Skip to main content

Does your brand support gay marriage?

-->


 Our society is currently entrenched in a civil war over gay marriage.  The Supreme Court is hearing a case that challenges the constitutionality of the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act.  The law narrowly defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. Nine states and the District of Columbia previously allowed gay marriage through state supreme court rulings, until voters effectively reversed the courts’ decisions.

The Supreme Court, which mirrors our polarized society, seems to be equally split on the issue.  Not only are people taking sides, but a few big brands have also jumped in to defend gay rights. I wonder if we'll start to see more brands taking a driving role as activists in our society.

For the most part, brands have avoided getting dragged into these sensitive issues. This is not surprising, as the adoption of any position can cost millions in revenue if it antagonizes a portion of the brand’s customer base.

This neutral position, however, might no longer be sustainable for a couple reasons. First is the millennial generation, American teens and twenty somethings — who are confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and empowered to vote with their wallets. Second is the new digital landscape, with social networks that provide these millennials with a platform to establish and advocate their views.

According to the Pew Research Center, millennials are more ethnically and racially diverse than older adults. They’re less religious, less likely to have served in the military, and are on track to become the most educated generation in American history. They are also more liberal and tend to support same sex-marriage.



Most importantly, millennials vote with their wallets on social issues. According to a national survey, which was conducted April 8-11, 2010 by StrategicOne, millennials are more likely to buy a product or service if they like the social or political values of the company that provides it ("buycotting"). They are also more likely NOT to buy a product or service if they disagree with the social or political values of the company ("boycotting").

The survey finds that 40% percent of younger Americans surveyed said they had boycotted, and 36% had buycotted a product or service in the past 12 months based on social or political values. Older generations are significantly less likely to report boycotting and "buycotting;" age 35-44 (33% and 24% respectively), age 45- 54 (31% and 26%), age 55-64 (34% and 25%), and age 65+ (26% and 18%).


Brands such as Microsoft, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Zynga, eBay and Nike, each with a diverse and younger work force and customer base, have already come out supporting gay marriage. As the millennium generation’s voice grows stronger in our society, more brands may need to follow suit to maintain relevance. Staying on the sidelines of the key social issues of our time may become harder moving forward.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Aim for Love, Not Likes

Love is an unconditional emotion while like is a more watered-down version of love. Loving someone means that he or she means everything to you while liking someone implies that you are only happy being with that person. Love involves deeper, stronger emotions, while like is more of a tender feeling towards that special someone. In a world of infinite choices, love is everything. Like is a nice to have.  Today, we live in a world of abundance, where people intent to create content surpass their time to consume it. Video content is much easier and cheaper to produce than at any other time in history. YouTube sees 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. Facebook has more than 250,000 status updates in the same span. We could never read and see everything online.  With unlimited possibilities and limited time, we pay sustainable attention to what we love and divided attention to what we like. We spend hours watching Homeland and give our divided attention to our news feed on Facebook. …

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there. The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices. The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital? Here we have the Debate between TV and digital: Media Consumption TV: People are watching TV now more than ever.  Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices. The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours …

Winter and Summer in Adland

It is winter in Adland.  We have moved from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and algorithms.  We have lost the power of influence. Trust has been severely damaged.  Consumer attention is the new bottleneck. We no longer decide who sees us. Instead, we get picked.  30 second is not enough anymore. We need to take consumers through a scenic journey to create a long lasting relationship.  Everyone is a publisher. It is easier than ever to create, but harder than ever to make a hit.  The impulse to make has far outrun the desire to consume.  New forces have emerged in the form of sophisticated algorithms.  A new model has surfaced called "pay per play,” which scored everything we do on relevance to feeding the machine. It decides what gets picked, when, and where, based on extreme relevancy.  Mass media has vanished. Precision and personalization have emerged.  It is winter in Adland. The good days are all long gone.  It is Summer in Adland We now have the power to make bra…