Rejecting and Embracing Brands in Political Consumerism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Rejecting and Embracing Brands in Political Consumerism Rejecting and Embracing Brands in Political Con sumerism Magnus Boström The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism Edited by Magnus Boström, Michele Micheletti, and Peter Oosterveer Print Publication Date: Feb 2019 Subject: Political Science, Political Behavior Online Publication Date: Aug 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.50 Abstract and Keywords Brands play important roles as targets and arenas for political consumerism. Much of po litical consumerist action navigates towards large and highly visible brands, which politi cal consumers reject or embrace. This chapter views a brand—the name and logo of an actor/object and their associated/recognized meanings—as a core symbolic asset of an or ganization. The chapter argues that such a symbolic resource brings both opportunities and risks. A brand increases its power if it is entwined in institutions, identities, everyday practices, discourses, values, and norms. Successful eco- or ethical branding can bring profits, legitimacy, and power to companies. At the same time highly visible brands are targets of negative media reporting and movement attacks, and thus they are vulnerable to reputation risks. Through a literature review, the chapter demonstrates how brands re late to boycott/brand rejection, buycott, discursive, and lifestyle political consumerism. The concluding discussion suggests topics for future research. Keywords: boycott, buycott, discursive, labelling, lifestyle A columnist for the New York Times recently argued that online campaigns “against brands have become one of the most powerful forces in business, giving customers a huge megaphone with which to shape corporate ethics and practices, and imperiling some of the most towering figures of media and industry.”1 Regardless if he is correct or not in his assessment of the strong power of brand-focused online activism, without a doubt brands play imperative roles as targets and arenas for political consumerism, par ticularly in present times. Much of political consumerism activities navigate towards large and highly visible brands. This fact is something the owners of these brands know they need to be very well aware of because what is at stake is their reputation. What is a brand? It consists of the name and logo of an actor/object and the associated/ recognized meanings. It is the core symbolic asset of an actor. Such an actor is usually an organization and its trademarked products or services. Brands are particularly and in creasingly important for multinational corporations (Dauvergne & Lister, 2013). Big brand manufacturers and retailers such as Walmart, Ikea, H&M, HP, Nike, Shell, Coca- Page 1 of 23 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: Middlebury College; date: 12 August 2019 Rejecting and Embracing Brands in Political Consumerism Cola, Disney, McDonald’s, Apple, Facebook, and Google have gained tremendous power in terms of material resources (financial capital, physical infrastructure) and providing jobs, as well as in information power, technology, culture, and governance. They are also large and powerful in terms of brand visibility and recognition. According to one of the key branding experts, Douglas Holt, “branding is a core activity of capitalism, so must be in cluded in any serious attempt to understand contemporary society and politics” (2006, p. 299). Big business invests enormous amounts of resources on branding, working with a palette of techniques and with frequent appeals to the ethical, responsible, and environ mentally conscious consumer. Brands also function as a cultural resource for consumers for development of their identi ty, status, and search for pleasure and happiness. Moreover, brands are a key (p. 206) fo cus in monetary, discursive, and lifestyle types of political consumerism. While large com panies invest enormously in marketing resources to cultivate their brand, trying to estab lish “hegemonic brandscapes” (Thompson & Arsel, 2004), a peculiarity with brands is that such a kind of symbolic asset is difficult to control. Brands are also targets for nega tive publicity and antibrand movements, which can destroy the reputation of a brand. There is hence a space for debate and contestation for political consumerism. The strong association between brands and political consumerism warrants scholarly at tention.2 This is not least important because economic, symbolic, and discursive power concentrates around brands and branding activities, surrounding both the consumption and the production sides of brands. The study of brands and political consumerism re quires more understanding of both frontstage and backstage dynamics of brands and branding. Frontstage refers to the visual, official, and public aspects of an actor or activi ty (e.g., logos, reports, public boycott campaigns, culture jamming), whereas backstage refers to the nonpublic processes of preparations, negotiations, and decision-making be hind (and needed for) such frontstage performances.3 Through a literature review on brands and political consumerism, this chapter demon strates and discusses how brands relate to the various forms of political consumerism (boycott, buycott, discursive, and lifestyle political consumerism). This body of literature is interdisciplinary, including marketing, business administration, media and communica tion studies, sociology, political science, human geography, ethnology, social anthropolo gy, environmental sciences, and several others, and a broad range of concepts and ap proaches are developed and used to explore the phenomenon. This chapter cannot do jus tice to all this heterogeneity nor does it aim to map all different streams. Rather it is an effort to understand how brands provide arenas and targets for political contestation and how political consumerism tends to navigate towards high-profile brands. For this pur pose, useful theoretical perspectives are introduced in the next section, which is followed by four sections, focusing respectively on boycott/brand rejection, buycott, discursive, and lifestyle political consumerism, in which the relation between brands and political consumerism is explored in more detail. The concluding section presents a summary, also in a table, and discusses topics for future research and methodological challenges. Page 2 of 23 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: Middlebury College; date: 12 August 2019 Rejecting and Embracing Brands in Political Consumerism Theoretical Perspectives for the Study of Brands and Political Consumerism This section introduces useful theoretical perspectives for studying the relation between political consumerism and brands. It will present a brand as a symbolic resource, which opens a path for seeing a brand as both opportunity and (reputation) risk in relation (p. 207) to political consumerism. It is furthermore argued that scholarship needs to look at both front- and backstage processes of brands and branding among producers (brand owners), social movements, and consumers (e.g., brand communities). As discussed, a brand is the name and logo of an actor/object and their associated/recog nized meanings. Nike has its “Just do it”; Volvo is safety, Nokia is connecting people, Wal mart is saving money. (Dauvergne & Lister, 2012, pp. 36–45). An actor could be a compa ny, but it could also be a civil society organization (such as WWF and the Panda logo) or even an individual celebrity like musicians Bono and Madonna or football player Zlatan Ibrahimovic. An object could be a product, service, or activity. A brand becomes an intan gible economic asset for a company particularly “when people come to count on the brand to contribute to social life, when it is embedded in society and culture” (Holt, 2006, p. 300). The asset increases in value to the extent the brands are entwined in institutions, everyday practices, discourses, values, and norms (Holt, 2002, 2006). A brand can be conceptualized as a kind of symbolic resource (see Boström & Tamm Hall ström, 2010). Symbolic resources (or symbolic capital) can be employed to accumulate other resources such as human, financial, and social capital. An advantage with a symbol ic resource is that it is not necessarily consumed when used; it may even increase. Visibil ity of a logo tends to increase its value. A problematic feature with symbolic resources, however, is that their value can quickly be changed, damaged, and lost. Therefore, sym bolic resources are tied with some particular risks. While transnational corporations may develop incredible economic, cultural, and symbolic power related to their brands, they tend to be short of such symbolic power in relation to environmental and social responsi bility. For example, the sociologist Ulrich Beck (2005) argues that global business power is caught in a “legitimation trap.” The risk of reputation damage and waning consumer trust, for example