In today’s digital age, social media has become a dominant force in shaping public opinion and discourse. With the click of a button, individuals can share their thoughts and opinions with the world, making it easier for people to hold others accountable for their actions. It is essentially the great democratiser allowing everyone to voice their opinion.
This democratisation of opinions through social media can result in polarising extremes and stifle constructive debate. Social media becomes a battleground for extremists to shout their opinions without considering counterarguments, leading to division instead of healthy discussion. dentsu’s 2022 Consumer Connection Study shows that shows that whilst 80 per cent of the Irish population look at social media every week, only 28 per cent actively post every week.
Recent YouGov figures show that the fear of judgement or negative reactions has caused many Britons to hold back on expressing their political or social views, with 57 per cent saying they have censored themselves and a 2022 dentsu Pulse study revealed that 81 per cent of Irish are concerned about mass shaming on social media.
This increased accessibility to share opinions has given rise to what is now commonly referred to as cancel culture. The term refers to the practice of boycotting or shaming individuals or companies for their beliefs or actions deemed unacceptable or controversial by certain groups on social media.
Making products that are more relevant, more efficient and run smoother with less energy consumption
How your KitKat break is helping cocoa-farming families close the living income gap through an innovative programme
Renewable gas will power Ireland’s decarbonised future
All aboard: Ten great things to see and do in Heritage Week
The impact of cancel culture on free speech is a hotly debated topic. Some argue that the rise of social media has given a voice to marginalised communities, allowing them to speak out against injustices and hold individuals and companies accountable for their actions. This in turn has led to increased scrutiny of public figures, celebrities, and companies, who are now held to a higher standard than ever before. Others say that it has become a tool for silencing dissenting voices and stifling debate.
Social media algorithms also play a significant role in shaping public opinion and discourse by presenting users with content they are most likely to engage with. This creates so-called echo chambers, amplifying certain voices while suppressing others, resulting in a distorted view of reality and the spread of cancel culture.
Some argue that the rise of social media has given a voice to marginalised communities, allowing them to hold individuals and companies accountable for their actions
The onset of a social media storm and cancel culture depend on various factors coming together. Social movements take off, more often, due to a perfect storm of circumstances. Several things occur at the same time and generate the motion to drive a cause forward. Generally, they have three common elements: a newsworthy or shocking event; social media connecting people fast and allowing an idea or sentiment to spread in a flash; and an underlying issue or sentiment that has bubbled to the surface leading people to finally express their views.
From a brand perspective, the impact of cancel culture has had significant implications for future actions and engagement with potential consumers. Brands are facing greater accountability and have limited places to hide. This can be seen as positive, but as social norms change over time, what is acceptable today may not be in the future. There is a statute of limitations for criminal offences, but there seems to be no such forgiveness for art, music, entertainment, opinions or expressions.
A 2018 Edelman study showed that 64 per cent of consumers would buy or boycott a brand based solely on its stance on a social or political issue. Brands should also note that 60 per cent of consumers in the same survey wanted to see a brand’s values and positions on critical issues before making a purchase. More recently, the dentsu 2022 CCS report showed that, globally, 44 per cent of adults had stopped using a brand because of a company’s social or political stance; and that 45 per cent believe that cultural movements on social media such as #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo have a positive effect on society.
Pop Neuro, a neuromarketing blog on consumer psychology, explains the connection between consumer behaviour and brand actions as rooted in social identities. Consumers associate with brands and celebrities as a form of self-expression and, conversely, can also cancel them to express their own values. Therefore, brand behaviour matters to consumers, as it reflects their own self-perception and shared values.
Brands supporting the Pride movement with the use of the rainbow symbol have gained popularity in recent years. However, consumers are growing sceptical of tokenism and demand that a brand’s actions align with their declared support. Accusations of so-called rainbow capitalism are on the rise for companies that simply pay lip service to the cause without making tangible efforts to advance LGBTQ+ rights.
In late 2022, energy drink giant Red Bull faced criticism for a post on social media that was seen as insensitive to the LGBTQ+ community. The post, which featured a rainbow-coloured can of Red Bull, was criticised for co-opting the symbol of the LGBTQ+ community without showing support for its causes.
Brands must also consider the long-term effects of their actions, and they need to be sensitive to the current social climate. In 2022, Amazon faced criticism for an advertisement that appeared to downplay the role of organised labour in shaping working conditions and pay for workers. It depicted workers at Amazon as contented and well-compensated, while ignoring the reality of working conditions faced by many of the company’s employees.
Critics of the advertisement pointed out that Amazon has a long history of labour disputes and has been accused of treating its workers unfairly. In recent years, there has been a growing movement of workers at Amazon and other companies in the gig economy advocating for better pay and working conditions.
The advertisement was seen as tone-deaf because it ignored this context, and instead presented a rosy picture of working at Amazon that was at odds with the experiences of many of its employees. The backlash against it reflected a growing concern about the treatment of workers in the gig economy and a desire for companies to acknowledge and address the challenges faced by workers. In response to the criticism, Amazon eventually pulled the advertisement and issued a statement acknowledging the need to do more to support its workers.
Admitting and accepting responsibility for past wrongdoings can result in positive outcomes if handled properly. In 2020, L’Oréal Paris expressed support for Black Lives Matter in the wake of George Floyd’s death. However, model Munroe Bergdorf called out the brand’s hypocrisy, citing her 2017 firing over a Facebook post discussing white supremacy after the Charlottesville riots. Her words sparked a boycott, with followers promising not to purchase the brand again.
L’Oréal Paris’s brand president Delphine Viguier took immediate action. She hired Bergdorf to a diversity and inclusion advisory board, and donated $50,000 to a trans organisation and UK Black Pride. The president acknowledged the brand’s past shortcomings and took tangible steps to show they were working on being better.
Some brands are getting it right and aligning their actions with their values. For example, Ben and Jerry’s publicly supported #BlackLives Matter in 2020 and posted on the need to recognise and tackle “systemic and institutionalised racism” including a statement that denounced a “culture of white supremacy” in America. This stance was consistent with their position on the issue, which they had been promoting since 2014. In fact, Ben and Jerry’s has a long history of positive contribution to social and environmental issues, with 34 years of reporting on their progress in this area. In 2021, their annual donation to the non-profit foundation was more than $4.75 million.
Finally, cancel culture can drive change for brands as they become more aware of their social impact. The rebranding of products like Aunt Jemima, Mrs Butterworth’s and Uncle Ben’s shows that companies recognise their historical identities had negative connotations, and that they needed to change in response to social pressures.
With the ever-increasing impact of social media, if brands want to be vocal about social issues, or in fact connect with their consumers in a more intrinsic way, they need to get their houses in order and be authentic.