In Brand and Politics: Thinking Inside the Ballot Box Lucy Handley examines the how companies and brands are begin align themselves politically, which until recent history has been an extreme marketing taboo. Handley details the ways in which brands like Starbucks, the European O2, Virgin and Elle have begun to affiliate themselves with certain causes and viewpoints. The article, largely, discusses the ways in which Starbucks and its CEO Howard Schultz have in recent years backed the Obama administration as well as lobbied for an agreement to be made regarding the recent American Government shut down. She further acknowledges the legitimacy and acceptance for certain brands to take a stand in favor of certain political views such as, same sex marriage, equality, and certain political affiliations.

I found this article extremely interesting and also contradictory to my last post. This article outlines the growing acceptance of companies to discuss topics and market their views on subjects that I thought were extremely taboo and would result in organizational suicide. This article examined certain marketing practices that in recent years have become increasingly used and sought after by consumers. I believe that marketing should include more value basis, as it is both important to a growing number of consumers and reflects a much more modern approach to marketing.

While reading this article I did come a across a few questions, I wondered just how far a certain organization could go in support of a cause without becoming too political affiliated? This question interested me because there are certain organizations, like Starbucks, that have a very strong brand image and at times seem like no matter what marketing tactics they may or may not use they will continue to be successful and profitable. At what point would consumers in todays society stop believing in an organizations brand enough to hurt profits.