Is it fair for an investor’s political views to impact on a company’s brand? That’s the question raised by the news that Gail’s, the bakery bellwether of gentrification, has been boycotted by activist residents of Walthamstow, seemingly partially due to the fact of Gail’s minority investor’s views on Brexit and Covid lockdowns.
Like it or not, we are living in an increasingly polarised world. For years marketers have sought to implore brands to create a ‘personality’, to share their ‘values’ and to profess their ‘identities’, through customer, social and traditional media engagement. Increasingly brand personas are shaped by concurrent political and social mores. The trouble comes when the virtues a company (or now investor) signals are not shared by the discerning end purchaser.
It strikes me that the political views of an investor in a hitherto successful business selling bread and buns to the affluent should not have to temper his lawfully-held beliefs for fear of affecting the commercial interests of his partially-owned company – provided he has not sought to foist those beliefs on consumers. Afterall, the Walthamstow warriors’ stance suggests that they would expect to examine the political views of, say, all John Lewis’ owners (including its staff) before exercising their buying choices at its partnership’s stores. While the Gail’s challenge is wrapped up as an impassioned defence of independent stores, Luke Johnson’s personal views were specifically referenced in a local barista’s objections. And what if a leader’s beliefs change over time, as we are told has happened in relation to many a Brexit vote?
In a week in which we’ve seen a campaign highlighting Prince William’s hypocrisy for earning from car dealers renting his Duchy of Cornwall land, while being the creator of the environmental Earthshot prize, and Starbucks having to change CEO partly due to customer fall-out over the company’s perceived support for Israel in the Gaza conflict, it is clear that business leaders’ political stance and ESG considerations increasingly collide.
For communicators this poses ongoing challenges. Who is the arbiter of views held by businesspeople, as to whether they are sufficiently acceptable so as not to impact turnover? It’s undoubtedly consumers, but smart comms advisers will spot impending trouble if consulted in time. Balanced decisions can then be made between risk and reward.
Humanising a brand and helping it evolve with the zeitgeist can make it more accessible – but companies enter the shark infested waters of certain debates at their peril – which is why the savvy will have boundaries on their owners’ public engagement. There’s one simple rule these days – if you do make your political views widely known, it risks commercial and often professional consequences.
That said, some brands will take the Millwall approach and care little for the views of those who are not already supporters. Others, however, in a keenly-competitive market place, may well think twice about receiving investment from entities or individuals known to hold polarising views.
In short, if you look to portray a persona, you have to live by all that that stands for, or risk deterring consumers whilst disappointing existing ones too.
I’m just left wondering, in the game of virtues, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Written by Melanie Riley, Managing Director.
