Brands: This Is How You Talk About Important, Divisive Issues on Social Media in 2022

This topic came up for me twice yesterday. First, I found an article I’d written in 2018 called “How to Boost Your Brand When Social Media Is Deeply Upsetting.” It made me fee reassured that we could just keep creating content that added value, and if you’re having a day where the news feels overwhelming, maybe you start here.

But if you identify as a thought leader, as someone with a platform and influence, that’s not it.

The world has changed since 2018, and so therefore should our approach.

This thought process crystalized for me listening to the brilliant Steph Jantzen interview Neal Foard on Fireside (full interview here) . I jumped into the conversation when the idea was floated that brands could reach more people by not delving into politics, current events, and divisive issues. Below is a transcript of what I said on the subject:

This is something I'm really passionate about. And it's interesting. Do I agree that it's better to be a-political than be performative and get it wrong? Yes, I do. Do I agree that the solution is just not to go there? No I do not.

I think that we, especially—here's what's really interesting—we're coming up on the two year anniversary of every brand in America posting a black square and saying that they suddenly woke up and realized that there was a problem of racism in America and they cared. And I think what's really important to hone in on is that I actually do think that once you hit a certain size, once you hit a certain budget, once you hit a certain pervasiveness in the market; I actually think it's part of corporate social responsibility to say: “We're gonna take the time and the initiative to research and have a perspective on the most important issues in our, in our world and to talk about them and to use our platform. And we know it's gonna make you guys uncomfortable, but it's 2022 and we need to have uncomfortable conversations.“

And I also submit that if these brands had the groups affected by the issues that they were covering, leading the content, the content would sound more like it was coming from someone with a thoughtful, nuanced firsthand perspective.

So that's kind of what I wanted to add to the conversation. I think generally when we see brands getting it right, it's because they've taken the time they've thought about it, they've thought about how it intersects with their mission in the world. They know they can't talk about everything, but they can talk about something that's relevant to their brand and generally they bring in marginalized voices to nuance their perspective. So that's what I wanted to share.

Here’s the thing: As marketers we hear “know, like and trust,” over and over. And as a people: We’re fundamentally distrusting of the city that knew there was an unsafe intersection but adds the stoplights and pays damages after the fatal car crashes. We say: If you cared, you would’ve addressed the problem before not paid out after.

I think any time a person or a company genuinely cares about something, they act when they become aware of it. Not when ROI or public opinion tells them they must. Which means: either, genuinely care and act. Or don’t care and be held to account for it.

Of course, the final piece of the equation is on the audience. Sometimes people/brands/influencers get tough conversations wrong when they’re new to having them. And if we want more transparency and action; we have to address take-down culture on the receiving end. We have to, as consumers demanding brands speak up, allow them to find their footing in the conversation.