As consumers demand purpose, transparency, and authenticity from brands they buy into, and brands scrabble to stay relevant - is it our jobs as PR professionals to hold our clients to account on the truth of what they’re claiming?
Whether it’s in the space of race, environment, gender, or sexuality, there’s no getting away from the fact that brands have a huge impact on how we view and talk about charged topics. But when they talk about them inauthentically, an issue arises.
Sport washing, pinkwashing, greenwashing…think of a societal problem and put washing on the end of it and you have a snapshot of the backlash a lot of brands are facing when they dabble in themes they can’t back up in their own business.
There’s a balance between providing the authenticity customers crave and jumping on the bandwagon to steal some of the power of that Twitter hashtag that’s trending.
And what’s our role in this? And more importantly, what should it be?
We’ve created agency identities that purport to be the witty, challenging, smart, outgoing, engaging friend who everyone invites to parties and asks for advice on what to wear and who to date. We help others look good and feel good. However, with this power, should come some responsibility, shouldn’t it?
There are many excellent communicators, empaths and progressives in our industry who in their own way want to change the world. I myself have historically believed that through some of the work we do, we’re nudging the needle of big corps, businesses and audiences in the right direction. The nose leading the head, then asking the body to follow. But that approach is beginning to feel a little naïve.
Over the last year, more and more campaigns that we all loved at the time have turned out to be hollow. The result is public shaming, brands being ‘cancelled’ or even sued. It would appear this is as much a moral issue now as a business (or legal) one.
Can we afford to blindly trust the intention of a brand’s marketing department telling us the company we work on is of course sustainable / ethical / diverse? Should we be asking for proof of that before we convince journalists and the public of it? Does that due diligence fall to us?
For me, the answer is yes.
I’d love to see an industry-wide implementation of something like - to borrow an idea from the English Premier League - a fit and proper person’s test, where there are criterion businesses have to meet in order to speak about certain issues.
Only through putting these benchmarks in place can we be an industry making change rather than talking about change. Of reducing the problem, rather than unwittingly adding to it.