A growing number of young Americans are being attracted by products that carry political messages. It has helped US clothes company American Apparel come from nowhere just a few months ago to be this summer's must-wear brand. The cotton T-shirt and underwear manufacturer claims to be environmentally friendly and against cheap labor, and it actively promotes its "ground-breaking political mission" throughout its advertising. It's one of a new wave of youth brands starting to use politics to sell their wares and, according to new research out this week, more advertisers eager to attract younger consumers should be doing the same.
Cause-related marketing, of course, is nothing new: The Body Shop has been successfully selling itself on its ethical stance since the 1970s. What's different now, though, is that while issues such as animal testing or women's wellbeing relate directly to Body Shop's business and products, causes now being adopted by brands don't demonstrate any immediate link. Political activism, it seems, is starting to be used as the next youth marketing tool.
Take Polo Ralph Lauren, which is running a global campaign to encourage young people to volunteer their time and energy to support local good causes. It has even introduced GIVE jeans, donating a proportion of all revenue to volunteering charities.
The fashion brands Phat Farm and Drunknmunky are other examples. The first, launched by the so-called godfather of hip-hop Russell Simmons, founder of Def Jam Records, is a brand dedicated to campaigning for economic justice for black people. Drunknmunky promotes itself as leader of a crusade against the homogeneity of mass manufacturing; its advertising regularly features sub-culture anti-heroes, such as porn stars, as it attempts to get consumers to buy into its nonconformist values.
The trendy London fashion store Griffin, meanwhile, has worked with graffiti artist Banksy to hone its subversive credentials as part of its own anti-war campaign. He designed a logo for a T-shirt.
For some it's about boosting their brand's appeal by making them seem less establishment, more subversive. Some have even experimented with distributing stencils featuring cut-outs of their logos via Web sites, shops or magazines. These can then be used by more enthusiastic consumers to place images of the brand in unexpected places, including public spaces -- a tactic established by activist groups, although one for which brand owners could now be prosecuted in the UK if they attempt to directly "place" the images beyond official advertising hoardings.
More mainstream brands are also getting in on the act, although in subtler ways. Sony, Diesel and Puma have started to appropriate some of the communication tactics of political activists by taking their advertising out on to the streets, by emulating the look of flyposting in their legitimate ads, and by using typography or imagery inspired by graffiti.
Mates, the condom brand, recently ran a campaign around the theme of sexual encounters in public places, and distributed stickers for consumers to leave a physical mark in locations where they had "been." Another campaign, for the music downloading site Napster involved the company producing posters resembling flyposters for everyday products such as pet foods; it then sabotaged these ads by defacing them with its own logo.
Political advertising is no longer just about selling party politics, then. And, according to London-based trends analysts Headlight Vision, part of global marketing communications group WPP, it's here to stay. In fact, suggests the latest edition of D_Code -- the company's ongoing study tracking the attitudes and concerns of young consumers around the world -- "brand activism" is set to grow significantly.
The reason is simple, says Headlight Vision associate director Sandra Griffin. Many of today's 18-to-25 year-olds feel disenfranchised by established systems, especially politics, and yearn to be part of "something bigger". And brands can bridge the gap.
"The harsh reality of a world in turmoil has forced them to re- evaluate their priorities," she explains. "It has also raised their awareness of the problems they will face in the future, and the importance of establishing strong, meaningful connections with other people. There is a clear desire to be part of something -- whether that means joining an anti-establishment movement, or simply finding new forms of self-expression to stand out from the crowd and leave a mark." Brand owners able to tap into all this, Griffin adds, can only stand to gain.
Life's certainly tough for advertisers today. For a start, more and more big brand owners are admitting that traditional advertising no longer works. Roisin Donnelly, the UK marketing director of Britain's largest advertiser, Procter & Gamble, said last week that young people just don't believe in TV advertising any more, and advocated instead less traditional forms of marketing -- such as ambient, or street advertising -- to get young people talking about P&G products. The pressure is on, then, to find new ways for brands to stand out and have relevance in younger consumers' daily lives.
But is political activism in advertising really the answer?
"It's playing with fire," believes Andrew McGuinness, chief executive of the advertising agency TBWA London, whose clients include FCUK (the clothing brand French Connection UK).
"Unless every aspect of your business is true to a particular cause it could backfire, given how much information about how a company works, treats its employees or sources its raw materials that consumers have access to nowadays. You'd also need to beware of the polarization of opinion -- and consumers -- you might engender by using emotive issues, like abortion," he said.
Benetton, for one, suffered the full force of consumer backlash after using a series of often shocking images -- including one of a dying AIDS patient -- in advertising campaigns that ran throughout the 1990s.
"The clear danger is that people don't buy it aesthetically, or ideologically. Or that you end up looking like a vicar at a disco. Causes backfire: just ask Piers Morgan," says Jason Brownlee, head of Emap Insight which conducts consumer research for the magazine publisher, including the ongoing ROAR youth survey.
"Today's young consumers don't want to consume things that will do people harm. But whether they want to actively buy things that do good, I'm not sure," he adds. "It might work, however, if done locally -- like when Nike tried to regain lost ground working with underprivileged American kids, providing them with sports equipment.
"Actual experience of a brand's values is what really counts: that's what makes any stance or cause real and credible."
Political activism is serving some brands extremely well, however. "Being politically engaged is very trendy right now," says Marian Salzman, a US futurologist and executive vice president and chief strategy officer of ad agency Euro RSCG Worldwide. She cites current campaigns featuring P Diddy and Ben Affleck designed to woo young American voters to participate in the forthcoming US elections. "American Apparel has undoubtedly benefited in this environment, and its mission and politics is helping it become popular as an un-corporate Gap."
Sandra Griffin says that not every advertiser can get away with getting political.
"As brands take on aspects of activism they can become aspirational and, ultimately, fashionable," Griffin says. "The challenge then, of course, is how not to then end up looking insincere. But get it right and you could create a lot of positive energy around a brand."
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts