Topic: Do brands that take sides on divisive issues lose market share? - page 2. (Read 289 times)

I think it is influential when their market is bigger in the area of boycotts due to campaigns on socially divisive issues because this is done on a massive scale. Boycotts have a big impact on product travel and maybe you understand what I mean and you can search on the internet about boycotting several products at this time. Smaller brands are actually more dangerous because they cannot survive when a boycott occurs and the company certainly cannot afford the losses because the product is still not big.

Current conditions may be focused on an idea that is starting to be rumored to boycott several products and not just one as you mentioned. The effect of a boycott is large and the product could sink in the market and not be able to rise again, not only large products and even small products will experience problems when this happens.

I might be blind, where does this quote come from? I checked your links and it doesn't seem like any of them contain that. I can only say that we need to know how the research is being conducted because a small market share is quite ambiguous and the form of activity it not rigidly defined. A good example is shared above. I doubt a small company that sells religious attire would net a positive market share if they got themselves heavily involved with values that directly oppose their customer's values.

Brands do not lose market share if they take a side on any issue, only if they are able to choose that side wisely. Let me give you a small example of ongoing war between Israel and Palestine.

If a western brand takes side of Israel in this situation, it will reward them nicely if the majority of their revenue comes from the western countries.

But if a brand from Saudi Arabia takes side of Israel, they might have to lose their entire market share.

So it really depends on your target market. Brands do not take impulsive decisions rather they take decisions on the data.

I'm not sure if a lot of people boycott brands based on said brands' public stance on political/hot-button issues (though the more vocal people might create youtube videos and such demonstrating their new hatred of their formerly beloved product), but I'm pretty sure if there's a big difference in opinion, people aren't going to "appreciate" a corporation's position. 

And if people are using their brains, they'd realize that crap like the Bud Light thing and the Gilette razor commercials are just performative in nature, designed to increase their ESG scores so that the parent company doesn't lose its financing from whatever banks they rely on.  When I learned about ESG financing, it blew my frigging mind and just made me want to stay at home with the doors locked even more than usual.

What a world.

It's 2023 and soon it'll be 2024. What do you expect from people who are getting offended for small shits? Karen rising everywhere. Women are pretending to be men, men are pretending to be women, and some are pretending to be helicopters, dildos, trees whatever fuck they see. What more can you expect from them? All they can do is complain about everything. They can't understand how stupid they look doing those shit.

But coming to the main fact, negative marketing is a thing and it does work on small brands. But it harms bigger brands. People just want to drag down what's on the top. 

not all are aligned with what they believe. i think the majority are just forced to follow what was instructed from above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReBc_kGV6IQ
take for example Dana White's friend was instructed by a CEO to take down his post about Kenedy. this company-sponsored UFC gym and the CEO doesn't like what Dana posted.

if Danas friend is just as weasle as Budlight or Disney, he would have said Yes taking it down immediately. but they stand their ground.

Because their initial market share is restricted, smaller businesses may see a net rise in consumers even if the position is unpopular. Larger brands, on the other hand, may incur huge losses regardless of a fair mix of fans and opponents. The instances of Bud Light and Gillette show how vulnerable huge brands are to popular sentiment. This highlights the significance of understanding the dynamics of brand size, activism, and customer reaction for developing effective marketing tactics.

As per my understanding be it a business or brands they should be very selective and have multiple review and it's impact on business before making any such statements or partnerships or advertisement which will be sensitive with emotions of people within their business zone or globally. Because it impacts a business terribly though we can capitalise the market after certain period of time but the dage done for the brand is irreparable and i have see  many brand unable to regain the market value which it once held. I am a part of one of the largest E-commerce company and I could relate to this.

Yes, they will lose some of their customer, but it highly depends on those companies product if their product has many competition it will be very easy to just move on to the same products from other brand. I really don't have any problem with company that take side on some political or social issue, because those company has it's own values and principles, the owner and boards also have their own values and principles, they will take a side. As long as it doesn't turn into discrimination or something worse like hate-speech/threat , taking side on political or social issues is not a problem.

I think they do too. Small or big brands, customer usually support companies that are align with their morals or principles. Tho the impact of controversial campaigns on smaller brands can vary. While they may not face the same level of scrutiny as large corporations, smaller brands can still experience backlash if their campaigns are perceived negatively. The extent of the impact often depends on the size of the audience and how much noise they can make. It is either a good or bad outcome for companies when there are issues that divide people’s opinions.

Companies are supposed to be politically and socially neutral, to focus on high quality at a reasonable price for the consumer, and to try not to pass on any increase resulting from increased inputs and inflation directly to the final consumer. Rather, the company must sacrifice profits as much as possible without trying to increase the price of the final product, in this way. The company will grow in the face of all economic, political and social crises.

In regards to the bolded, well a President for example who represents a Country will likely lose votes from certain parts of the country he/she does not appeal to their interest , while someone who governs a small part of thesame country would gain more votes from them if he's more concerned about their interest than the larger country. That probably explains the large and small brands phenomenon
The large brands typically spread across the country/world and would likely offend customers where they are located if they decide to take side against them.

Anyway, this is why it's important never to be partial especially as head or servant of diverse people. If both sides are bad, condemn their evil together. If one is right while the other is wrong make sure you still judge them fairly without any bit of bias in you.

Many customers might boycott a brand because of its stance on some societal issues but more customers that appreciate the firm's decision will support the firm. There will always be two groups which are those who support and another who oppose the view or ideology. Anti-Semitism is gradually rising globally because of the war in Palestine and some brands might also take advantage of this to gain more market share. I am sure businesses in the Middle East, South Africa, Russia, etc will benefit from supporting antisemitism. Elon Musk might have peddled down on his views because almost all his business is located in the US and the government is the main supporter of Israel.

Your points are valid @EarnOnVictor that business owners should separate personal beliefs from their business if they want the business to keep flourishing. They should ensure that their comments align with the popular beliefs of their customer base or they risk losing a large chunk of customers.

Ye might have lost some support in the West but it seems he is building connections in the Middle East where his views are welcomed.  Who knows, his antisemitism might be a business strategy to penetrate the Arabian market. Just guessing.

I would like you to know that the world is highly sentimental and biased, they will always align with what they believe, and if the belief of the social majority is against what you preach, then you might be in trouble. This applies to both big and small establishments. If anyone has a different opinion to what is peaceful, just and of the popular opinion and the person is a strong man in an establishment, the best thing is to be neutral, don't say anything. This is what is saving many politicians, especially when it comes to different factions within the same political party. You do not spit ugliness too much, or else, it might backfire on you, particularly in earning businesses/services that its success has to do with the masses.

You can see what happened to Ye when he made anti-Semitic remarks. And recently in the Israel-Hamas escalation, Elon Musk as usual, initially was trying to side with Palestinians, but this didn't go down with many advertisers on his platform (X), they started pulling out one after the other. This made him switch his words and start supporting Israel, to the point that he even visited Israel in November to declare his support.

Due to this, establishments should be very guarded in their utterance, they might be right or wrong, but they should know that if they vex their potential customers and partners, they could ruin the business. And of course, it's even easier to ruin small businesses, while some has been burnt down by extremist in the past. Caution is always needed unless your view aligns with that of the majority.

I researched this topic based on what happened with the Bud Light brand, which was boycotted due to their campaign on a socially divisive issue. They lost market share, and their top executives were forced to address the issue. A similar situation occurred with Gillette in one of their campaigns that the public viewed as sexist, resulting in a loss of market share. However, would this have happened with smaller brands? Read what this article found out.


Reference
+ https://www.nytimes.com/article/bud-light-boycott.html
+ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-46874617.amp