on Julia Gesink takes a deep dive into the restaurant industry and plastic waste in today’s White Paper.
[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mabr/files/2021/06/GesinkJulia_WhitePaper.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]
on In today’s White Paper, Nicole Chan investigates the raw materials that influence sustainability in fashion.
[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mabr/files/2021/06/Chan-Nicole_White-Paper-2021.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]
on Can a responsible brand thrive on Tiktok? What exactly is TikTok, anyway? MABR student Payton Coon investigates the TikTok phenomenon today.
[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mabr/files/2021/06/Whitepaper-Final-1.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]
on Today on the blog, Haley Justus explains how Gen Z is likely to change fast fashion forever.
[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mabr/files/2021/06/fashions_failings.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]
on Today’s white paper is by MABR student Hannah Reinhardt and focuses on how responsible brands can fight societal taboos to bring important issues into the spotlight. Hannah shares stories of brands bringing topics such as feminine hygiene, depression, and people with disabilities into the public discourse.[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mabr/files/2021/06/Stigma-Fighters_-White-Paper-.doc” download=”all” viewer=”microsoft”]
on Today we kick off our white paper showcase. We start with a piece by Nathan Clark, whose white paper addresses the decline of Black athletes in Major League Baseball, what it means for the MLB brand, and what they can do to address this. This is important work given MLB’s engagement in the fight against voter suppression–let’s see if they can continue to fight for diversity and equity in baseball.[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mabr/files/2021/06/White-Paper-MLB.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]
on After the horrific events of January 6, 2021, many wondered what brands would do. Some warned brands on social media not to engage in this event, that any type of message would be seen as completely inappropriate. Some of these doing the warning are seen as very smart strategic communicators.
Luckily, brands didn’t listen.
Historically, brands keep their political donations pretty quiet, and many brands donate to both parties in a ‘hedging one’s bets’ strategy. That is why it is interesting to see brands stepping up to condemn the insurgence and the lawmakers who voted against certifying results. And they’re using the power of the purse to do it.
The New York Times has been tracking the brands that are stopping donations to any Republican who did not vote to certify the results of the free and fair election of Joe Biden. Some of these brands include WalMart, Marriott, Blue Cross/Blue Shield,
Other brands have paused all political donations to PACs. This list includes Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, AT&T and Coca Cola. Many brands have their own PACs, and corporate PACs account for about 5% of donations, as donations are capped at $5000. Charles Schwab announced they were doing away with their corporate PAC after the insurgence.
Tracking brands’ and corporations’ political donations is not easy, and so it is a positive move to see companies clearly stating what they won’t do in the future (keep in mind that many companies are not committing to never donating again). And one could argue that it’s too late to erase the damage their contributions have done to date.
At the same time, I have to see these brands as courageous—in such a crazy time, making any type of political statement could put a brand in harms’ way. And at a minimum, companies are rethinking their roles–and obligations–in the political sphere. That could lead to some real change. We’ll see.
on Today’s post is from Makenna Crocker.
Something I’ve paid attention to throughout the last year has not only been the way in which a brand responds to a social issue, but how quick they are to make a statement about it. With issues like the Black Lives Matter movement, COVID-19, the US presidential election and more, it seems obvious that brands should feel the need to be part of the conversation but some may not know where they stand.
Following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the nationwide protests and riots that pursued, some brands were quick to release statements on the issue. Nike put out a video from Wieden + Kennedy Portland that spoke on the issue of racism with a change of their slogan to “For Once, Don’t Do It”. Disney, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and the NFL were all quick to speak on the issue as well.
Ad Age now has a regularly updated blog that tracks “brands’ responses to racial injustice”. It sheds light on what marketers, agencies, and media companies are doing to stand against racism and for racial equality.
I assume a lot of the hesitation regarding making statements or content around these issues would be the risk of not saying the right thing; brands may be worried about being too political and losing customers as well. They may also feel that some issues don’t apply to them. For instance, clothing companies might feel disengaged with political topics, and artists may feel they don’t belong in conversations about climate change. SAAS (software as a service) companies might not feel like their stance on racial injustice matters to their audience. The list goes on. While the connection between some of these issues and various companies isn’t always a direct cause and effect, where businesses stand on these issues matters. We as consumers are listening. We care. Silence is not a safety net.
Brands should take note on what the above companies have done in response to these issues, but should also be prepared to make their own statements without always waiting to follow suit. Rather than holding off to see how other companies in the industry respond to social issues, brands should know where they stand and be vocal and prompt about their response. This stems from having a strong brand identity and core company values that do not silence when the threat of losing business is at stake. The social and ethical responsibility of a brand as an entity that impacts this world is much larger than their ability to sell products, and we as consumers want transparency, accountability, and to know that brands care above all.
on Today’s opinion is from Tara Wulf.
“If its not broke, don’t fix it”
“Take the easiest path”
“Avoid touchy subjects”
…
These statements are typical of many brands, and may have gotten them far…enough, until now. Contrary to the past, the bare minimum is not enough anymore for brands. With the global pandemic and essential social justice reforms, it is more important than ever for brands across the globe to step up to these “touchy subjects”, take a stand, and use words backed by action. According to PR News on a recent Sprout Social survey, “fifty-five percent of 1,000 consumers surveyed said they ‘expect brands to take a stance that goes beyond corporate statements and monetary donations…”. This means that public statements are needed and essential, but a brand must also show physical action behind their words. Furthermore, according to the Customer Insight Group, 66% of consumers sat they would switch from a product they normally use to a brand with a purpose. This is important for brands to take into account, in that their long-term business prosperity is majorly dependent on their purpose, not just their product.
In the last couple of months, some brands rushed to make immediate statements in regards to social justice, while others waited too long. In both decisions, each have their downfalls if the brand they have already built lack a previous foundation of lived-out values for social and community good. In the case of rushing to make a statement, brands can come across as inauthentic. Likewise, silence portrays complicity with the situation at hand. In my opinion, brands can no longer hide behind a curtain of comfort. There is no neutral ground for brands to take. They can either move forward in the right direction with clear, valuable action steps, or spiral down if they continue to spew empty words. Every company needs to evaluate their core values, mission, and purpose in order to dive in to how and what they can further do to take a stand, make a change, and live out a purposeful brand.
on Today’s post is from Michael Hampton.
Often we look to our governments for answers, a historic sanction of power hinged not on heuristics of availability, but facts. At least we thought such. In recent years, we’ve found our own government pushing against irrefutable truths, issues involving climate change effects, racial injustice, and imbalanced opportunity. An unfortunate reality. So, when our own leaders purport false claims and ideologies, whom do we turn to next? Who is left to be arbiter amidst arrogance?
As a country outlined in “by the people, for the people”, we’ve had to look to new guards for future security, citizens that have utilized their means to fulfill a purpose beyond individualistic pursuit. Within the recent election and its “build-up”, we’ve already witnessed a discernable focus on fact-checking entities, with examples including Politifact, Snopes, and FactCheck.org. Bolstered by investigators whose purpose is to draw honest lines through false sand, we have some idea for what truth has become. Even among these champions of transparency, a deeper problem weave between them. An article published by The Atlantic covered a study looking at fake news circulation and its parallel to accurate journalism stories and found daunting implications. Where Russian bots or domestic agents of chaos could be mistaken originators, misinformation’s true heartbeat has its pulse in the American people. Meyer, the article’s author, articulates best this understanding in writing that, “[the] authors found that accurate news wasn’t able to chain together more than 10 retweets. Fake news could put together a retweet chain 19 links long—and do it 10 times as fast as accurate news put together its measly 10 retweets” (Meyer, 2018). It’s now made clear that false information finds believers better, based on message content, emotional charge, and timing. However, we still do not have an answer to what can mitigate this trend.
Without truth, what hope is there for reality itself. We ourselves, humans, have evinced a design that is holds clause for self-defeat. Where the hard understandings are ugly and cruel when we stare at them in the face, before choosing to either turn away or continue looking. So, we find ourselves now asking constantly: What is truth?
Citation(s):Meyer, Robinson. “Huge MIT Study of ‘Fake News’: Falsehoods Win on Twitter.” The Atlantic, The Atlantic, 8 Mar. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/largest-study-ever-fake-news-mit-twitter/555104/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2020.