What Bud got right that Nike did not
MavenMagnet presented exclusive data at Advertising Week on Wednesday that highlights how brands should react to the tense political environment in the US.
The marketing analytics company studied the reaction of British consumers to two distinct campaigns from brands in reaction to President Trump’s proposed immigration ban earlier this year: Budweiser’s television ad that highlighted the beer company’s immigration roots and Nike’s more direct campaign that included an open letter opposing the policy.
In short, Budweiser’s campaign was a win, while Nike’s was not – even though both companies were on the same side of the issue. MavenMagnet assessed that Budweiser garnered a positive “net vibe” of 32%, while Nike saw a negative net vibe of 17%.
The “Born the Hard Way” TV spot traced the immigrant roots of Budweiser’s founder, interweaving the immigration debate with the brand in an authentic way, MavenMagnet CEO Aditya Ghuwalewala said. It drove positive association for the brand while maintaining a safe distance from political and cultural mudslinging.
But Nike’s open letter was far more direct and prompted negative reaction from President Donald Trump and his supporters. It also prompted conversations about Nike’s working conditions around the world, sparking social media posts that included the word “hypocrisy,” and questions around why Nike’s ads focused on African Americans when the America’s immigrants are more diverse.
The findings echo larger conversations happening at Advertising Week about accountability. The lesson for marketers is clear, says MavenMagnet’s Cleve Langton.
“Basically, if you’re going to take a stand, make sure you clean up your own house before you start commenting on somebody else,” he said.
Ambreen Ali is an editor at SmartBrief. You can follow her live tweets from Advertising Week @sbosm.