How influencer marketing carries political risks for brands

When marketers pay influencers to back their brands, they better be prepared to deal with political baggage. A new report from communications agency M Booth found that 72% of Americans believe that if a company or brand works with an influencer or celebrity who is vocal about their political stance, the company endorses that point of view. The report also found that 75% of those surveyed agreed that brands do not need to play in politics. The findings do not mean that brands should stop using influencers. But it is vital that brands understand their mission and values before taking a stand, according to the agency. “We are not seeing the market back away from influencers,” said AG Bevilaqua, chief creative officer at M Booth. “We recommend that brands look at their beliefs first. More activist brands will have a different risk tolerance. The vanilla middle is not appealing to consumers, so either do not comment if you cannot back it up, or take a stand and do not retreat.” The report is based on an online survey of 3,015 Americans, ages 18-55. It was fielded by research partner Savanta between Aug. 24 and Sept. 6. NextGen Marketing Summit Join us for a crash course on Gen Z, DTC marketing and the creator economy Register today Mass-marketed brands might have the most at risk, with consumers looking for any opportunity to drag them into a political debate. Consider McDonald’s, which drew headlines last week when former President Donald Trump used a Pennsylvania location for a photo opportunity. The fast feeder took pains to portray itself as neutral in the polarizing presidential race, issuing an internal memo that was widely circulated and drew praise from some PR pros. “McDonald’s does not endorse candidates for elected office and that remains true in this race for the next President,” read the memo. “We are not red or blue—we are golden.” But Trump’s visit still caused a stir on social media, with consumers flooding McDonald’s social feeds to either applaud the move or say they would boycott the brand. Virtue signaling A little more than half of those surveyed believe that companies should take a stand on social issues. But further questioning revealed that 26% stipulate that brands should only do it if they personally agree with the stance, while 30% believe brands should take a stance regardless of whether or not they agree. The report found that 43% of those surveyed said that virtue signaling—the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate good character or moral correctness—is one of the biggest missteps a brand can make. “Without a track record, it feels uncommitted,” said Bonnie Ulman Miller, chief research and insights officer at M Booth. Also read: How brands should engage consumers during election year Mission and values over DEI The report also found that brands’ purpose and direction, how well the company lives up to its stated values and the principles that guide its decisions and actions were the three most important factors that determine the kind of impact a brand has on culture. Diversity, equity and inclusion was sixth among these factors. “DEI is not off the radar,” said Bevilaqua. “Missions and values can be connected to DEI, but there may be brands with a clear mission that do not broach those topics.” She pointed to apparel brand Outdoor Voices, which portrays diverse models and implies that outdoor recreation is for all. Only 37% of the general population reported that diversity and inclusion commitments are the most important factor in determining brand impact on culture. Out of all generational and gender cohorts, diversity and inclusion seems to matter more to women (40% compared to men at 33%), and especially millennial women (42%). Brands including Toyota, Harley-Davidson, and Molson Coors have walked back their DEI efforts after being targeted by anti-DEI activist Robby Starbuck. E.l.f cosmetics, on the other hand, recently called on other brands to “dupe” (copy) its brand values.

How influencer marketing carries political risks for brands

Featured Stories