Live Issue... Brands find benefit in taking a stand

Can a manufacturer of hot drinks take a stand on political corruption? That’s the gist of Tata Tea’s ‘Jaago re’ (‘Wake up’) campaign, in which India’s leading tea brand takes an anti-corruption stance and aims to educate young people on the importance of voting.

The campaign is part of a trend for brands to piggyback on social causes. This is in part a development of the move toward corporate social responsibility (CSR); but just as importantly, there is now a body of case studies showing that it can work. Recently, the Times of India and Thai Life Insurance both gained recognition from Spikes Asia judges for campaigns based around social betterment.

Times of India picked up two Grand Prix for its ‘Teach India’ campaign, which sought to connect the country’s uneducated and highly-educated in a volunteer teaching programme. Meanwhile, Thai Life was awarded a Grand Prix for its ‘Melody of life’ campaign, part of an ongoing strategy to raise awareness of sensitive social issues as part of its branding.

Taking a moral stand can have significant benefits for both the brand and society. Lowe Indonesia’s country advisor Joseph Tan points to Indonesia’s biggest tobacco producer Sampoerna, which has positioned its A-Mild cigarette brand as a leading light in the struggle against political sleaze, having called, along with protestors, for the resignation of former president Suharto. Tan, who previously worked on A-Mild, claims the brand continues to be seen as “socially progressive”, having built on its early positioning with a string of ads using the line ‘No bullshit’. “It’s the only brand to have really propagated social betterment for Indonesia,” he says.

Some observers urge caution. Michael Wood, Leo Burnett’s Greater China CEO, states that a “fundamental link” between the brand’s values and the cause is essential. The risk is that brands appear insincere by being more concerned with “what the cause can do for the brand” rather than vice versa. “It’s a long walk from tea to anti-corruption,” he says. “If the link is tenuous, the brand really has to question its motives for getting involved with that social cause.”

However, Piyush Pandey, executive chairman and creative director of Ogilvy & Mather India and South Asia, argues that the connection is plausible, noting that Unilever followed a similar path with its A1 tea brand in the 90s, selling the product as a ‘strong tea with strong opinions’. He says it is important for brands considering adopting a social platform to refrain from becoming activists or appearing “holier than thou”: care should be taken to prevent the alignment from overshadowing the brand itself, he says.

“It’s important to remember that you are selling a product, brand or service at the end of the day, and if the message is not weaved in seamlessly, the chances are that people will just remember the message, not the brand,” agrees Santosh Padhi, creative head of Taproot.

Yet others see strong CSR involvement as essential if a brand is to achieve differentiation. “The difference between leading brands in most categories is pretty negligible,” says Joseph Baladi, chief executive of BrandAsian. “The only real way to achieve differentiation is to establish a relationship with customers emotionally. The big issue for brands in Asia is that this has to be done sincerely.”

Got a view?
Email [email protected]


This article was originally published in 22 October 2009 issue of Media.