The Growth of Activist Marketing

BRAND MANAGEMENT
Name
Institution
Course
Date
Brand Management
Corporations remain the biggest voices in people's lives bearing how they control what people consume. To mark their influence on consumers, the corporations must communicate with those consumers and ascertain the needs. While the need to increase sales increases, more corporations emerge, and competition increases. Such changes steer organizations into instilling new marketing strategies besides the traditional ones that focused on brands. Presently, brand activism has become a unique avenue for brands to interact with their consumers. The change has attracted debates as one faction sees it as a violation of the organizational mandate to maximize profitability, while others have seen it as an avenue to maximize loyalty. While the debates on brand activism continue, there have also been significant inputs on how organizations should steer re-imagined capitalism, something that would revitalize the entirety of marketing. This paper assesses brand activism in the wake of re-imagined capitalism. The analysis should help corporations to understand brand activism and re-imagined capitalism and its validity in marketing without compromising the primary ideal of businesses, which is to maximize shareholder revenue.
The proliferation of Activist Marketing
Activist marketing is becoming commonplace among corporations presently. Activist marketing or brand activism is not a new concept in the corporate world. It has become part of the consistently evolving cause of marketing and corporate social responsibility to a big extent. As far back as the 19th century, there were elements of activist marketing at the peak of industrialization, even though not as profound as they are presently (Shetty, Venkataramaiah, & Anand, 2019). As companies were industrializing, others joined in the fight for the welfare of workers. Later in 1953, Howard Bowen coined the term corporate social responsibility (CSR), which was cemented in place by the Committee for Economic Development in 1971 (Ebrahimi, Sadeghvaziri, & Abyaneh, 2020). In such concepts, it was established that corporations are obliged to contribute to the needs of society because they existed and functioned courtesy of the public. That marked the onset of extensive relationships between corporations and society's needs amidst popular claims that the only objective of business organizations was to create revenues.
Brand activism has attracted more debates bearing how it propels CSR concepts. In brand marketing, corporations are required to participate actively in societal causes. It has been defined as the corporate effort to use its brand to direct, impede, or promote sociopolitical, economic, and environmental reforms for the betterment of society (Ebrahimi, Sadeghvaziri, & Abyaneh, 2020). In organizations where marketing stems from brand activism, the content of such marketing is on the positions that brands take concerning occurrences in the community. Multiple cases can be cited to showcase the scope of brand marketing in contemporary business settings. In late May 2020, people across the world and the US specifically turned up in arms to protest the murder of George Floyd. Their motive was to rally against social injustice that was fast combing the US society. Amidst this highly charged situation, Nike communicated its stand through a video titled "For Once Don't Do It". The video talks about racism and people sitting back and doing nothing. Instead, they encouraged everyone to be part of the change that America needed. The efforts by Nike would soon create a wave of organizations showcasing their stands on this issue. Other organizations that joined in the campaign included Toms, Delta Airlines, Visa, and Netflix. The gesture by Nike and the others showcased the extent to which organizations have grown in matters concerning taking definitive positions in controversial debates.
The Growth of Activist Marketing
Activist marketing is growing even amidst claims that it contravenes the mandate of business organizations. In 1970, Milton Friedman claimed that the only duty of a business is to maximize shareholder revenue (Shetty, Venkataramaiah, & Anand, 2019). According to Friedman, businesses bore no mandate to indulge in other activities: social, political, or environmental. At the time, this argument was understandable because businesses adhered to the marketing protocols at the time. In the 1970s, not many efforts were put towards other factors, including environmental and social concerns. That is major because businesses did not want to lose potential customers for taking sides in controversial issues. Also, different industries at the time were not as saturated as they are today. More companies have emerged, competition is stiffer, and marketing has taken a new trajectory, thereby rendering Friedman's claims irrelevant in the present operational environment. Besides, the chances are high that indulgence in other responsibilities, besides creating revenues, could be more profitable to businesses bearing the present growth in activist marketing.
The past decade has seen content marketers striving to connect with consumers in authentic and personal spaces. Brands have noted that the more personal they identify with their consumers, the more loyalty they reap from such consumers. Presently, the world is opened enough with technology that people can easily make personal decisions. People are fast standing for causes in which they believe. As individuals take action against elements of injustice, it is natural for them to expect their favorite brands to join in the causes. Taking meaningful action against some prospects in society is a principal avenue of connecting with those consumers. The escalation in activist marketing is measurable. A survey conducted by World Media Group in alliance with other strategic partners in the media, consultancies, and agencies has indicated that activism is an avenue for brands to connect with their consumers. Currently, 20% of buyers associate their favorite brands with the causes in which they believe (Deborah, 2020). Also, 85% of average US citizens and 91% of millennials would switch brands to one associated with a cause. Going by Friedman's analogy, organizations that do not participate in societal causes presently have a bigger chance of losing on the revenue front. Consumers are showing more loyalty to brands that extend their mandates beyond the traditional provision of goods and services. Declaration of political, social, and environmental stands resonates with the needs of consumers.
Activist marketing is still viewed as a risky or a smart marketing move depending on the execution of the strategy and the possible impacts that it could instil. Millennials, Generation Y, and generation Z present a unique customer segment (Xu & Zhang, 2020). Such individuals are powerful because they showcase higher spending behaviors compared to other generations, such as baby boomers. These young consumers are also changing the marketing landscape because they are emotionally associated with the products and services that they purchase. They are leading the shift to brands that have declared their position on various issues that are facing society. Currently, studies indicate that 63% of women, 70% of 18-34-year-olds, and 80% of black consumers would change their purchasing behaviors depending on the responses of their brands towards the killing of Floyd (Deborah, 2020). Such demographic changes in perceptions towards brands cannot be ignored by organizations that intend to accrue the maximum revenues in their operations.
There are notable risks associated with activist marketing that organizations must take into consideration if they are expecting any positive outcomes. Primarily, the chances are high that organizations will lose some of their customers by taking positions on society's sensitive issues (Xu & Zhang, 2020). Issues such as the murder of Floyd attracted debates from a majority group that demanded justice and a minority group that considered it an accident. Corporations that supported the cause lost some of the customers who disagreed with their position. The other risk associated with activist marketing is the perception that it can trigger among consumers. Brands can be accused of lack of sincerity while running the campaigns. That is, some consumers can see mischief in organizations that jump into the campaigns merely to attract more consumers (Jenkins, 2014). Activist marketing is riskier than normal marketing. That is because people can barely forget the position of a brand about a sensitive issue. A company that supports the killing of Floyd, for instance, would be viewed as one that supports racism and police brutality for a long span of its existence. There are also multiple factors that organizations must assess before indulging in activist marketing. For instance, the organization must understand the timing of its campaigns. Companies turn out as insincere if they adopt the campaigns too late or too early. Other factors, including the wordings and the emotional appeal, are important considerations while d...