on We are thrilled to share the Final Project that won the ‘best project’ award this year. Congrats to Meg Krugel for her work in creating more perfect Unions.
[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mabr/files/2021/06/FinalProject_LaborMovement_Krugel.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]
on Meg Krugel says yes, brands should be pro-union. Her white paper explains why.
[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/mabr/files/2021/06/WhitePaper_Krugel_Spring2021.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’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 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.
on Today’s post is from Haley Cruse.
Brand activism has been centered around Donald Trump and his administration throughout his entire presidency. Brand activism became political because taking a stand against any prominent issues meant taking a stand against Trump. Some brands might view the election of Joe Biden as a huge sigh of relief. They shouldn’t. It is not the time for brands to go back to the way things were. It is time for brands to reflect on their core values and purpose and to keep their promises by pushing to make these values a reality. Corporations need to do their part by holding the new administration accountable and by mobilizing their customers to do the same.
With Trump no longer in charge, it will be easier for companies to stand FOR something rather than stand AGAINST something. As was shown in the Black Lives Matter movement, merely standing for something is a nice gesture, but is not enough. Brands need to express their values through meaningful action. In order to do this authentically, it is important for brands to pick a lane of activism that is aligned with their values and purpose. Blanket statements mean nothing and are not accepted by the next generation of consumers. Brands need to prove their values by standing alongside marginalized communities in the fight for equality and by implementing sustainable practices for our planet.
Nike, for example, stood alongside Colin Kaepernick in the fight against police brutality that took the forefront during Trump’s presidency. Now that a new administration is preparing to enter office, Nike needs to fund activists that are working toward police reform and encourage their consumers to act on behalf of that goal. Other brands that changed their hiring practices to be more inclusive need to hold the Biden administration accountable in their pursuit to make the country a more welcoming place to everyone.
Brand responsibility has never been more important than it is now. The next generation of consumers seek service from companies that are involved and dedicated to helping their customers. Activism that is purpose-driven and reflective of core values is key to business success.
on Today’s post by Britnee Speice-Will
I’ve gone through many phases when it comes to my body image. I’ve struggled with being comfortable with my body, sometimes wishing it looked different. Many young women like me feel this way. Men, too. It can be hard to find confidence and self-love when most of the media portrays the “perfect” body.
Brands have the ability to help shift our perspective of ourselves. One brand that could contribute to this is Snapchat. I was on the app a few months ago, scrolling through the filters. As I was scrolling, I noticed a small “glitch” as I was swiping from filter to filter. A glitch that showed my realself, without the filter on it.
When I noticed the glitch, a common theme with the filters became apparent to me. Most Snapchat filters slimmed my face, made my nose smaller, enlarged my eyes and lips, and removed skin blemishes. Snapchat was normalizing a “perfect” look for users. For a moment, this left me feeling self-conscious and paying attention to my flaws.
According to the International OCD Foundation, there are about one in 50 people that have body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). People with BDD have repetitive and compulsive behaviors relating to their appearances, including constantly checking themselves in the mirror (NCBI). The term, “Snapchat Dysmorphia” was coined because people are losing perspective on what they actually look like after applying so many filters on social media (NCBI). The National Center for Biotechnology Information and WBUR state that many plastic surgeons have encountered patients that want to look like their filtered photos, enhanced versions of themselves that social media apps have helped them create.
Filters should be used as a fun social media tool (e.g., putting dog filters on your face, adding a flower crown), not making users feel self-conscious. Younger generations using Snapchat are still learning about themselves and are vulnerable. Snapchat should make the responsible decision to remove and ban filters that enhance one’s face in any unrealistic or “ideal” way.
Snapchat should join the body positivity movement, and empower young users to feel confident about their true selves.
Goldberg, C. (2019, January 25). In Selfie Era, Cosmetic Surgeons Confront ‘Snapchat Dysmorphia’. Retrieved November 16, 2020, from https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/01/25/selfie-filter-snapchat-dysmorphia
Phillips, K. (n.d.). Prevalence of BDD. Retrieved from https://bdd.iocdf.org/professionals/prevalence/
Ramphul, K., & Mejias, S. (2018, March 3). Is “Snapchat Dysmorphia” a Real Issue? Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5933578/