Call it a fad or fashion or even a trend, more and more brands are desperately trying to take a social stance. This desperation is born of two doomsday predictions. Number one is that brands no longer will be owned by companies but will be owned by people. The second one is the misplaced notion of brands of the future being able to control social conversations. Social conscience seems to sit in the sweet spot of these two theories and brands are trying this measure as a way of future-proofing themselves.
The tenability of both the theories is increasingly being questioned by social scientists and the utility of this doctrine is rapidly changing to futility. But our objective today is not to indulge in that debate?it may be the topic for another discussion (along with the search for the elusive brand that had been built purely on digital/interactive media). Today, let?s examine if brands can have their rightful place in social responsibility.
To start with, as a former banker, I don?t subscribe to the emotional definitions of brands. To me, a brand will always be an asset for a company that can be leveraged to obtain a premium in every consumer transaction. That?s the only reason brands exist in the commercial world. Yes, brands do connect corporations to people. But to what end? To make money. Nobody would want to invest in brand building otherwise. So, a brand?s primary responsibility will always be towards the balance sheet of the parent company. In that case, will taking a social stance eventually be commercially motivated?
Let?s elaborate on this. A sports brand wants to create more athletes because it can make money that way. If it was losing money, it couldn?t have cared less about athleticism in the society. So, when a legendary sports brand takes the ostensible social stance of encouraging people to play more, is that social responsibility or commercial savvy attitude? The gaming device brands are happy to create couch potatoes because they make their money that way. And if tomorrow they start building a big social movement around the importance of spending time at home and the renewed significance of family bonding, are we supposed to marvel at their social responsibility?
These questions are not born of cynicism?they are based on commercial realities. Social awareness build around a brand, when viewed through the commercial lens, will always be a marketing activity. This makes social responsibility a tool to make consumers believe in the value of the brand, so that eventually they buy, use and pay more for products and services offered by the brand. As long as the branded bit of social responsibility remains in this realm, it?s fine. There?s a kind of equilibrium where everyone understands the commercial motivation but no one questions it.
The trouble starts when the brand custodians start to take themselves seriously. And start believing that they are responsible for the moral and social upkeep of the people they are talking to. A global cosmetic brand, which for years sold consumers false dreams of softer skin, decided one day to become the voice of the ?ordinary looking? woman. They started a movement of sorts (at least that?s what they believed), encouraging people to be comfortable in their skins. Till then, it was okay. Then they went a step ahead and started to propagate the social evil of the beauty industry and this move immediately backfired. It was bound to happen. No one would ever seriously think that a commercial brand can behave in a Martin Luther King manner.
Social responsibility is often used as a marketing gimmick and it immediately allows brands to be differentiated. But it?s a tricky path to travel. When all mobile service operators are making your life more connected, the one talking about saving paper will be noticed better. But it shouldn?t consider itself a serious crusader. In that case, people will surely notice that in the name of saving trees, they are exposing humans to microwave radiations. Or some over-zealous journo will figure out that they don?t have a paperless office themselves.
Social responsibility is used by brands as attention grabbers. When a tea brand takes up the cause of fight against corruption or a soap brand takes up clean neighbourhoods, it?s no more commercially significant than a new form of packaging or an innovative distribution channel. The best example of this was the recent campaign to save the tiger, launched by a mobile telephony brand. Was there any motivation outside grabbing attention? They could have used Amitabh Bachchan to the same effect (though I must admit using the tiger instead of AB is possibly cheaper and can build better saliency).
Social causes are a useful marketing device and should be treated as such. Commercial realities will forever dominate brand building (any surprises there?) and brands can never be taken too seriously in their effort to be the socially conscientious entities. The tobacco company can be darn serious in its effort to create a cancer charity?but the commercial irony is visible to everyone.
The commercial world is real?and if the emperor is naked there, everyone will be able to see it.
The author is managing partner, BBH India