Companies embracing activism know very well what they are getting into. Ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s, and by default, its parent company Unilever, are walking a tightrope as they are now experiencing firsthand a clash with Israel. But when things go well, your brand will only come out stronger. Nike, for example, has proven this in the recent past.
No more Ben & Jerry’s in occupied Palestinian territories
In recent days, things have come to a head between Israel and Ben & Jerry’s, a brand owned by consumer goods giant Unilever. Ben & Jerry’s had stirred things up by announcing that it would no longer sell ice cream in occupied Palestinian territories. The company will not renew the licence with its current distributor, who would or could not stop selling in those areas. The ice cream brand will continue to operate in the country, but through a “different agreement”, it read in a curt announcement on its website.
Israel’s reaction was, to put it mildly, anything but moderate. Naftali Bennett, the new prime minister, immediately called Unilever chief executive Alan Jope to account and threatened him with legal consequences and more. Yair Lapid, foreign minister, and according to the agreements within the current governing coalition the next prime minister, went one step further without hesitation. Lapid called the decision a bend to “anti-Semitism and the so-called BDS movement”. This abbreviation stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. It is an international movement that wants to take Israel to task for its treatment of the Palestinians through such economic actions.
Customers have a bond with the brand
Unilever has ended up in this confrontation against its will. The company owns the Ben & Jerry’s brand, but according to the agreements made at the time of the takeover in 2000, the ice cream brand installed an independent board that was allowed to decide autonomously on the company’s implementation of its “social mission”. Unilever, therefore, had no choice but to issue an “on the one hand/on the other hand” press release in which the multinational does its utmost to avoid offending anyone.
Once again, it demonstrates how delicate it is for companies to adopt a more activist stance in matters where both sides are at loggerheads – less of an issue in, for example, activism on sustainability and the environment. Especially when it comes to companies with well-known consumer brands in their portfolio, with which many customers have a bond to a greater or lesser degree. If that brand then suddenly expresses itself politically in a way that clashes with the vision of those customers, it evokes a lot of emotions.
Nike and Colin Kaepernick
Hence, companies have to do their homework by making sure that a potentially controversial stance is a good fit with their brand identity. A great example of this is the way Nike positioned itself in the tricky discussion regarding police brutality against the black community in the US.
In 2018, Nike launched an advertising campaign with the controversial American football player Colin Kaepernick as the face. A few years earlier, Kaepernick had been at the forefront of the movement by kneeling before every game, during the American national anthem, in protest against excessive police violence. A movement that flowed through to the Black Lives Matter movement, and which, to this day, is also being adopted in other sports. Belgian national team member Romelu Lukaku is an outspoken advocate of this movement.
Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything. #JustDoIt pic.twitter.com/SRWkMIDdaO
— Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) September 3, 2018
With his initiative, Kaepernick evoked anger from former US President Donald Trump and his supporters. Nike thus entered a potential minefield with its campaign slogan: “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything”. It immediately elicited Trump’s tweet “What was Nike thinking?” which we cannot embed here because Twitter took Trump’s account offline.
Brand value increased by 6 billion dollars
As it turned out, Nike had done its homework well. The campaign won prize after prize at the Cannes Lions, the Oscars of the advertising industry. Although the campaign already dates back to 2018, it also won an award this year based on its sales impact. According to the organisation’s calculations, the controversial Kaepernick campaign led to a sales boost of no less than 31 per cent and made sure the Nike brand was worth 6 billion dollars (5.1 billion euros) more.
Whether Ben & Jerry’s and/or Unilever will reap a similar bonus from their confrontation with Israel is rather doubtful. Ben & Jerry’s is worth around 300 million dollars, so just in terms of scale, we have to keep things in perspective. It also remains to be seen whether things cool down soon enough. After all, the ice cream brand is not leaving Israel in its entirety, so it is currently uncertain how much will ultimately change in the region.
