Brand Activism or Brand Suicide?

According to Edelman’s 2023 trust barometer report, 63% of young people want brands to reflect their values and have a greater purpose. Should every brand have a soul? Is corporate morality just a myth? When brands take sides, are they winning hearts or committing suicide?

From Safaricom to Bud Light, brands that step into social or political debates are discovering a harsh truth: for every applause, there’s an angry boycott waiting.

This article attempts to explore whether brands should take ideological positions and if the rewards outweigh the risks. But why even risk it?

Why Brands Risk It

Data informs most decisions that marketers make when attaching ideological positions to brands. I mean it's pretty clear from multiple data sources that Gen Z especially wants brands to play larger social roles and would buy from brands that share their beliefs and values. Accenture did a study on this titled ‘From me to we: The rise of the purpose-led brand’, which details that 63% of people prefer to buy from brands that take a stand on social issues.

And there are some pretty great successes to back this too:

Colin Kaepernick started kneeling during national anthems to protest racial injustice and police brutality in America. This drew a lot of condemnation, including from the US president Donald Trump. Nike, however, capitalized on this controversy and stood with Kaepernick to launch a campaign taglined “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”

That stand saw Nike sales spike by 31% towards the end of 2018. Huge win for Nike.

The people voted with their wallets to support Nikes Ideological position to stand for racial justice, which builds a case that people really do want brands to share their values more intimately.

The rewards can be great.

Then why do some ideological positions fall flat? Could it be a lack of genuineness on the brand side? Brands that take advantage of ongoing social situations to drive sales without having a genuine stand on anything?

Like LEGO?

When Brands Take Fake Ideological Positions.

LEGO is a great case study of an opportunistic brand that saw the LGBTQ wave and hopped on it, not for conviction but for profits.

Around 2021, LEGO launched the “Everyone is awesome” campaign which was a hit within the community and saw almost double digit growth in sales. Retailers reported huge preorders mostly from collectors and community members.

Fast-forward to 2025, LEGO has deleted all words around diversity, LGBTQ and inclusion from its corporate vocabulary, most likely to align with the policies of the new Trump administration, which is cracking down on DEI projects across America. 

LEGO's official statement on the LGBTQ, diversity and inclusion scrub from its 2024 report was: “Every year we review and adapt our reporting to ensure it complies with the latest requirements and reflects our plans and results.” 

Literal translation: We kinda go with the vibe.

What happens when brands take sides?

There is a school of thought that younger people connect with brands that share their own belief systems. While belief systems are more diverse than ever, the most polarizing issues tend to revolve around a few: LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, minority rights, and politically charged social causes.

For example, the Genz uprising in Kenya can be considered as a social issue, but it kind of swings on the political side. They were against punitive taxes and corruption in government, but they were not seeking political power; they were simply fighting for reforms of things that affected their social status in society.

Brands that were seen to have intentionally supported the government were subjected to boycott and negative publicity during these protests, dubbed the Gen Z protests.

Case study 1: Safaricom(Kenya)

Safaricom, where the government holds a 30% stake, has always been seen as a pro-government organisation and this stems from two issues. The first one is because they were seen to be complicit in kidnappings across the country by allowing the government agents access to the location information of activists that the government was targeting. Some of these activists ended up dead. Secondly, at the height of the GenZ protests, it is believed they switched off the internet; they claimed it was due to cable cuts, but public opinion was that it was a switch off.

This is not the first time though, Safaricom has come across such cases. There was a call from the opposition politicians a few years back for the boycott of Safaricom services after a disputed election where it was alleged that Safaricom was again complicit in enabling voter fraud by interfering with vote transmission. Safaricom ofcourse has denied all these.

Safaricom has not been deeply affected by these cases though, because they enjoy a monopoly-like control of the Kenya telco scene, but still there was so much uptake of Starlink during this window to the extent they started lobbying parliament to regulate the spread of Starlink.

Case Study: Bud Light (USA)

Bud Light is perhaps the most comical in my recent observations. Started initially with Bud Light sponsoring a post by LGBTQ activist Dylan Mulvaney. When they got backlash from conservative consumers, they initially gave an explanation on how they engage with influencers but soon panicked because of massive boycotts and threw their creator under the bus and with that they ended up pissing both sides off.

Some believe that Bud Light was historically a cheap popular beer in gay bars however, Bud Light has always been the bro thing- a typical consumer is a manly man, likely the dude in school who called anyone in a pink shirt gay. That's the average, Bud Light, dude.

CNN reported that Anheuser-Busch InBev, Bud Lite manufacturer, lost over $1.4 billion in sales over the scandal and the company had to put executives responsible for the campaign on leave.

Case Study: Jaguar (USA)

Well, to set the tone for Jaguar’s case, let me start by mentioning that they fired their agency, Accenture Song, which did the scandalous rebrand regarded as the biggest automatic campaign flop in recent history.

Again, it was a case of tapping into the progressive agenda and aligning brand to something that fell in the spectrum of inclusivity. 

Jaguars' rebrand is now apparently about to get a rebrand.

Case Study: Coca-Cola (Gaza boycott)

When the Muslim world felt that the force used by Israel on the people of Gaza was disproportionate, they started a boycott of major brands that they felt were supporting the occupation. One of the brands of note is Coca-Cola. All my Muslim friends I have are following this boycott and have not had Coke since the war started.

Interesting thing is Coca-Cola has not come out overtly to support Israel, in fact they have tried to run a campaign to distance themselves from Israel in South Africa, which was a major flop. It's just an association people have made between Israel and Coca cola that has lasted years.

Coca-Cola is never shaking that off.

But Coca-Cola is trying to be sneaky about getting Muslims back to coke and that is through the reactivation of the “Share a Coke” campaign. This is the campaign where they have names on the bottles and cans.

Next time you are at the supermarket, take note, for every 10 bottles of Coke on the shelf, 6 are Muslim names. So if someone is going to avoid the purchase of Coke on principle, likely they would reconsider if their name is on the bottle. I know it's working because I was having a good laugh with a muslim friend the other day; How she bought a Coke after a while because she found a bottle with her name on it, and she could not let that pass.

I have no idea how it's working out on a grand scale. Being an ex-agency and knowing the data, thinking and strategy that goes into Coke campaigns, I am sure it's pushing sales numbers for them.

But the reactivation of the campaign must have been occasioned by some huge plunge in sales.

Case Study: Elon Musk & Tesla

Elon musk was instrumental in the election of Donal Trump, he went all in and Washington post reports he donated a total of $288 million to Trump's campaign.

Post campaign, as head of DOGE, he was instrumental in shutting down agencies that were very popular among the liberal audiences, but all these have come at a personal price for Elon and his companies. He kind of must have predicted how this would turn out. I don't think the Trump base is the kind to buy electric cars, they strike me as the type who get turned on just looking at a diesel Ford F-150. The liberals who are more conscious of the environment and predominantly democratic are more likely to be the buyers of electric cars.

Tesla stock took a 50% plunge between December 2024 and March 2025, wiping out over $800 billion in market value, now those are some numbers that gets the attention of the richest man in the world, he soon after announced he would take a back seat from DOGE earlier than planned to focus on growing the company.

Conclusion

All these scenarios beg the question: Is taking ideological positions worth the risk for brands? 

I don't think I care about a brand's ideological position, especially if their goal is to sell me a soft drink or a loan or whatever. Brands are built to make money and expecting human-like values for a unit built to maximise profit is asking a little bit too much. They are built to do what sells more of their stuff and positions are based on that, not out of genuine care.

I also believe humans have short memory spans which gives leeway for brands to experiment and be able to walk back screw ups. Tesla stock is recovering as I write this, Bud Light is doing okay and Safaricom this month announced $3 billion in revenue. It's highest, ever.

One of my favourite lines by Eminem goes “cause we need a little controversy, coz it feels so empty without me.” Attracting a little controversy can mean good business and create viral moments like it did for LEGO and I do feel silence can be seen as complicity and brands feel compelled to play the game.

It makes sense, though, for marketers to assess and attach to causes that do not offend their core audience. In Elons case he pissed off his core audience while warming up to an audience that is unlikely to buy electric cars.

Ideology sells, until it doesn’t. Brands walk a fine line between connection and cancellation. The real question isn’t whether brands can take a stand. It’s whether they should and at what cost.