The Marketing Journal
  • About
  • Interviews
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Book Reviews
  • Views
  • Subscribe
“View: Should Marketing be Political?” – Karen Puckett and Mark Blessington

“View: Should Marketing be Political?” – Karen Puckett and Mark Blessington

July 19, 2017

Conventional wisdom has always held that marketers should steer well clear of politics, and some won’t hesitate to repeat the warning.  The downside risks were typically envisioned with horror and quite viscerally.  Nothing could be worse than becoming a political punching bag for politicians and the media.  Why would anyone want to offer themselves up as a target for ire and retaliation, or risk becoming a social pariah?  It would be nothing short of professional suicide, let alone a source of constant embarrassment among friends and acquaintances.

And yet, for seemingly inexplicable reasons, a growing number of large, high-profile companies have eschewed conventional wisdom and intentionally launched marketing campaigns that boldly supported particular political views. A few have even aired nothing short of bold-faced, direct assaults against specific and highly charged political policies.

So, what the heck is going on?  Is marketing becoming more political, or is this merely a blip on the radar screen?

Seven Political Super Bowl Ads

It has been almost six months since a surprising set of seven political Super Bowl ads ran on February 5, 2017.  What was the result?  Did conventional wisdom hold true?  Were these companies summarily punished for their brash and foolish ventures into waters they had no business sailing in the first place?

The seven ads are summarized in the table.  The first three supported diversity, the next two addressed immigration and inclusivity, and the last two were about gender equality and environmental protection.

2017 Super Bowl Ads with Political Messages

Brand Message, Means Political Message Category
Airbnb “We all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept. We accept.” Diverse set of face image transitions. Diversity
Google Home “Home by you. Help by Google.” Coming home scenarios for a wide range of ethnic groups. Country Roads song whistled in background. Diversity
Coke America the Beautiful sung in multiple languages with ethnically diverse video clips. Diversity
Budweiser “Born the hard way.” Adolphus Busch’s journey from Germany to St. Louis and meeting Eberhard Anheuser. Immigration,
Inclusivity
84 Lumber “The will to succeed is always welcome here.” Mexican migrant mother and daughter’s treacherous journey to US border, encounter wall, then find large door and enter country. Immigration,

Inclusivity

Audi “Audi of America is committed to equal pay for equal work. Progress is for everyone.” Daughter at soap box derby. Voiceover by her father. Gender Equality,
Women’s Rights
Kia Niro “It’s hard to be an eco-warrior, but it’s easy to drive like one.” Sequence of slapstick spoofs featuring Melissa McCarthy. Environmental
Protection

Airbnb

From a rearview mirror perspective, the Airbnb Super Bowl ad “We Accept” was prescient.  Several weeks after the ad ran, an Airbnb host canceled a guest’s reservation because, as the host’s rejection text explained: “One word says it all. Asian.”  After Airbnb conducted their investigation, the offending host was permanently banned.  Then just recently, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing issued a statement stating the host had agreed to complete a number of self-education steps, perform community service, report rental data to the department for four years, and pay a $5,000 fine.

The Airbnb ad is an example of getting out ahead of a serious company issue.  While Airbnb has a non-discrimination policy and permanently barred the host after their investigation, Airbnb’s ad strongly reinforced that it was serious about nondiscrimination and respect, and was willing to take a daring public stand on the issue—not after the fact, but before.  Even though the company may still have a tough road ahead in terms of ensuring nondiscrimination by its hosts, its marketing program is an integral part of the solution, not just a revenue-enhancer or company image cheerleader.

Google Home

Although not as blatant as the Airbnb ad, the Google Home ad stood out because it was clearly a diversity-friendly ad.  The current administration’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is often interpreted as a belated need to rebalance the American social agenda by paying more attention to the interests and values of majority white Americans.  The Google Home ad was readily interpreted as opposing this movement, and social media was quick to point it out.

By most accounts, Google Home is quickly gaining ground on Amazon’s Alexa.  It is estimated that Google Home’s brand/product recognition is now at 80% of Alexa’s and its market share is around 24% even though it was only launched last November.  We could find no indication that their diversity ad created financial or competitive problems for them.  Indeed, their current, post-Super Bowl ad also features a racially mixed family.  In other words, they have not shifted away from their diversity-friendly theme.

Coke

Singing “America the Beautiful” in multiple languages was regarded by some as an affront to the current administration’s emphasis on the white middleclass.  Social media quickly responded with comments like: “Sing it in English” and “Learn English … this is America.”

Despite some initial negative attention, the ad received an overwhelmingly positive rating (93%).  Coke’s stock price (KO) initially rose after the Super Bowl ad, and then took a hit a few days later starting on February 9 when analysts were disappointed with fourth quarter earnings results.  As can be seen in the chart, however, Coke’s stock price bounced back quickly.  Our review of their financials provides no hint that Coke’s diversity message harmed its sales or image.

Budweiser

The Budweiser ad celebrating immigration was definitely controversial.  It aired at a time when the new Trump administration was trying to restrict immigration.  The Twitter hashtag #BoycottBudweiser immediately circulated on social media protesting the pro-immigration message.  Budweiser explained their ad celebrated the pursuit of the American Dream.  This response reinforced the administration’s “America First” theme, albeit with a different slant.

Budweiser does not seem to have suffered financially from its “Born the Hard Way” ad.  Its stock price remained strong (see chart) and so far its 2017 year-over-year growth in revenue, profit and earnings per share are all quite impressive (7%, 73%, 45% respectively).  Although its leading brands in the US are slowly losing share to craft and international beer brands, it is still the dominant player with a market share around 45%.

84 Lumber

The 90-second 84 Lumber ad about a migrant mother and daughter encountering a US border wall was probably the most controversial of the seven political Super Bowl ads.  It seemed to most viewers to be a protest against President Trump’s “Mexico Wall” program.  The ad strategy then became confusing when the owner and CEO said she was “pro-Trump” and designed the ad to attract young new employees to her firm.

It was hard for most experts to justify the estimated $15 million price tag.  While 84 Lumber is a $2.4 billion company, building supply margins are low and the ad purportedly targeted new employees rather than new customers, greater share of wallet or other typical marketing objectives.

Despite the ad’s divergence from marketing norms, the owner still seems quite pleased with the outcome.  84 Lumber is no longer a relatively unknown company.  In addition to the 115 million Super Bowl viewers, another 4.7 million people viewed the full ad on the company website.  There were 174,000 social interactions with the ad on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and iSpot, and most of these were positive.  New stores were opened in the first quarter of 2017, new people continue to be hired, and it was again named a Forbes’ Best Midsize Employer in 2017.

Audi

The “Daughter” ad by Audi may be the second-most contentious Super Bowl ad of 2017.  There were more negative than positive comments about the ad on YouTube.  Some judged Audi as hypocritical since they have no women on their board and only two women on their US executive team.  Then Audi was criticized for merely comparing male and female median pay levels rather than controlling for job differences, which reduces the pay gap.  Audi calmly responded to these criticisms simply by reinforcing their central message of the importance of reducing the gender pay gap.

Despite what may seem to be considerable negative feedback, Audi of America’s year-to-year sales through June were up 6.2%.  In the aggregate, it seems that Audi’s US sales were not harmed at all by the ad.  Audi consistently tries to differentiate itself from the other luxury car brands.  Their persistent motivation is “… to challenge ourselves, rewrite the rules from time to time and always fuel our pioneering spirit.”  They clearly accomplished this with their Super Bowl ad.

Kia

The most humorous of the seven political Super Bowl ads was Kia’s “eco-warrior” commercial.  The simple act of featuring Melissa McCarthy was an affront to the Trump administration, given her “Spicy” series of Sean Spicer skits on Saturday Night Live.  Further it implicitly opposed the administration’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which indeed took place later in June.

From a unit sales perspective, Kia’s political ad does not seem to have had a negative impact on company performance in the US.  Overall unit sales grew steadily through May (see chart).  The Super Bowl ad targeted Kia’s new Nitro model, and its unit sales passed Kia’s Sorento model by June.  All in, it seems that Kia’s political ad did not have a negative impact on sales.

Overall Conclusions

What general conclusions can we make from this review of the political Super Bowl ads?  First, we can safely say political ads are a viable avenue for creating brand connections with customers.  The assertion that “it is suicide for a brand to be political” is now empirically false.  It is not a sure way to kill your brand.

The precursor to political ads can be broadly referenced as social justice ads.  Perhaps the two most famous of this type addressed women’s issues.  Unilever’s Dove brand launched “Campaign for real beauty” in 2004 based on research that the vast majority of women avoid describing themselves as beautiful.  Then, in 2014, P&G’s Always brand targeted “like a girl” negative stereotypes (e.g., throw like a girl, run like a girl) based on research showing that female self-esteem drops dramatically during puberty.  The success of these two major brand campaigns is now legend, and they are leading examples of what is meant by “brand purpose.”

Which leads to the second conclusion: If one of these two brand purpose campaigns—Dove or Always—had aired during this year’s Super Bowl, there is a good chance they would be on the list of political ads.  They are multiracial, they challenge the stereotypical rural white male frame of reference regarding women, and they do not align with the current administration’s top priorities.  In other words, having “brand purpose” can easily be interpreted as being political.  Indeed, it is probably dangerous for a brand to engage in brand purpose marketing without anticipating political ramifications.

Third, some form of backlash is to be expected from any political or “purpose-full” advertising, especially for a prominent name brand.  But this is not an overwhelmingly bad thing.  While conventional wisdom assumes all negative coverage is bad, today it is wiser to regard negative responses within a much broader context.  Negative coverage is an inevitable risk for large brands in general, and for political or purpose-full ads in particular.  Brand advertising and promotion has always been risky.  The emerging wisdom about ad risk is not so much about its avoidance as living and working with it.  There are too many social and company variables that a brand cannot control.  So, we must live with the inherent risks, and learn to work with them.

Given the tremendous and ever-growing challenge of connecting brands with customers, many marketers are concluding that their brands need to stand for something socially important.  Assigning a broader purpose to a brand is a powerful marketing tool, and doing so carries the risk of being criticized as “being too political.”  It seems that most if not all of the seven brands advertised during this year’s Super Bowl not only accepted the risks, they reaped the rewards by working with the risks and standing their ground.

Karen Puckett is the President and Chief Executive Officer at Harte Hanks.

Mark Blessington is President of Mark Blessington Inc., a sales and marketing consulting firm. 

 

Related Posts

“Technology and the Common Good” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler

Advertising /

“Technology and the Common Good” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler

“Wicked Problems” – An Interview with Philip Kotler and Christian Sarkar

B2C Marketing /

“Wicked Problems” – An Interview with Philip Kotler and Christian Sarkar

OP-ED: “Autopsy Of a Brand: Tesla” – George Tsakraklides

Brand Activism /

OP-ED: “Autopsy Of a Brand: Tesla” – George Tsakraklides

‹ “Criticisms and Contributions of Marketing” – Philip Kotler › “The Trust Gap Diagnostic” – Elsie Maio
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Recent Posts

  • “Technology and the Common Good” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler
  • “Cultural Presence: The Social Function of Milan Design Week” – Barbara Dal Corso
  • “Wicked Problems” – An Interview with Philip Kotler and Christian Sarkar
  • “Dragon proofing your legacy brand” – Grant McCracken
  • OP-ED: “Autopsy Of a Brand: Tesla” – George Tsakraklides
  • “The 5th P is Purpose” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler
  • “The CEO-as-Brand Era: How Leadership Ego is Fueling Tesla’s Meltdown” – Ilenia Vidili
  • “The Future of Marketing is the Quest for Good” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler
  • “Questions for the New Year” – John Hagel
  • “Enlightened Management – An Interview with Gabriele Carboni”
  • “If you’re not thinking segments, you’re not thinking” – Anthony Ulwick
  • “Does Marketing Need Curtailment for the Sake of Sustainability?” – Philip Kotler
  • ‘Social profit orientation’ can help companies and nonprofits alike do more good in the world by Leonard L. Berry, Lerzan Aksoy, and Tracey Danaher
  • “Understanding Hallyu: The Impact of Korean Pop Culture” by Sanya Anand and David Seyheon Baek
  • “Go-to-Market (GTM): A New Definition” – Karthi Ratnam
  • “Jobs-to-be-Done for Government” – Anthony Ulwick
  • “The Power of Superconsumers” – Christopher Lochhead, Eddie Yoon, & Katrina Kirsch
  • “Zoom Out/Zoom In – Making It Personal” – John Hagel
  • “Regeneration or Extinction?” – a discussion with Philip Kotler, Christian Sarkar, and Enrico Foglia
  • “Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap” – James Dyke, Robert Watson, and Wolfgang Knorr
  • “The allure of the ad-lib: New research identifies why people prefer spontaneity in entertainment” – Jacqueline Rifkin and Katherine Du
  • “What is ‘ethical AI’ and how can companies achieve it?” by Dennis Hirsch and Piers Norris Turner
  • “How the US military used magazines to target ‘vulnerable’ groups with recruiting ads” – Jeremiah Favara
  • “Ethics and AI: Policies for Governance and Regulation” – Aryssa Yoon, Christian Sarkar, and Philip Kotler
  • “Product Feature Prioritization —How to Align on the Right List” – Bob Pennisi
  • “The Community Value Pyramid” – Christian Sarkar, Philip Kotler, Enrico Foglia
  • “Next Practices in Museum Experience Design” – Barbara Dal Corso
  • “What does ESG mean?” – Luciana Echazú and Diego C. Nocetti
  • “ChatGPT could be a game-changer for marketers, but it won’t replace humans any time soon” – Omar H. Fares
  • “If Your Brand Comes Before Your Category, You’re Doing It Wrong” – Eddie Yoon, Nicolas Cole, Christopher Lochhead

Categories

  • Advertising
  • AI
  • Analytics
  • B2B Marketing
  • B2C Marketing
  • Big Data
  • Book Reviews
  • Brand Activism
  • Branding
  • Category Design
  • Community
  • Content Marketing
  • COVID-19
  • Creativity
  • Customer Culture
  • Customer Engagement
  • Customer Experience
  • Dark Marketing
  • Decision Making
  • Design
  • Digital Marketing
  • Ecosystems & Platforms
  • Ethics
  • Go to Market
  • Innovation
  • Internet of Things
  • Jobs-to-be-Done
  • Leadership
  • Manipulation
  • Marketing Technology
  • Markets & Segmentation
  • Meaning
  • Metrics & Outcomes
  • Millennials
  • Mobile Marketing
  • Non Profit Marketing
  • Organizational Alignment
  • Peace Marketing
  • Privacy
  • Product Marketing
  • Regeneration
  • Regenerative Marketing
  • Research
  • Retail
  • Risk & Reputation
  • Sales
  • Services Marketing
  • Social Media
  • Strategy & Business Models
  • Sustainability
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • September 2024
  • March 2024
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • October 2022
  • August 2022
  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016

Back to Top

© 2016-19 The Marketing Journal and the individual author(s). All Rights Reserved
Produced by: Double Loop Marketing LLC
By using this site, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies, our privacy policy, and our terms of use.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy