Mia Hill Media

By: Mia Hill

an Interview with Jeff Hirsch

Just as American individuals are entitled to their political beliefs and opinions, brands are entitled to their views. The only question is whether brands should express those beliefs or sit quietly in the background. Studies show that consumers are often loyal to brands that closely align with their values (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2002; Forehand, Deshpandé & Reed, 2003). Consumers often make major decisions based on their political beliefs, such as who their friends are, where to send their children to school, what neighborhood they live in, etc. (Alford, et al., 2011; Baldassarri & Gelman, 2008 ; Brooks & Manza, 1997). One study evaluated the 2014 Coca-Cola campaign, “America the Beautiful,” that showcased the different ethnicities that encompass America (Hoewe, 2017). The study found that when conservative individuals with high brand loyalty to Coke viewed the campaign that showed Muslim and Arab individuals, they abandoned Coke and chose Pepsi instead (Hoewe, 2017). When asked whether brands should worry about losing loyal customers when taking political stances, Jeff Hirsch, Founder, and President of Right Brain Studio said that “Brands shouldn’t think that hard about who they’re alienating if their messaging and marketing is consistent with their values… I would strongly advise [clients] to stay true to who they are and don’t worry about losing those customers because they are going to lose those customers anyway.” Other researchers echo this sentiment that company values should be exact, and messaging should be consistent both intrinsically and extrinsically (Spring et al., 2018). Meaning, the values you have for your company and employees should be the same ones you uplift in consumer brand messaging. 

Some brands may be concerned with brand messaging that doesn’t fit the status quo of the times. Hirsch explained even brands that have more progressive beliefs should stick to their values. Because as society evolves, more and more people will align with the company’s beliefs. Therefore, it’s more of a long-term gain instead of focusing on the short-term. 

Studies have even found that 48% of consumers believe CEOs who take stances for activism can influence the government (Weber, 2018). When asked whether he believes that CEOs should take political stances, he said, “I think CEOs have to take stances on issues … Anything that CEOs do to advance the values of the company and what it stands for to bond with the bulk of their targets is probably a good thing. However, a 2018 study found that Americans are divided on whether or not CEOs are responsible for speaking up on important issues and whether they should take a stance (Weber, 2018). However, one study found that Americans want brands to take a stand on important issues (Oster, 2018). Hirsch believes that brands are very powerful even though studies have shown that most consumers don’t believe brands have the ability to change the minds of their consumers (Weber, 2018). Hirsch believes that brands have the ability to create change when they have consistent, unified messaging and can leverage that power to build relationships with the customers. 

However, what happens when consumers are skeptical of brands that practice cause-related marketing? One study found that consumer skepticism can be reduced if companies are open about company-serving motivations as well as public-serving motivations (Bae, 2017). Hirsch believes you can mitigate a lot of skepticism by being authentic, honest, and transparent with consumers. In his fieldwork at the Pride Parade in Los Angeles, many people expressed that it’s not what brands say, but what they do. Meaning that when expressing solidarity for a cause such as Gay Rights, brands shouldn’t stop at merely redesigning their logo to rainbow colors. The company should be actively practicing inclusivity in all ways, such as how they treat their employees and giving to the cause, and making significant donations. It’s the classic if you’re going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.

Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2011). The politics of mate choice. Journal of Politics, 73(2), 362–379. doi:10.1017/S0022381611000016 

Bae, M. (2018). Overcoming skepticism toward cause-related marketing claims: The role of consumers’ attributions and a temporary state of skepticism. Journal of Consumer Marketing., 35(2), 194-207.

Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408–446. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1010098 

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609 

Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (1997). Social cleavages and political alignments: US presidential elections, 1960 to 1992. American Sociological Review, 62(6), 937–946. 

Forehand, M. R., Deshpandé, R., & Reed, II, A. (2002). Identity salience and the influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1086–1099. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1086 

Hoewe, J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2017). Brand loyalty Is influenced by the activation of political orientations. Media Psychology, 20(3), 428-449.

Oster, E. (2018). Majority of consumers want brands to take a stand on social and political issues according to a new study. Ad Week.

Weber Shandwick. (2018). CEO activism in 2018.