The Grey Man: Talk is cheap, but action is precarious

I was a real jerk in my university days.

I probably still am if you ask some people; but during those years in my late teens/early twenties I was at my most insufferable; especially during undergrad philosophy lectures.

There’s a special kind of churlishness that washes over pasty-faced first-year philosophy upstarts. Old enough to buy a beer, but unaware of the problems of the world beyond the price of a schooner, – I’m convinced I didn’t grow facial hair until I left uni (the first time around – I did a masters later on and was a different kind of insufferable) because I’d destroyed my chin-pube follicles from all that pensive scratching.

While I no longer profess to knowing, or even caring really, about many of the mysteries of the universe, one philosophical debate still gets me all riled up: talk is meaningless without action; or more specifically, don’t grandstand on your cause unless you’re prepared to do something about it.

As I berated my fellow Philosophy 101 classmates back at the turn of the century (sigh), at the zenith of my own self-love affair, there is virtually no such thing as a truly selfless act, simply because those who commit one (and survive) typically receive some residual post-act afterglow, no matter how unintentional. Be it praise, celebration from others, or just a general warm and fuzzy feeling.

I admit, that’s a pretty bleak view of the human condition, made even more befuddling when you realise I went on to work in public relations (or perhaps it’s revealing); but think about it – if all charitable acts do come with a two-way benefit, how charitable can they be?

You can now see why I was a jerk in uni…

As someone often at the cold front of brand disasters and triumphs in equal measure, I think it’s important for brands to stand for something. Whether it’s solving a customer problem, challenging the status quo or helping to save the planet, these values matter to customers and employees equally. But here’s the thing – while they should be part of the brand manifesto, they also have to be proven. What we talk about as brand practitioners we also have to ensure our brands walk.

Recently I’ve watched, perhaps somewhat cravenly, brands that have hit the market with, one would hope, well-meaning campaigns and activities targeted at addressing a societal shortfall, but have then been subjected to a public and media pile-on, accused of being a grift.

Whether it’s stiffy pills calling for more than cupcakes on R U OK? Day, or tyre centres pushing plastic to start a fireside chat about road trauma; there seems to be a lot of talk going on right now, but from what I can tell, not a lot of action.

Don’t get me wrong; awareness of any cause is the first step in driving action, and in corporate PR I’ve also been guilty of attaching softly-worded KPIs around ‘creating word of mouth and talkability’ to campaign strategies, but in the age of social media where our every move, thought and purchase is tracked, analysed and collated, a soft promise is as good as breaking one in the court of public appeal.

With many of us trusting brands less and less, any attempt by one at trying to move the dial on a cause through awareness strategies must also declare, almost immediately, a secondary action plan to put talk into practise. That’s where it gets hard; invariably any action outside of simply being seen and reported costs money, time and resources. And unfortunately, often those inputs will be judged by the public as being not enough anyway.

Case in point: Germany shoe behemoth Adidas’s recent break-up with Ye, formally known as Kanye West, over antisemitic comments made by the rapper-cum-breadbasket sandal designer. As industry sage Mark Ritson pointed out on LinkedIn recently, Adidas tearing up a $250 million-a-year contract with Ye and issuing an unequivocal statement condemning his actions was a baller move; and one that would have taken time, considering the financial and stakeholder implications. Still, Adidas was vilified by some for not acting soon enough.

As Mr. Ritson puts it, “One of the more ridiculous aspects of cancel culture is that even when a person or company does the right thing, many are still angry because it was not done soon enough, or in the exact manner that they wanted it done. This is ridiculous.”

Couldn’t agree more myself: damned if you do, and all that.

Knowing that a public pillorying is on the cards no matter how benevolent a brand is, rigor is an imperative in all comms. Not just in terms of how a story and messaging is created to communicate effectively, but also to make sure it stacks up to (often hostile) public scrutiny. If run-of-the-mill brand comms needs to pass the pub test, then standing behind a cause has to survive a pub brawl.

Don’t get me wrong, none of this should be taken as discouragement: brands do have a part to play in moving societal causes along, either by using their platforms to inform and advocate, or their budgets to provide support and resources; but neither avenue should be taken without consideration. Too often brands have superficially attached themselves to charities and causes as a way of deflecting their own shortcomings, much to the public’s chagrin.

We’re all a lot better at calling out shonky tactics and empty promises nowadays, so there is nowhere for shameless brands to hide. As brand practitioners, we need to remember this. There is no such thing as a campaign period anymore. The court of public opinion has gone digital, and has a biased, imperfect, but endless memory.

Lucky for me, no-one in my uni philosophy lectures had a camera phone or social media back then, so my crimes against academia have long been forgotten. Save for a few failed philosophy essays.

McGuiness

Kurt McGuiness, founder of PRIMAL Storytelling