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."
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS