As the 2016 presidential campaign churned forward, there was a distinct sense of bemusement about Donald Trump in the traditionally liberal-leaning advertising industry. Surely he wouldn’t ascend to the Oval Office, right?
Just to be sure, creative teams spent countless hours of unpaid time creating work that mocked, riffed on or raised cautionary flags about his campaign.
Canadian agency Critical Mass created a step-by-step guide to help Americans move north of the border. BarrettSF created miniature Trump campaign signs solely to be placed in dog poop. Wieden + Kennedy Portland’s food cart served “Donald Trump’s BS” (baloney sandwiches). Such snarky projects were a weekly sight in the months leading up to the election.
Then Trump won the presidency, and the creatives who’d been nettling him stopped laughing.
In the year and a half since Trump took office, brand marketers and agency creatives have largely gone quiet. Those who have continued to make provocative, challenging work have reaped both awards and boycott threats, but overwhelmingly, some industry observers say, today’s political polarization has had a numbing effect on creativity.
“[Creativity now] is more nervous, more apologetic,” said Laura Fegley, executive creative director at Colle+McVoy. “The tribes we’ve formed in America would make you think that we would move toward highly polarized work. But instead, the work can become mild salsa—falling into the worst trap of trying to say things that offend no one and aren’t really exciting anyone.”
But much like how the political unrest of the late 1960s sparked a creative renaissance in music, art, literature and even advertising, some feel America is on the eve of a creative awakening as cultural battle lines are drawn and brands are brought to the front lines.
Marketing in a minefield
Amazon, Boeing, General Motors, Merck, Nordstrom and Toyota are just a few of the brands that have been targets for the president’s Twitter arrows. His barbs, while often creating volatility for publicly traded companies, don’t seem to have a lasting effect on share price, but his penchant for 280 characters still makes brands reluctant to be seen as taking any stance that might be seen as “political.”
Case in point: A 2017 Budweiser Super Bowl spot telling the story of its immigrant founder, Adolphus Busch, struck a nerve with some conservative consumers, who thought that it was a corporate slam of Trump’s travel ban executive order and immigration policies in general. With threats of a boycott, the brand was forced into damage control, saying the ad was never meant to be a political statement.
That was only a few weeks into Trump’s presidency, and since then, many brands have chosen to lie low and avoid politics, despite the topic’s increasingly all-encompassing role in American life.
“Some companies do not view entering the political discussion as a way to move their brand forward, so they stay the course,” noted Vann Graves, VCU Brandcenter executive director and former CCO at JWT Atlanta. “I felt similarly for a while, but it has since become clear that it is simply not possible for brands to remain on the sidelines.”