When brands cross the line of control

Global brands control messaging tightly, and have clearly laid out guidelines with explicit no-go’s that typically include religion, politics, and geopolitical issues. Brands may touch upon social issues that they believe will resonate well with their positioning or their target audience, but should always stay sensitive to key issues and respect public sentiment. Multinational brands, doubly so, given their markets are across nations, and its incumbent upon them to ensure the policies and guidelines are followed down the line to — franchisees, partners, distributors, and retailers.

In this context, the Hyundai lapse is unpardonable and is more than just brand overreach. For one, the subject has no relevance whatsoever with the automotive category; secondly it touches upon a geopolitical subject that should remain completely out of bounds for any commercial organisation, and lastly — it is wholly inappropriate in a globalised world where communication transcends national boundaries, and things can rapidly spiral out of control.

Also, fundamentally, it’s inconceivable that a local distributor or a franchisee has access to the company’s verified social media assets, form where these offensive posts were made. Global companies would typically build check and balances to ensure that these guidelines are not violated even by rogue elements.

Increasingly though, geopolitical conflicts are impacting businesses. The 2020 India-China border standoff in Galwan resulted in calls for boycotting Chinese goods. The strong anti-China sentiment effected major Chinese brands present in India and mobile phone maker Vivo pulled out of its sponsorship of the 2020 IPL.

In August 2019 angry Chinese buyers boycotted companies that were labelling Hong Kong as a separate entity from China. Companies like Asics, Versace, and Givenchy were among the foreign brands that apologised on Chinese social media after consumers objected. Sometimes boycotts and attacks on companies have very little to do with the actions or policies of an individual company. Instead they are related to the company's country of origin.

More recently, Pepsi India’s special edition cans timed with the movie release of ‘Shershah’ a biopic based on Kargil hero Captain Vikram Batra, whose last words ‘yeh dil maange more’ struck a chord with Indians didn’t go down well in Pakistan. Now KFC India is in the line of fire with a boycott KFC trend raging after KFC Pakistan posts have emerged on the Kashmir issue.

These instances have all brought to the fore the detrimental impact of geopolitics on business. While there’s a strong case for brands to stick to their core business by focusing on better products and services, these days many brands find themselves forced to take positions on key social issues.

The #BlackLivesMatter campaign in the United States, was one such issue which saw many brands jump in. Brand custodians believe staying neutral is no longer an excuse, and a generation of millennials expect their brands to stand up on issues that matter. As the pandemic has brought out starkly — a business entity has a stake in the community it operates in, and it must contribute positively to stay relevant.

With a 24-hour news cycle and social media fanning polarisation, brands must be extra cautious, and respect the sanctity of national loyalties. What may seem like a justified stance to customers in one country, may seem partisan and biased to another. Businesses have to stay off these subjects, which can raise questions on the brand owners personal alignments and accountability to investors. Brands must be careful not to cross the line of control.

Lloyd Mathias is an angel Investor, business strategist, and the former Asia-Pacific Marketing Head of HP Inc. Twitter: @LloydMathias. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.