / -3.5) (+19.3 / -19.3) (+2.5 / -2.4)

Disagree 26.4 % 24.7 % 24.3 % 27.3 % 25.2 % Strongly Disagree (+3.7 / -3.4) (+6.2 / -5.3) (+3.3 / -3.1) (+20.9 / -14.1) (+2.3 / -2.1)


22

single answer




Urban DensityUrban Areas (562) Rural Areas (221) Suburban Areas (686) Unknown (37) All (1506)

Strongly Agree 45.9 % 49.3 % 43.4 % 32.4 % 45.0 % Agree (+4.1 / -4.1) (+6.5 / -6.5) (+3.7 / -3.7) (+16.1 / -12.8) (+2.5 / -2.5)

Neither Agree 32.9 % 33.9 % 36.6 % 35.1 % 34.8 % Nor Disagree (+4.0 / -3.8) (+6.5 / -5.9) (+3.7 / -3.5) (+16.1 / -13.3) (+2.4 / -2.4)

Disagree 21.2 % 16.7 % 20.0 % 32.4 % 20.3 % Strongly Disagree (+3.6 / -3.2) (+5.5 / -4.3) (+3.2 / -2.8) (+16.1 / -12.8) (+2.1 / -2.0)



Overall

Urban

Rural

Suburban

Unknown

45.9 % (+4.1 / -4.1)

49.3 % (+6.5 / -6.5)

43.4 % (+3.7 / -3.7)

32.4 % (+16.1 / -12.8)

Overall

21.2 % (+3.6 / -3.2)

16.7 % (+5.5 / -4.3)

20.0 % (+3.2 / -2.8)

32.4 % (+16.1 / -12.8)

Urban

Rural

Suburban

Unknown


23

Respondents with the highest reported income levels were less likely than their counterparts with lower reported incomes to

say that a brand’s stance affected their purchase decisions. However, respondents with incomes between $70,000-99,000

per year were more likely to say that they would not buy a product from a brand they disagreed with. Those with income

levels between $25,000- $49,000 per year were almost as likely as their higher-earning counterparts to be affected by a

brand’s stance.

single answer




People Earning 4 $0-24K (104) $25-49K (861) $50-74K (440) $75-99K (71) $100-149K (15) $150K+ (3) Unknown (12) All (1506)

Strongly Agree 40.9 % 44.7 % 45.0 % 47.9 % 33.3 % 33.3 % 25.0 % 45.0 % Agree (+9.5 / -9.4) (+3.3 / -3.3) (+4.7 / -4.6) (+11.4 / -11.2) (+25.0 / -18.2) (+45.9 / -27.2) (+28.2 / -16.1) (+2.5 / -2.5)

Neither Agree 26.9 % 34.4 % 36.8 % 33.8 % 53.3 % 33.3 % 41.7 % 34.8 % Nor Disagree (+9.2 / -7.6) (+3.2 / -3.1) (+4.6 / -4.4) (+11.6 / -9.9) (+21.9 / -23.2) (+45.9 / -27.2) (+26.4 / -22.3) (+2.4/ -2.4)

Disagree 24.0 % 20.9 % 18.2 % 18.3 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 33.3 % 20.3 % Strongly Disagree (+9.0 / -7.2) (+2.8 / -2.6) (+3.9 / -3.3) (+10.5 / -7.3) (+24.5 / -9.6) (+45.9 / -27.2) (+27.6 / -19.5) (+2.1 / -2.0)


Overall

$0-24K

$25-49K

$50-74K

$75-99K

$100-149K

$150K+

Unknown

40.9 % (+9.5 / -9.4)

44.7 % (+3.3 / -3.3)

45.0 % (+4.7 / -4.6)

47.9 % (+11.4 / -11.2)

33.3 %(+25.0 / -18.2)

33.3 % (+45.9 / -27.2)

25.0 % (+28.2 / -16.1)

Disagree / Strongly disagree (305 responses)Overall

$0-24K

$25-49K

$50-74K

$75-99K

$100-149K

$150K+

Unknown

24.0 % (+9.0 / -7.2)

20.9 % (+2.8 / -2.6)

18.2 % (+3.9 / -3.3)

18.3 % (+10.5 / -7.3)

13.3 % (+24.5 / -9.6)

33.3 % (+45.9 / -27.2)

33.3 % (+27.6 / -19.5)

24

single answer




People Earning 4 $0-24K (109) $25-49K (887) $50-74K (405) $75-99K (80) $100-149K (18) $150K+ Unknown (7) All (1506)

Strongly Agree 41.3 % 40.5 % 36.0 % 42.5 % 33.3 % Insufficient 28.6 % 39.3 % Agree (+9.4 / -8.8) (+3.3 / -3.2) (+4.8 / -4.5) (+10.9 / -10.2) (+22.9 / -17.1) Data (+35.5 / -20.3) (+2.5 / -2.4)

Neither Agree 27.5 % 33.5 % 41.0 % 36.2 % 44.4 % Insufficient 57.1 % 35.5 % Nor Disagree (+9.0 / -7.5) (+3.2 / -3.0) (+4.9 / -4.7) (+10.9 / -9.7) (+21.8 / -19.9) Data (+27.0 / -32.1) (+2.5 / -2.4)

Disagree 31.2 % 26.0 % 23.0 % 21.2 % 22.2 % Insufficient 14.3 % 25.2 % Strongly Disagree (+9.2 / -7.9) (+3.0 / -2.8) (+4.3 / -3.8) (+10.2 / -7.5) (+23.0 / -13.2) Data (+37.0 / -11.7) (+2.3 / -2.1)



Overall

41.3 % (+9.4 / -8.8)

40.5 % (+3.3 / -3.2)

36.0 % (+4.8 / -4.5)

42.5 % (+10.9 / -10.2)

33.3 % (+22.9 / -17.1)

28.6 % (+35.5 / -20.3)


Overall

31.2 % (+9.2 / -7.9)

26.0 % (+3.0 / -2.8)

23.0 % (+4.3 / -3.8)

21.2 % (+10.2 / -7.5)

22.2 % (+23.0 / -13.2)

Insufficient Data

14.3 % (+27.0 / -32.1)

Insufficient Data

$0-24K

$25-49K

$50-74K

$75-99K

$100-149K

$150K+

Unknown


$0-24K

$25-49K

$50-74K

$75-99K

$100-149K

$150K+

Unknown

25

ANSWERS & ANALYSIS

When brands take a controversial

stand, how is their bottom line

affected?

Do consumers say that a brand’s

social or political stance affects their

propensity to buy that brand’s

product or service?

What items should a brand consider

before taking a stand on a

controversial subject?

1 2 3

The answer to question number 2, as we stated above,

is yes for a majority (albeit, not a statistically significant

majority). If we only look at this fact, traditional public

relations advice holds true. Brands shouldn’t get involved

in controversial political and social issues – no matter what

they truly believe.

But, of course, there’s more to the story. In regards to

question number 1, as we saw from the case studies,

some companies, like Chick-fil-A and J. C. Penney, have

been rewarded for their stances on sticky issues. Others,

like Susan G. Komen, found out that its stance hurt both its

brand perception and its bottom line. Others, like Starbucks

and Hobby Lobby, don’t know exactly how they were

affected, if at all. So, the answer to question number one

appears to be a confident “no idea.” However, upon further

study, we think the answer to number one is actually “it

depends.”

Perhaps our thoughts are best illustrated by the following

fictional parable…

Based on our research, it is apparent that American

consumers are likely to consider a brand’s political stance

when making a purchase. The majority of Americans say

they won’t purchase a product if they disagree with the

brand’s stance. So, common sense would state that brands

should stay away from taking a stand on controversial

subjects, right?

Not so fast. We’re getting ahead of ourselves. To recap,

the purpose of this study was to answer the following

questions:

26

There were two companies selling a very similar

product. These companies were very competitive with

each other, fighting for shelf space at all the major

stores, battling each other for superior engagement

in social media and competing for rankings in the

major search engines. Company A’s religious beliefs

led them to take a public stand on a potentially

controversial issue. Company B, seeing this stand,

put their marketing research company to work. The

marketing research company concluded that 65% of

the consumer base disagreed with the stand taken

by the competing company. More than 20% of the

consumer base stated they had no opinion on the

matter at all. Therefore, Company B decides to

remain quiet on the issue.

Company A was criticized in the press for taking a

stance. Advocates against Company A’s cause were

quick to organize a boycott that boasted more than

100,000 people. Company A stuck to their stance

and hoped for the best. Then a funny thing started

to happen.

Company B noticed that Company A was suddenly

beating them in all of the major search engines for

their most competitive keywords. All of the press and

negative attention had created links to Company A’s

website, thus making it seem more relevant in the

algorithms. Also, as the controversy continued and

press died down, proponents of Company A’s stance

began engaging with the company, thanking them for

their stance, and creating engagement opportunities

that the social media staff at Company B could

only dream about. This occurred simply because

Company A had something in common with these

fans that they could talk about.

Several stores pulled Company A’s products from

the shelf for a period of time, but as the controversy

waned, fewer stores kept to that ban – especially after

Company A asked their newfound fans to request

their product be put back on the shelf.

Company B’s sales remained steady during the

quarter. Company A saw an initial dip in sales – but

then suddenly sales began to climb. Internet sales

from search engine and social media referrals

reached record levels 3 months after the stand

was taken.

When it was time for earnings reports from both

companies, Company B reported a solid quarter that

met most analyst expectations and expected the

same the next quarter.

Whereas Company A’s investor relations team giddily

wrote about the second half of the quarter’s record

earnings, and the entire company looked forward to

even better news in the next quarter.

onCe uPon a tiMe

27

It’s easy to see the audience dynamics at play in the

hypothetical situation above. After an initial public outcry,

those opposed to Company A’s stand became complacent.

The emotional passion behind the stand was gone and

most went back to purchasing whichever product they

preferred before. Sure, some switched to Company B and

never came back – but the fervent supporters of Company

A’s stand were compelled to move to Company A. The

ripple effect of Company A’s stand created attention – albeit

negative attention – online, which lead to links and social

media mentions. Those items helped propel Company A’s

digital presence ahead of Company B.

So why did Company B lose market share to Company A,

when the research and traditional public relations common

sense said that the prudent move was to remain quiet on

the controversial subject? Simple math mixed with complex

emotions.

If Company A’s market research department had dug

a little deeper, they would have realized that while most

consumers were against Company A’s stance, their zeal

for the cause was not nearly as strong as the religion-

fueled conviction of the cause’s supporters. Of the 65% of

consumer who stated that they were against Company A’s

cause, only a portion, let’s assume 35% percent, actually

stopped using Company A’s product as a result of the

controversy. The 20% that didn’t care about the controversy

continued to use the same product they always had.

In this study, conveniently that population was split right

down the middle. All of the consumers (15% overall) that

supported Company A’s stance began using Company A’s

products. Let’s assume that before the controversy, the

overall consumer base was growing at a rate of 5% per

month, with half of the new customers going to Company A

and half going to Company B. After Company A took their

stand, 15% of the new customer base automatically sided

with Company A because of their stance. Some of the new

customers, let’s say 5%, chose Company B because they

disagreed with Company A’s stance and remembered the

controversy even after it wasn’t in the news anymore. And

because of Company A’s newfound Internet marketing

success, 70% of the remaining new customer base

consistently went to Company A instead of company B.

Also, just one month after the controversy, because of

apathy, Company A regained 30% of the initial customers

they lost initially because of their stand.

28

Company A Company B Customers Customers

Before Stand 50,000 50,000

Immediately After Stand 40,000 60,000

1 Month after Stand 49,550 55,450

6 Months after Stand 67,300 62,700

1 year after stand 88,600 71,400

did you follow the Math?

Don’t worry, we didn’t either. So we created this table to

illustrate the market share of Company A and Company B over

time. We have assumed an overall initial customer base of

100,000 customers.

As you can see from the above table, after 1 year Company

A’s stand actually helped them obtain 55.3% of the market

share while Company B dropped to 44.7% market share.

The hypothetical situation above, however, doesn’t always

happen. Just ask the people at the Komen foundation.

In the situation above, Company A could have just as

easily have lost market share if the opposition was more

passionate than those who supported their cause. Also, if

the industry saw lower growth than expected, Company

A could have been looking at significant losses in both

revenue and market share.

So, what should a company look at before deciding a

potentially controversial political or social stand?

Below we’ve created a series of questions we believe

that every company, regardless of size, should take into

account when considering whether or not to take a stand.

One caveat: We are not condoning any specific moral or

ethical point of view – our observations are from a strictly

bottom-line point of view. In other words, if your company

takes a stand, are you likely to lose money, remain steady,

or actually gain market share and revenue?

29

what does your current customer base believe? At

the heart of most modern content marketing strategy

is audience research. Who are your customers? What

are they like? A number of affordable tools are available

to companies to help ascertain this information. For

instance, at WrightIMC we partner with a company called

Datalogix. Datalogix has many tools to help understand

a company’s audience. One of their basic tools, called

Insight Connect, allows us to upload a list of e-mail

addresses (for instance, a current company customer list)

and find out a plethora of anonymized information about

the group, including income, race, buying habits and

political affiliations.

While this tool is relatively inexpensive, there are other

ways to understand your audience that don’t cost anything

more than the time you put into the research. For instance,

sending a basic survey to your customers through a tool like

Survey Monkey is either free or has a very nominal cost.

Surveys are great tools to gauge audience perceptions –

however, it is important to make sure that you are asking

the right questions in the right ways. It’s very easy to skew

results merely by the composition of your question or if the

survey’s participation sample is skewed because of hot-

button topics (those who are passionate about a subject

are almost always more likely to participate than those

who are more apathetic to the cause).

By far, the most basic way to understand your audience is

through your own interactions with them, which includes

interactions on your website. Post a curated article on

your blog and gauge reaction through both direct contact

and analytics analysis. Visit the social media pages of

your customers and understand what their passions

are. This can be more difficult for companies with a

large client base, but armed with a list of customers

and a solid questionnaire, low-level employees can

quickly create a picture of the customer base based

on observation alone. Don’t forget to look at your own

website analytics.

Although you may not be able to gain direct knowledge

of your customer’s perceptions through true analytics,

use the data from our survey to match the geography and

other demographics to what people said in our survey.

For the full survey data, just e-mail us at research@

wrightimc.com.

Taking social listening to the next level is also appropriate

for larger companies. Using tools like Radian6, Trackur,

MutualMind or Netbase (all of which can become

relatively expensive, although Trackur does have free and

low-cost versions) and many others can tell you, through

keyword analysis, the types of things your customers are

interested in.

1

http://www.salesforcemarketingcloud.com

http://www.trackur.com

http://www.mutualmind.com

http://www.netbase.com

30

what does the overall population think of the stance

we’re about to take? When taking a stance, especially

if the stance is emotional, it’s easy to discount popular

opinion. But, that could be a mistake. When it comes to

hot-button topics where emotions run strong, it’s very easy

for a company to make enemies. Even if the customer base

strongly supports the stance, a company can find itself with

activists trying to wreak havoc on the company through

sabotage, watchdog groups, and political pressure.

Unpopular stances can have long-term effects for a

company, and it’s important to understand what those

may be. This is especially true in industries that have

strict compliance rules or are highly regulated. Having a

regulator or compliance officer who disagrees with your

company’s stance can be bad for the bottom line. This is

also true for politicians creating legislation in order to win

over the popular vote of his or her constituency.

3

2

what do your employees think? When taking a

controversial stance, it’s important to have internal

support. Every company must realize that when they

take a stance and become associated with an issue, their

employees become associated with that issue as well. If

valued employees don’t agree with the stance, morale and

productivity can suffer. On the flip-side, if employees are

behind the company’s reasoning, loyalty and productivity

can skyrocket.

Before a company takes a stance, it’s extremely important

that the first audience they alert is internal. There’s nothing

worse, to most people, than reading in the paper that their

employer has taken a controversial stance – especially

when that stance is against the employee’s personal

beliefs. Simple surveys of the employees, as well as

solid internal communications that explain the company’s

stance, are essential tools to companies that decide to

take a stand – or, in many cases companies that decide

not to take a stand on issues that are important to the

personnel base.

31

do i have the resources to take a stand? Taking a

controversial stand can be taxing on an organization.

We’ve already talked about internal and employee

communication, but what about the public outcry? Is

your company equipped to handle the response? Do you

have the personnel or agency support to field potentially

thousands of irate phone calls or nasty e-mails? Of

course, many companies that take a stance see relatively

little feedback, but others become overwhelmed. If the

stance your company takes distracts from your core

purpose – which for most companies is to make money

– it’s important to carefully weigh the risks vs. benefits of

the stance.

5if we take a stance, how can we make sure we get the

most out of it? Taking a stance and then backing down

after receiving criticism is rarely good for a company. It

shows that either the company didn’t really know what

it thought, or they traded their principles for the bottom

line. This normally doesn’t sit well with either side of the

audience. So, when taking a stance, in our opinion is it

is important to stick with your guns wherever possible.

Compromise is not necessarily negative, as Chick-

fil-A illustrated by taking a closer look at some of the

organizations they were donating to. But, outright reversal

on a position frequently makes a company look weak –

as was the case with Susan G. Komen. The benefits of

taking a stand are numerous from an interactive marketing

perspective, specifically an SEO perspective. More

attention means more links – usually high-quality links.

And, links are what makes a site successful from and SEO

point of view. The old adage “I don’t care what you say, just

spell my name right” certainly applies.

Making sure that your site is optimized for search, and your

social media channels are ready to respond, is paramount

before taking any stand. Interactive marketing doesn’t

live in a bubble, and can’t always make up for negative

perceptions. However, by performing simple optimization

steps, you can be assured that your online visibility will

be greater immediately after taking a stand. What most

companies need ask is, “Will that attention drive additional

sales?” Sometimes it does, depending upon the perception

of the new visitors. However, if most of the visitors view

your company’s position with a highly negative emotion, all

the attention in the world will just eat up bandwidth and not

increase sales.

4

32

CONCLUSIONThere are myriad factors to consider when deciding if your

company should take a stand. The research in this report

merely scratches the surface. Much more research should

be done before a true decision framework can be created

for companies deciding if they should stand on a particular

social or political issue. Potential audience factors, such

as gender, geography, income and urban density can

certainly help some companies make a preliminary

decision. However, each customer base is different. Just

because the majority of a gender or geographic region

supports a cause doesn’t mean your customers do.

It’s imperative that brands understand their audience.

Understanding your base has many other benefits as well

including knowing how to better market to your customers

and potential customers.

Bottom line – if you are thinking of the bottom line, taking

a stand can be profitable or it can put you in the red. It all

depends upon your audience. Of course, if your personal

and moral ethics dictate you take a stand, sometimes

sleeping at night is more important than the bottom line.

But, every company has to decide that for themselves. And

since most companies are cognizant that their bottom line

affects the jobs and financial well-being of more than just

the decision-makers at the top, we don’t foresee an influx

of brands standing up for what they believe unless the

issue is a slam dunk with its audience. Our hope, however,

is that this report shows that it can be OK to take a stand

if need be – and it can actually be profitable if the stand is

right and it’s done properly.

table of contents - wrightimc · table of contents 3 5 10 23 28 introduction real-world brands...

Documents