Promises, Promises: 7 Risks of Performative Brand Allyship #BLM

What is the impact of brands pandering to the protests? Is your response performative allyship? 

I ran across the following meme last week that describes what it's like to work in marketing in June of 2020:

0 (2).jpeg

Which zeitgeist will we tap into this month? What happens when there are multiple all at once?

I have received messages from brand leaders and agency professionals alike who are navigating the modern collision of social movements and marketing.

They've seen my articles or talks in the past on LGBTQ pride marketing, Coronavirus pandering and B2B marketing during the pandemic, greenwashing gaslighting, and femvertising... and they, like you, may know I am working on a book / documentary about brands pandering to social movements.

2020 offers no shortage of material and I have had plenty to say about it recently:

This week, as I watched the corporate responses roll in to #BlackLivesMatter and the protests erupting around the country and world... I found myself uncharacteristically.... quiet.

Hesitant to comment.

The truth is, I have a deep and very real fear of f*cking this up.

#BlackLivesMatter was created because black people are dying. Not because BIPOC lives matter more than others, but because they are treated as if they do not matter to begin with.

It's a movement to stop the very real, present and festering threat of white supremacy and end "violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes."

It builds on decades upon decades of struggle for equality that can often feel like deja vu as we slip back into complacency until the next horrific incident. #SayTheirName

It's a critical movement.

So, when I saw the now-familiar rush to issue brand statements, the letters "from our CEO," and the stark white-font-on-black-background social posts, my first instinct was cautious but real indignation.

How dare marketers enter such serious territory with impunity?

And further, how could any of us even begin to think that performative allyship will help?

But I do get it.

I am a marketer, and the conversations I've had all week are with those earnestly trying to do the right thing.

Race issues, like women’s issues, like LGBTQ issues, like issues of age, or disability, or the global pandemic, all affect us in real and uncomfortable ways that don’t fit neatly into an “audience insights” brief.

I don't have all the answers for my marketing colleagues. I'm very willing to watch and learn, to educate myself and be educated on what BLM needs from the world of business right now. I'm curious whether public statements of brand support actually help the cause. I'm open to the fact that they might. I maintain my inherent skepticism.

Marketing teams are responding to a well-documented and growing desire from consumers for the brands they buy from to stand for something, and to align with them on shared values.

Our teams are scared of "choosing the side of the oppressor" through our silence. Cancel culture is quick - lightning quick - to call out anyone with a platform for not doing enough.

So we all rush to draft that statement, make a donation, publish the heartfelt letter we sent to our employees, black out our logos, and fire up the piano music for a touching spot to show our solidarity with the movement and our black communities.

Because we're not quite sure of the playbook for this moment.

Because this is a new normal -

And we don't have rules of engagement for that new normal.

It's well past time that we create some. 2020 is proving that more brands needed some rules in place well before we were hit with the triple-threat of all-consuming narratives.

If a company's values, like diversity and inclusion, were clear to begin with, the decision of what to do now wasn't hard.

It's the rest - the bandwagon brands - that I believe threaten the movement they seek to co-opt.

My goal with this project has always been to start the dialogue that needs to happen in our industry so we can do right by our clients, the movements we use for our own gain, the communities they impact, and our own integrity.

We will look back at the Spring / Summer of 2020 as the moment in which this global movement was co-opted by corporate performative allyship.

Chris Franklin created this cringe-worthy but on-point mockery of our statements:

0 (3).jpeg

Much has been written about the hypocrisy demonstrated by brands who appear to be pandering to the protests:

  • Read Devika Daga's excellent piece highlighting hypocrisy within Uber, Away, Instacart, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon and more. She also highlights the thoughtful responses from Artnet, LEGO, YPFP.

  • Munroe Bergdorf called out L'Oreal Paris for its "speaking out is worth it" social media graphic, revealing the brand dropped her from a campaign in 2017 after the model spoke out about racism.

  • Ava DuVernay called out the NFL for issuing a statement of support for the movement while blacklisting Colin Kaepernick, while Martellus Bennett pointed out "none of them [white QBs] spoke up when it wasn't easy to speak up. Now they writing statements." AOC also called out the Washington Redskins.

  • The ACLU called out Amazon for its statement while selling facial recognition surveillance technology that "supercharges police abuse" and McDonalds for not protecting the health of its majority Black or non-Black people of color workforce.

  • Chris Gilliard argues in FastCompany that YouTube, Amazon, and Nextdoor are "Black Power-washing" while their business models exploit black people.

  • Nicole Sanchez lays out the many ways leadership teams are bungling this e.g. "having never listened to their head of DEI before, a company suddenly finds her 'indispensable...' as the only black women now involved in exec-level decisions. Shocker: she wasn't on the exec team to begin with and sure as hell doesn't get paid what they do."

  • Judd Legum highlights (THREAD) how Citi, Google, Amazon, and more have publicly embraced BLM while giving $$$ to members of Congress rated "F" by the NAACP in the last 2 years.

  • Activision Blizzard is being called out for double standards related to these protests and those happening in Hong Kong.

  • William Ottow called out the Metropolitan Opera for tweeting support for the protests while never having performed the work of a Black composer.

  • Mark Ritson screenshotted the predominantly white board of directors pages of companies next to their public statement of support for the BLM movement.

And it goes, on and on.

[For the record, Ben and Jerry's issued a poignant and on-brand statement that is absolutely worth a read. As refreshing as their ice cream.]

What is this?

I'm a big believer in naming the problem (...marketer.) The nomenclature is one of my favorite parts of studying this space. This could be called any number of things:

- performative allyship

- performance activism

- woke-washing

- corporate performative wokeness

- virtue-hustling / virtue-signaling

- pandering (see Pandermonium)

0 (4).jpeg

I love the internet.

Performative allyship:

  • Is an empty promise - vague words like "condemn" or "stand with" without meaningful action.

  • Is often opportunistic - supporting the cause only when trending, often without any history of demonstrated support before the movement was wildly popular.

  • Passes the blame - Quoting Holiday Philips:

"It refuses to acknowledge any personal responsibility for the systemic issues that provided the context for the relevant tragedy. Instead, it looks at a villain “out there” — a crooked police officer or a heartless conservative. It separates you (good) from them (bad)."

I recommend the full article by Holiday Philips on what performative allyship is.

OK, so many brands are pandering.

Despite the tricky situation we all find ourselves in now as communications professionals, let's agree there is a remarkable amount of pandering happening. We can all agree on that.

So what?

I don't have all the answers around how brands best respond right now. Not having those answers initially prevented me from writing anything.

Is it better for brands to say nothing?

Maybe. If a brand hasn't done the work to help a movement, and it ends up profiting from meaningless platitudes, does that team enable performative wokeness as a substitute for meaningful participation and solutions?

Maybe.

Marketers like Vikki Ross have shared their thinking as she helps clients wondering if they should change their logo, which I so appreciate.

But, a good friend reminded me that it's OK not to have all the answers. She said lean into what you know.

I've been studying this issue for years now and I know with confidence there is a real and dangerous impact to brand pandering, especially to such an important human rights movement. And, because money talks, we need to be clear about the risk it presents to our brands as well.

I believe performative allyship is dangerous, and carries real consequences:

1: It redefines the work down to hashtag activism

The real work is much harder:

Some argue the responsibility of a business is shifting from profit to political corporate social responsibility. Whether or not you buy that just yet, consumers don't want corporate solidarity, they want action. "Open your purse" is the refrain meeting many corporate platitudes on social media as donations flood associated groups.

Beyond donations, though, I've written before that this is an opportunity for brands to lead via actions, not words. In this case, every business can create economic opportunity. Every business can choose to be part of the solution.

If we settle for the role a business plays in this matter only in terms of their marketing statements, we set a precedent that limits our potential impact and fails to solve the systematic racism that is at the core of the BLM movement.

2. It exploits a human rights movement for corporate gain.

Brands who jump on the bandwagon now (especially those without meaningful contributions to the movement behind the tweets) are barging into the conversation without respect for / understanding of the movement they seek to co-opt, its demands, and the sacrifices made to-date.

3: It creates an illusion of progress

That's what marketing does best - it creates a perception of reality. What consumer has the time to research the actions and supply chain of every brand they buy from? The problem is, our sea of statements only create a false illusion that the world of business is far more equitable than it really is. It hides the real scope of the problem.

We cannot solve problems we don't see or understand clearly.

Note: Tools like MyBoldy are being released to meet consumers' demands, it's a browser extension that tells them where a brand rates on issues like diversity and animal rights.

4. It further undermines the trust of already skeptical consumers

James Mattis in his condemnation of Trump said "The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation."

Consumers are insisting that brands do the same - live up to the values we purport to have. That's what a brand is, after all - a promise. When you issue a statement of support for Black lives, what are you really promising? Are you prepared to live up to that promise?

58% of adults don’t trust a brand until they have seen ‘real world proof’ that it has kept its promises.

Marketers cant afford to further fray consumer trust. Almost half of consumers (42%) distrust brands, 69% distrust advertising. (MarketingWeek)

5. It perpetuates a cycle of hidden agendas through lobbying.

“The average consumer funds politicians and PACs about 3 times more through their purchasing choices than through direct political contributions.”

Via Goods Unite Us.

As Judd Legum's thread points out - many corporations publicly embracing BLM have given $$$ to politicians actively working against the cause.

When a brand claims to support a cause while donating to politicians who oppose it, its customers are unknowingly funding politicians who may work against their interests.

6. It drowns out the brands actually making a difference

These performative responses simply add to the noise of a movement whose information is spreading predominantly on social channels.

Grassroots organizers can't compete with the reach or the budget of larger brands, many of whom have chosen to use their platform to pat themselves on the back with a response that is largely self-serving.

There are a number of brands who are responding to the BLM movement and protests with heart, authenticity, and actions to back up their statements. I fear larger brands have drowned out the reach of these other firms who should be leading the way, as they're doing the work to back up their claims.

Elevate the voices of others if you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

7. It exposes our brands to enormous risk

Finally, we have to be clear about the risks of entering narratives we may not be ready to participate in. Any statement was a bold one, as this very article proves it opened companies up for scrutiny / retaliation.

This is the age of sunlight. Consumers aren't stupid, and they keep receipts.

0 (3).png

See more.

As it relates to employees, performative wokeness threatens employee retention by creating a culture of mistrust, and future talent acquisition by damaging a company's employer brand.

---

What is real allyship?

  1. Understand allyship. Allyship is "a lifelong process of building relationships based on trust, consistency, and accountability with marginalized individuals and/or groups of people." It's also "not self-defined—work and efforts must be recognized by those you are seeking to ally with." (Sheree Atcheson in Forbes)

  2. Start in your backyard. Endeavor CMO Bozoma Saint John: “Sometimes, it’s not about changing the entire world. If you just look in your own backyard; if you just look in your own company, there are probably things you can do to help make a difference, even in employees’ lives, and that’s what’s most important now.” (Fortune)

  3. Just count. “I love this saying: ‘Math has no opinion.’ None. Just count,” she said. Counting will reveal that at all levels of corporate America, “people of color, black and brown Americans, underrepresented minorities, do not show up in the numbers in which we exist in this country.” The answer is to “hold ourselves accountable;” to “set targets like we set targets on everything else.” If that’s done, she said, “we would see this needle move because so much of this civil unrest is tied to economic inequality; that’s just a fact, and we need to move the needle on this economic inequality.” (CNBC)

[ADDED 6.26.20]

Example of real allyship:

Jennifer Hyman, CEO and co-founder of Rent the Runway shared a list of immediate / long term actions the company would take in response to the movement. I found it to be a solid example of real allyship from a brand, and here's why:

  1. She acknowledged that their industry - fashion - has “co-opted the style, inspiration, and ideas of Black culture without ensuring Black people are economically compensated for this.” 

  2. She took responsibility: “The fashion industry must do better – and we at Rent the Runway are responsible for being a part of this change.”

  3. She took a stand: “We believe that supporting Black business, Black designers, and Black talent is both in the fashion industry’s moral AND financial best interest.”

  4. Most importantly, she provided clear actions that demonstrated ownership: Allocating $1M for black designers through wholesale, platform and co-manufacturing initiatives, which includes providing design resources, data, mentorship and financial support to create collections for RTR. A significant portion of that $1M goes towards launching fashion brands from Black designers who have not had the investment capital to launch on their own. 

  5. Pledged: Rent the Runway was inspired by Aurora James’ #15PercentPledge - a push for retailers across the US to commit to buying 15% of their march from black-owned businesses. The concept of this push is rather simple: "We represent 15% of the population and we need to represent 15% of your shelf space." RTR committed that at least 15% of the fashion talent that they feature and support moving forward are from the Black community, inclusive of the models in their marketing, the ambassadors they use, and the styling talent, photographers, videographers and crews behind the camera. 

The full response details donations and internal D&I work as well. I found Jennifer's perspective on why to be refreshing:

0.png



Graphic is mine from a recent talk, feel free to re-use.




How do we move forward?

It requires us to first admit that there is harm in the performative wokeness I've laid out here. There are consequences for everyone involved in this situation - our brands, our shareholders, our stakeholders, and most importantly, the movement itself. Nobody wins.

Then, it requires organizations to move beyond corporate statements in addressing the systematic racism that Black Lives Matter seeks to address.

Hashtag activism makes it easy to feel like we’re helping. The real work is much harder.

I fully believe that the intention is there - leaders want to do the right thing for their business and many also want to leave the world better than when they found it. Through that admittedly hopeful lens, this is an opportunity.

Let's begin.

----

Every week-ish I send out new ideas, writings, and interesting links on marketing, business, and life. It’s free & curated by me. Get on the list.

Katie MartellComment