The Trump Presidency Has Forced Marketers to Completely Rethink Their Tactics

Companies lived in a safe place where they could tow the center line. Taking risks was largely verboten for large consumer brands. An advertising message that was found to be moderately objectionable to anyone would never see the light of day. Ad agency staff would quietly (or not so quietly) complain that such safe advertising wouldn’t get the brand any attention. Safe primetime television programming gave way to safe 30-second ads. They didn’t have to do much to get a little attention.

Things are different now since the president’s announcement. They are much louder. The news is at a constant fever pitch, and the media at large would have us all believe that everyone in the country—and perhaps the world—is choosing sides.

I’m not certain that’s true everywhere, but it is definitely so on cable news. Political conversations have certainly become more heated. It is difficult to contain a discussion on any topic from spiraling into a sprawling battle royale about political parties and history.

Then we cut to the ads. After nine minutes of bold pronouncements and reactions to bold pronouncements by the president, the ads are invisible. Why? Because they’re still playing in nuance. Quietly. Most national and global brands have been hesitant to choose one audience at the risk of alienating another audience.

As long as I can remember, I’ve heard comedians say they wish you could tell what a politician really thinks. Now we know exactly what some are thinking, and that genie isn’t going back in the bottle. No longer afraid to offend middle ground voters, and even emboldened by it, politicians are going full Bulworth.

President Trump is loud. He’s aggressive. He’s outspoken. He is the opposite of the public persona of just about every consumer company’s CEO—which is, therefore, opposite of most brands. Bold in Pantone swatches, but more muted in execution.

The stakes have been raised, along with the volume. Look at Nike. For better or worse, the name alone now conjures sides of a heated debate. Ad agencies have said for decades that they want to ignite the passion of their clients’ customers, get them to join the conversation. Mission accomplished. But really, is this good for the brand?

Where do Toyota, Pizza Hut and State Farm stand on the country’s most polarizing issues? If I worked on those brands, I’d want to know how such a stance would affect sales. Even something misconstrued as a signal of support for one side or the other will send Twitter into boycott mode. Why do they need to say anything either way? It’s not the role of a brand or a company to take a position on these issues. Right?

What Nike did is consistent with its brand. It led. It got ahead of the issue by choosing a side proactively and not being pulled in, which would have been inevitable. Papa John’s waited until it was in a full-blown PR crisis to pronounce a stance on former CEO John Schnatter, and it’s been buried in negative press since. Its brand is now a series of headlines and counter-headlines about their internal strife.

When a host on a cable news channel says something upsetting or offensive, the first move of the viewers (and sometimes the non-viewers) is to campaign to the show’s advertisers. Threaten them with a boycott. Let’s assume brands will continue playing it safe and avoiding third-rail topics. If we still believe that the medium is the message, then advertising on CNN or Fox might just mean choosing a side, even if it’s not exclusive to one or the other.

If the media won’t pull a company into the fray, their competitors likely will. Nike’s campaign put Under Armour and adidas in a curious spot. Neither brand had done anything wrong or suggestive of an opposing stance. In fact, Under Armour had already come out in support of NFL players protesting by kneeling. Coming out publicly at all is bold, considering a majority (54 percent) of U.S. voters said they felt kneeling protests by athletes are not appropriate. But by not acting in their advertising, they became somehow complicit. Brands can’t hide anymore, and the brands that speak to their specific customers will win, even if it means ruling out others.

Nike’s deliberate action will bring about a parade of ill-fated imitators. Which brings us to the obvious question: How does everyone avoid becoming Pepsi, sending endless versions of their Kendall Jenner spot to be eviscerated by focus groups (or at least half of the groups)?

What does “brand” even mean when a single word can bring boos and boycotts from half the country? Defining a brand has always meant defining the best customer and creating a cultural context—but the current context is conflict. How a brand demonstrates an understanding of the pressure that conflict is putting on the lives of customers will separate it.

In a survey conducted earlier this year by Sprout Social, 58 percent of respondents said they felt all brands should take a stand on human rights issues. Another 25 percent said only brands whose products or services relate to human rights issues should get involved. Of course, 53 percent of respondents said they would reduce purchases from brands with a stance they disagreed with, illustrating the age-old wisdom of brands playing the middle.

When the media is at full throat on a 24-hour cycle and every word scrolling across the chyron is an exclamation, brands cannot afford to keep speaking at the same low volume. Trump did not become president by sharing platitudes and political cliches. He figured out how to get media attention that overshadowed all the other candidates. Brands are terrified of this, but without a meaningful point of view, your brand will become irrelevant. Fast.

Every brand shouldn’t take on a political issue. That would just be flat wrongheaded. Purpose-driven marketing is great and effective when it makes sense for the brand. But most companies mistake sponsorship of an issue to true purpose. It doesn’t make sense for a neutral brand like Crest to come out with a stance on an issue like race relations, but it might make sense to have a stance on healthcare. Whether they decide to take a position on ACA or not, they will see decreasing returns on advertising if they keep producing sanitized spots showing people brushing and smiling. There’s nothing there. It’s not only too easy to ignore, it is impossible not to ignore.

Cheerios invited an avalanche of controversy in 2013 when it ran a television spot featuring an interracial family. It was a signal that the brand was progressive and forward-thinking. The ad didn’t preach a point of view or revolve around the topic of race relations. There wasn’t much to it. The family sits around the table having a typical morning, and people opposed to that viewpoint vowed to boycott Cheerios and its parent company.

Since that spot aired, despite the vocal protest, the number of spots featuring interracial couples or families has increased every year. Brands like Clearblue, JPMorgan Chase, State Farm, Coors Light, Macy’s, Tide and Cadillac have run ads with interracial families. In each case, the din of protest—or maybe media’s coverage of it—gets quieter. Perhaps brands have already been picking sides, consumers just have to turn down the volume to notice. What was bold then, doesn’t make a ripple now.