The Unavoidable Role for Brands in the Battle Over Abortion Rights

Over the last two years, brands have shown—with varying levels of comfort—a willingness to take definitive stances on issues from racism and voting rights to Covid-19 vaccine requirements to Russia's war on Ukraine. Even if they give money to politicians legislating against the LGBTQ+ community, most major marketers promote Pride celebrations. But the battle over abortion rights is something marketers have tended to avoid. That is, until May when a Supreme Court draft decision that appeared to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked. This was followed by companies as varied as Apple, Google, JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, Starbucks, Citigroup, PayPal, Mastercard, Tesla, Levi’s, Dick's Sporting Goods and Yelp pledging to reimburse out-of-state travel costs for employees seeking access to abortion services. Then came Friday's Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, and with it 50 years of precedent that protected a woman's right to choose. This only intensifies the debate for politicians, activists or any person who can get pregnant—or the brands they maintain connections with. If brand purpose means standing for something, the next phase of this battle will test brand identities in a way we haven't seen before. The political spotlight's glare Abortion rights have been steadily chipped away at the state level for 30 years. But striking down Roe v. Wade marks an anomalous and shocking reversal for such a widely accepted right: 61% of Americans say abortion should remain legal in most circumstances, according to the Pew Research Center. The heightened rancor that took over American streets all weekend will inevitably place many brands in a precarious position: center stage, in the glaring political spotlight. There’s a sense that talk of “brand purpose” may be waning amid current economic pressures. But when it comes to heated political differences, consumers are unlikely to merely switch off their deeply held views. And abortion tends to elicit strong feelings. “Most people (63%) believe CEOs have a responsibility to take a stand on social issues, and they have increasingly done so," said Zoe Chance, senior lecturer at the Yale School of Management. "After the killing of George Floyd, business leaders spoke out against racism. Last year, more than 100 CEOs signed a joint letter speaking out against Georgia’s voting restrictions. This year, more than 1,000 companies have cut economic ties to Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine," Chance told Adweek. Those statistics appear to indicate companies that choose to speak out about controversial issues are not alone. But brands still have a good deal to consider when faced with a political dilemma. They are more visible, and more answerable than ever as any social media marketing manager can attest. A new world Brands also need to consider the following questions: Who’s expected to step into this particular spotlight? And what does the playbook look like? Not long ago, the only thing expected of a brand was a dandy logo, a good price point, prominent placement on store shelves and a few clever taglines delivered by attractive spokespeople. But the ad world has come a long way from the times when supporting women meant packaging a product in shades of pink. Consumers are savvier, more politically aware, and—most daunting to any marketing leader—way more likely to wish murder on your mascot across social media. “It’s harder than ever to navigate this world of branding,” said Sol Marketing CEO Deb Gabor. “It used to be so easy. Like if you had an awesome product and it solved an acknowledged problem for enough people, and it was priced right, you could win.” What makes it harder for companies this time is that the Supreme Court decision that rescinds Roe’s precedent will wreak havoc on the workforces of companies small and large. Nadia Khamis, director of corporate engagement at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, laid out the problem: “A person’s access to comprehensive reproductive care—which includes abortion—is directly linked to their ability to participate fully in the workforce, their earnings potential and their professional success.” Read the room Khamis stressed that the U.S. is already grappling with widening economic inequality, and a persistent gender pay gap. “We know from historic research that abortion bans will only make these risks worse—hurting workers and businesses no matter where they operate,” Khamis said. Yet Gabor acknowledged that when brands make a decision about taking a public stance on a polarizing issue, they run the risk of antagonizing a considerable portion their customer base. She advises brands to read the room before making their position known. “What we recommend to brands is that they think really, really carefully about who their ideal customer is—the customer that their brand is made for,” Gabor said. “When they make decisions—not just with their wallets, but also with their hearts, minds and feet—what is the lens that they're looking at those decisions through? And are they going to be aligned with your decision?” But even if a brand is certain customers share its views and will respond in kind, it has to be prepared to say it publicly. “It has become increasingly important to make sure that how you stand up for your employees and in your community becomes part of your brand and your brand values. You can't say one thing on the outside to customers and to investors and do something completely different on the inside,” Gabor said, adding, “Actions speak louder than marketing.” It’s easy enough for established companies like Patagonia, REI and North Face that know their customers would approve of their politically loaded lawsuit against the Trump administration over protecting public lands from private development. But there are worries about the consequences of sticking your neck out, especially among smaller brands. Shared emotional savings Gabor doesn’t dismiss those worries. To her, it’s about considering the relationship between consumer and brand as akin to “the relationship we have with our spouses” or our families. “They’re in a relationship where they have this shared emotional bank account—you make deposits into that shared emotional bank account," she said. "Then if you do take a hit because you do something that your customers are not entirely aligned with, you have a high enough degree of equity in that emotional bank account. Your customers might be willing to give you a pass." As Chance pointed out, there is an upside for brands that take political risk. “Taking a stand is the right thing to do, and it can also be profitable," Chance said. "My colleague, Jeff Sonnenfeld, has found that companies which pulled out of Russia have outperformed competitors who didn't." As for Patagonia, it didn't seem to suffer much after taking the fight over conservation issues to the Trump administration, Chance added. The brand managed to take "the top spot in Axios' Brand Reputation survey last year,” she noted. A Marketer’s Guide to the Key Differences Between the Statewide Privacy Laws