Cannes, LGBTQ+ advertising, and a more complex, nuanced approach to brand purpose….this weeks column.
you just spreading gay propaganda, you force it
You weren't paying attention while I was talking about my collection of 3D-printed toasters! 😱
It always surprises me how difficult people still find this conversation 🤯
I guess the question is if you want to "do" purpose for the purpose of purpose and accept that it has zero effect OR you prefer to allocate resources on something that is commercially oriented . For me it's the latter.
Yeah, but no. Performative diversity is bollocks, just like performative anything is. It’s a quick sugar hit. But the idea that talking to communities who feel excluded from your category narrative isn’t valuable is nonsense. We live in a world where category after category is static and involved in expensive share wars. So what happens if you bring in people who otherwise feel excluded? They feel it’s too macho? Too girly? It doesn’t work for people who are differently abled? Older people feel estranged? Take your pick. Inclusivity is an engine of growth, and should be an engine of innovation. Invite more people to your category and your brand. Make them feel welcome and able to buy.
Mark thank you 🙏 and also to note, the System1 Ad Ratings data shows there is a significant uplift in effectiveness amongst the representated audience…. So no negative effect, uplift in both feeling seen and effectiveness and you lose a few bigots too which is great
Finally - some robust analysis that moves us beyond slapping a rainbow on it and goes into the precarious position marketers sit in today. I would be curious to see the same analysis run on when an advert's protagonist in the UK is someone who is non-white, as the current sentiment seems to be that what's on-screen has become 'too diverse', which is of course code for 'too Brown / Black'. This is a direct result of challenging conversations between clients and agencies about casting decisions, which is always too late in the game for robust decision-making. But until then, thanks Mark, Tamara and Andrew for a proper analysis of inclusion. Great to see.
Interesting musings as ever from the always readable Mark Ritson. We have finally evolved the idea of 'brand purpose' from being something that actively boosts a brand's performance - hence the cynical tendency for brands to jump on the bandwagon of progressive causes. Expressing your support for a progressive cause shouldn't be a commercial decision - it won't drive sales, despite self-serving research studies proclaiming that Gen-whatever will only buy brands that have a purpose. Equally, as Ritson explains, it won't affect sales. Brands are products of the societies in which they operate, and we are fortunate to live in a world (at least in the UK) in which 'progressive' attitudes towards gender, sexuality, race, human and animal rights, environmental issues etc. are widely shared. Brand owners should express their support for causes if they genuinely believe that it is the right thing to do, for their employees, customers and wider society.
Founder of MediaSync | Demand Generation | Content Strategy | Growth Marketing | Marketing Strategist | Deep Marketing Generalist and Fractional CMO
1moyou say why not. But why yes? If it doesn't change the situation, and buyer situations are the same, why not spend the effort on 91% of the population who are the bigger and stronger market than then 9%.