Topic: Do brands that take sides on divisive issues lose market share? (Read 289 times)

It's all very relative. Because if, for example, a small-scale product/company has collaborative ties with parties that cause divisions, then the product or company will definitely be affected as well. Because all consumers will definitely be aware of this, that the product is collaborating with the party that created the chaos issue. Likewise with products that already have a big brand. So it is very likely that this theory is not correct.

Your insight is truly extraordinary, indeed neutral is the safe path for companies that are aware of the impacts that occur. However, it does not rule out the possibility that the company is playing behind the scenes.

this much is true, too much emotional when it comes to some issues, try to side so hard they'd confront the other side without even trying to think from the other perspective, and this happens to almost anything these days, when it comes to some luxury brands, they'd also try to side with the one they favoured and attack the other but I guess thats just how it is, not that previous generation didn't do the same thing but I guess these days it gets worst with the presence of social media and the cancel culture.
personally if i were to own a company i'd try to be as neutral as possible but even then we will be question by both sides because being neutral might mean avoiding problem but also means that we are always questioned on our stand on some issue.
definitely tough thing to decide these days. even more so with the crazy thing happening on social media like twitter like basically its a place where everyone try to force their idea into other.

Yes, it's very helpful when you check them at most times. And I think most investors and traders does this so if there are hot topics and news, the market always reacts because of the same sentiment coming from retail and institutional investors.

They're all good at this and that's why riding what's been on the news always have the impact to market prices. We're not new to this anymore as sometimes there were moments that when there were good and bad news for Bitcoin.

We see the market changes so quick and that's why these are important market sentiments to consider.

It's true to say that he's stubborn, I think it depends on his upbringing in the past.
However, they can also be called consumers who drive sales. However, it depends on how a product is sold and whether it becomes a well-known brand. And I think if the most popular brands were to take sides on "divisive" issues I think they would lose market share slowly but surely.

its always been like that taking side on divisive issue cause the company to lose the customers on the other sides, so many companies out there are trying hard to stand neutral but alas some of the side supporter of divisive issue sometime so aggresive they consider even the neutral side to be against them thats the thing with most of the companies nowadays, since company exists to make profit they naturally just gonna go with the flow not taking either sides, different if in a country in regard of the divisive issue the general opinion of the public of such country leaning towards the other side much more the company will definitely follow the general masses opinion and would also take sides since it would also mean that there'd be no meaningful lose to take the sides and instead might gain favour for them and put them in a spotlight.

Those market insights are very good indicators on what may possibly happen to the stock market.
So if you are into stocks, keeping your eyes open to this kind of news would be very helpful in your portfolio.
This is why most brands are careful in taking sides or expressing their support to any political or social drama.
It can easily have an impact on their market performance and so losses in just a snap.

Yes, they do. The current generation's consumer is driven mostly by emotions and their beliefs on the brands that they choose. If brand A expresses its support to idea B, then consumers will immediately boycott it because they believe in idea C that is a complete opposite of what idea B is all about. It's just nuts, but then again, the consumers drive sales and profit, so they have to ride that wave.

Also, consumers expect companies to take sides in a rather light issue most of the time, but smart companies usually just stay silent on the issue and pretend they aren't hearing or seeing things in order to not get cancelled and still get the market share of both sides of the issue. I think companies that are numb and mindless against current social issues usually do well compared to those who take sides and push forward with it. That's what big companies are doing, and they are still posting great revenues every year.

The current generation is highly opinionated even if their opinions don't mean shit to an issue that is going on. As triggered as I am to these young ones of today, I have to understand that they are also consumers that drive huge sales to a lot of things that are in trend, which actually is a huge reason why I am paid good money by my current employer.

That happens, when these companies have issues, the stock/share holders are acting quickly because they know that the market sentiment changes overtime quickly.

When the company itself does something wrong or one of their endorsers do, it's a domino impact and the sentiment of the entire market is being seen to react whether the incident is good or not.

If you're an investor, actually it's a good indicator and you get to have the idea how it goes. And that is why it's important to check every issue that happens globally.

I don't think brands need to get involved in anything political, but I also don't think you will always please everyone in life. Some people will always be divisive and full of hate, trying to oppress people that are different from them or don't follow a specific god. Brands are free to make statements and people are free to boycott them if they so choose. I don't see the biggest brands taking a strong stance on most topics, because they will have marketing and legal departments that will steer them away from offending large groups of people in many circumstances. The biggest multinational companies often have to navigate a minefield of different rules and customs between countries, but do so successfully, like McDonalds for example.

Small brands need the attention to trend and get more attention, so activism is a good way for them to achieve it. Activism for them only has the potential of increasing their audience from the attention they get from either good or bad comments and campaigns. As a brand or business gets bigger and it's customer base mature, care has to be taken on the stance taken on many divisive issues because by then you already have an audience and should want to guard them jealousy and not take actions that will result in loosing them.

Every producer must be very careful when it comes to their marketing strategy in a very competitive market. A brand manager must know how to handle the target market and gain their trust. It is not easy to control damage when a mistake is made in the branding, because others are already waiting for the opportunity, they are likely to spread it through the press that damage control might spread, is difficult to control, and takes a long time to recover. Sentiment around gender, religion, ageism, race, and politics is one of the most dangerous areas for branding

Taking sides may hurt, or may help as well it all depends on how you deal with your customers. If your customers are people who are against trans people, then supporting trans people may feel right for you, and for all matters and purposes trans rights are human rights and I support their existence as well, but that doesn't mean that you should promote it on your ads, just support their existence and choice individually, if you bring in your company then just as well others have a right to not buy your product as well.

However, if a beer company ended up supporting some team, like lets say some NFL team in USA, and sponsored or anything, then they would make a ton more money. Because, that's the customer base. If you want to take a side, take a side on the customer base, what your customers tell you, do not take the opposing side of your customers or you will lose money. It is not really rocket science, you should be able to see and figure this out easily.

The major market of those two brands mentioned in the OP were men so it's only expected that they were hugely disappointed after those ads and endorsements were released. The best example I've seen was some men putting bullets to a budlight with Dylan Mulvaney's face hehe.

I don't patronize their products anymore but what did they do that made people ask for boycott?

i think it depends on what the issue is of course

brands represent something especially big brands wherein they have a wider reach of course it matters what kind of message they are sending to people


if it’s about discrimination well of course the brand would be really in the chopping block

would this happen with small brands? yes and easily but big brands are criticized but most often are not heavily affected that’s because if you are big enough of a brand that you have become a staple to the community whatever you do, people will still consume your product unlike small brands wherein you can easily find an alternative to them

an example is people saying mcdonalds should be boycotted but still a lot of people continue to buy their meals

I don't think you can't really change that though. Ideology by nature will clash with each other. Besides, it is impossible to tell them to "just ignore it" if the promotion is happening in their area. On the other hand, I think shrinking market share is not similar to the harm you're talking about here. Businesses should know that bringing different values (and actively promoting them) to people with different values is not the smartest decision for sales. CMIIW.

Brands that take sides on divisive issues DO lose market share. Remember the Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light saga?
Trans male advertised for huge beer company, the people hated it & their sales nosedived.

https://www.them.us/story/dylan-mulvaney-bud-light-drama-explained

It's a rather subtle question. The problem is that the world has become so "multi-layered", and so used to putting the interests of one layer above another, that it has, to me, turned into a kind of race, "who will create problems with a new hype topic".
And here in the "work" goes everything that can be - gender, skin color, orientation, weight, .... Waiting to add height, foot size, eye color, hair color, ear size
My opinion - no one owes anyone anything - if you don't like the products of brand A - buy from brand B. If you don't have brand B - then be kind enough to create your own brand/business and sell specialized products to those who need them so badly.
If you don't like advertising - don't watch it, but don't forbid others to watch it either!   Freedom should be either general or should not be selective.

I understand protests, if it brings real harm or problems to some group, but to demand attention to oneself or one's own promotion is too much !

I would want to read a legitimate survey on this. It seems this is a hard claim. Is this backed by scientific findings? Since you researched this topic, what would be the reasons for this?

The only way I can make sense of this is that, say, a popular brand has hundreds of millions of consumers globally and it speaks out against LGBTQ+ members. Many of its consumers are members of that group. They will certainly cut their consumption of that specific brand. Compare that to a small and unknown brand that only has, say, a thousand consumers. When it speaks out against that group, a portion of its consumers might go away, but since it has millions of potential consumers, such activism might be a reason why others who otherwise aren't considering its brand or haven't heard of it yet will begin to use it.

This, of course, could differ depending on the specific case, but if we do the math, it might be true.

It depends on what side they're going to be on because if they're on the controversial side and the side where a majority of the population disagrees then they would see a negative impact to their sales and stocks but if they're siding with what the majority thinks is the right one, they're probably going to see an increase in their sales and stocks but there are outliers out there that are an exception to the rule, some companies might take the non-majority stance but still gain respect from the majority and no effects that significant can be seen in their sales or stocks, another case would be companies that take the majority stance but the majority feels like they're just faking it so they don't see any significant increase or decrease in their sales or stocks.