I started The CMO Survey in 2008 with the mission to collect and disseminate the opinions of top marketers in order to predict the future of markets, track marketing excellence, and improve the value of marketing in firms and in society. Since February 2018, I have been tracking marketing leaders’ response to the following question: “Do you believe it is appropriate for your brand to take a stance on politically-charged issues?” At that time, only 17.4% replied “yes”—a response that has risen only slightly to 18.5% in the February 2020 survey (The CMO Survey 2018, 2020). There is heterogeneity in company responses, with 40% of retail/wholesale companies and 33% of tech companies responding “yes.” Likewise, bigger companies, measured by annual sales revenues of over $500 million and companies with more of their sales revenue over the internet, responded “yes” at 44% and 26% rates, respectively. My data only go back two years, so longer trends cannot be discerned. However, you might say this reflects a tepid interest in brand activism, despite many high-profile instances, such as campaigns by Dick’s Sporting Goods, Nike, and Patagonia. Thinking about these results, my team of MBA students supporting the survey worried that the question may be too broad and that we might get a more accurate portrait of what is happening if we describe a set of specific actions that could be characterized as “political activism” and get responses for each. To that end, we asked, “Which of the following types of political activism do you think are appropriate for your brand?” in February 2020. Results are shared in Table 1. These figures look more impressive in scale than the overall percentages reported previously. I think the most surprising result is that 47% of marketing leaders report that it is appropriate to “make changes to products and services in response to political issues.” This indicates more risk taking than originally thought. Risky because product and service changes are likely to affect the very core of the company’s business. Frankly, I expected this indicator to be in last place. Looking at differences, business-to-consumer (B2C) product companies are the most likely to believe this is appropriate (61.5%), followed by B2C services (55.6%)— business-to-business (B2B) services think it is least appropriate (35%). The overall figures appear credible because they are consistent with another data point from the February 2020 survey that asked respondents to “Check all of the actions your company is likely to take in order to reduce the negative impact of its marketing-related activities on the ecological environment.” In response, 73% of marketing leaders reported their companies are likely to “change their products and/or services.” Why is this number so high, and why does it appear to contradict the “yes/no” question? I do not see these numbers as a contradiction. Instead, I think that the more specific choices allow marketing leaders to see political activism more concretely and perhaps on a spectrum of riskiness, which helps them understand how vague and scary ideas of “activism” might apply to their companies. This operational or “workbench” quality appears to translate into more acceptance of these types of behaviors. It was also interesting to see “Allowing employees to speak out on political issues” with 53% approval. This strategy is, in my view, lower risk. Thus, it is not surprising that it is at the top of the list. The upside of this strategy is it allows companies to test the water around a topic. Furthermore, as uncovered in the 2018 survey, 70% of marketing leaders agree that political activism has a positive effect on “my company’s ability to attract and retain employees.” Encouraging employees to participate using social media is, therefore, not only a trial balloon; it is a human capital strategy in its own right. However, it does make the company vulnerable to random and possibly volatile employee actions, which may be inhibiting this rating from achieving an even higher level.

中文翻译：

---

评论：政治世界中的品牌行动主义

我于 2008 年开始了 CMO 调查，其使命是收集和传播顶级营销人员的意见，以预测市场的未来、跟踪营销卓越性并提高营销在公司和社会中的价值。自 2018 年 2 月以来，我一直在跟踪营销领导者对以下问题的回答：“您认为您的品牌在政治问题上采取立场是否合适？” 当时，只有 17.4% 的人回答“是”——在 2020 年 2 月的调查（2018 年、2020 年 CMO 调查）中，这一比例仅略微上升至 18.5%。公司的回答存在异质性，40% 的零售/批发公司和 33% 的科技公司回答“是”。同样，年销售收入超过 5 亿美元的大公司和销售收入更多来自互联网的公司，分别以 44% 和 26% 的比例回答“是”。我的数据只能追溯到两年前，因此无法辨别更长的趋势。然而，您可能会说这反映了对品牌激进主义的不温不火的兴趣，尽管有许多引人注目的例子，例如 Dick's Sporting Goods、耐克和巴塔哥尼亚的活动。考虑到这些结果，我的支持调查的 MBA 学生团队担心这个问题可能过于宽泛，如果我们描述一组可以被称为“政治激进主义”的具体行动，我们可能会更准确地描述正在发生的事情。 ”并获得每个人的回应。为此，我们问：“您认为以下哪些类型的政治激进主义适合您的品牌？” 2020 年 2 月。结果见表 1。这些数字在规模上看起来比之前报告的总体百分比更令人印象深刻。我认为最令人惊讶的结果是 47% 的营销领导者表示“为了应对政治问题而改变产品和服务”是合适的。这表明承担的风险比原先想象的要多。有风险，因为产品和服务的变化可能会影响公司业务的核心。坦率地说，我预计这个指标会排在最后。从差异来看，企业对消费者 (B2C) 产品公司最有可能认为这是合适的 (61.5%)，其次是 B2C 服务 (55.6%)——企业对企业 (B2B) 服务认为这是最不合适的适当 (35%)。总体数据似乎可信，因为它们与 2020 年 2 月调查中的另一个数据点一致，该调查要求受访者“检查贵公司可能采取的所有行动，以减少其营销相关活动对生态的负面影响”。环境。” 作为回应，73% 的营销领导者表示他们的公司可能会“改变他们的产品和/或服务”。为什么这个数字如此之高，为什么它似乎与“是/否”问题相矛盾？我不认为这些数字是矛盾的。相反，我认为更具体的选择可以让营销领导者更具体地看待政治激进主义，也许在风险范围内，这有助于他们了解“激进主义”的模糊和可怕的想法可能适用于他们的公司。这种操作性或“工作台”质量似乎转化为对这些类型行为的更多接受。看到“允许员工就政治问题发表意见”获得 53% 的支持也很有趣。在我看来，这种策略风险较低。因此，它位于列表的顶部也就不足为奇了。这种策略的好处是它允许公司围绕一个主题进行试水。此外，正如 2018 年的调查所揭示的那样，70% 的营销领导者同意政治激进主义对“我公司吸引和留住员工的能力”有积极影响。因此，鼓励员工使用社交媒体参与不仅是一个试验气球；它本身就是一种人力资本战略。然而，它确实使公司容易受到随机且可能不稳定的员工行为的影响，