How Revolutionary turned “New Normal”
Over the past two decades, brand executives have debated whether to align themselves with political issues, concerned that the move might alienate potential customers. Until recently, promoting a controversial opinion in an advertisement was unheard of, as it posed a potential threat to the viability of a company. That fear is not baseless. Consider the Pepsi and Kendall Jenner ad which attempted to tackle a politically charged issue but failed miserably.
Shifting cultural currents have created a landscape where not taking a stance often poses a greater risk than taking one. We have focused on the issue of brands taking a political stance in a recent blog post, but here we’ll examine how this risky choice has evolved over the past few decades and how it has become more commonplace, if not expected.
Patagonia, for example, is a brand founded on the idea that business can help save the environment rather than harm it. Because the brand is values-driven, the public has an expectation that the company will call out fraudulent business practices and political leaders for pushing initiatives contrary to Patagonia’s core beliefs.
The concept for this blog post originated from the HBO documentary, “Tiger,” that presents Tiger Woods’ successful, yet tumultuous career. In 1996, Nike signed Woods to a $40 Million endorsement deal with and, in true Nike fashion, turned to their advertisements to promote their newest athlete. The Nike team produced multiple 30 and 60-second ad slots slated to run shortly after Tiger signed and just before the Greater Milwaukee Open in August 1996. The ad, titled “Hello World”, shows Woods’ early career, drawing attention to the fact that some U.S. golf courses continue to refuse to let him to play because of his skin color.
Immediately following the release of the advertisement, media critics and some of the public deemed it controversial. Nike products were pulled from the shelves of golf courses around the country, and players denounced the messaging behind the advertisement. Despite this reaction, 48% of Nike’s target audience found the ad very effective and it later earned an Emmy nomination. This ad, in addition to similar ads, established Nike as a pioneer in pushing politics and social issues in favor of underrepresented and minority groups. And while the brand certainly faced backlash, it wasn’t nearly as harsh as some predicted; in fact, it set the tone for the brand’s future voice and loyal following.
Since the late 90’s, many brands have followed Nike’s lead in creating ads that are in line with their respective brand values and stances. This month, Under Armour launched a Black History Month collection with Baltimore-based photographer and community leader Devin Allen, called “UNDR ARMR x DVNLLN.” This collaboration celebrates the city’s Black culture through sports and sports equipment, helps raise money for Baltimore’s youth programs, and will be responsible for a community mural. Against the backdrop of modern culture, this served as a welcome campaign that boded well for Under Armour, while posing far less risk than Nike faced in releasing its 1996 Tiger ad. And while times have certainly changed, it’s also a reminder that we still have a long way to go, culturally speaking. The narratives of 1996 remain largely intact in 2021.
Ads regarding women’s rights, sexism, and misogyny are further examples, although these narratives have played out differently in the advertising landscape. As the rumblings of second-wave feminism grew in the 1950’s and 60’s, the ad industry attempted to shift focus and appeal to men and women by pushing feminist narratives and ideals, such as in this TWA ad. However, this effort failed, along with other “pro-women” ads that followed over the next few decades, as they failed to adequately address the movement.
Not until the 2010’s did advertising agencies create pro-women's rights ads and campaigns that combated widely accepted sexist and gendered stereotypes. Most recently, that includes ads such as Procter and Gamble’s “Always #LikeAGirl” and Sport England’s “This Girl Can.” Although the arsenal of ads combating gender stereotypes continues to evolve, the industry’s recognition and willingness to show these ads is growing.
One company contributing towards positive change in the portrayal of mothers is Yoplait. The yogurt company ran an ad in 2017 calling out mom-shaming and challenging the generalized notion of an "ideal mother." Yoplait’s ad shows the raw reality of being a mother and points out stereotypes while satirically debunking them. This narrative pushes Yoplait as a no-frills, mom-positive brand that resonates with audiences who feel “othered” by condescending mothers, and subsequent media pickup drove this narrative home. The brand did receive some pushback regarding contradictory mom-shaming statements, which seems hypocritical, but the campaign received an overwhelming positive response overall.
Previously taboo subjects have transformed brand advertising into meaningful initiatives that intentionally polarize audiences to promote political agendas, regardless of company size or prestige. Political satire of modern-motherhood would have never been spotlighted in an ad from a previous era because, generally speaking, those who approved the ads also enforced and pushed these stereotypes themselves. Running a campaign that utilizes and promotes inner city programs shines light on communities that need the extra assistance, while promoting company values and strengthening ties to the Black communities they serve. Ad campaigns that oppose hate or marginalization continue to resonate with larger audiences as injustice becomes more of an open conversation and less of a “touchy subject.” The press generated from a brand sincerely committing to a cause can shape positive public perception and cultivate a cadence of successful, brand-building coverage.
