More and more, I’m noticing companies taking an active stand, speaking out on political and social events. Ben & Jerry’s has been especially notable as doing a great job (cue their Empowermint and One Sweet World campaigns). However, there have definitely been some blunders (do we really need to re-live the Pepsi/Kendall Jenner incident?)
With so much disconnect and tension due to worldwide political events, it’s tough for brands to predict when their campaign is going to result in desirable, or not-so-desirable, consequences. Is the risk going to be worth the reward? Is there even going to be a reward?
According to Carol Cone, of Sustainable Brands, the difference between being risky and outspoken vs. compelling and impactful is authenticity.
Summed up in just one word, authenticity, I think Cone has really nailed it. What did the Ben & Jerry’s advertisements have in common?
- they incorporated their existing products in context that made sense;
- they have been known to be a company that cares about its people and their rights;
- their references or little jabs are subtle enough that they are relatively less likely to offend; and
- they promote timeless values.
For those who have followed Ben & Jerry’s for longer and understand more of their history, it is evident that they have shown their authenticity and committment to people since the day they were founded. Since then, they have arguably almost always been on an upward trend, really solidfying their values – from from Free Cone Day in 1979 to becoming a certified B Corp in 2012 and more.
When Ben & Jerry’s puts out a short on love and unity, or a new ice cream flavour is released promoting emopowerment and democracy, its no wonder that their values aren’t questioned as bluntly and critically as some others trying to use activism as a marketing tactic.
