Fighting the good fight: The myth of protest

There are clear signs in the UK that today’s ‘radical’ is not much more than a ‘pop radical’ – someone only able to identify superficially with a cause rather than becoming deeply immersed in a protest movement. What does this say about Britain today, and how do brands fit into the picture? Future Foundation’s Karen Canty investigates.

There has been a lot in the news over the last few weeks that might make us angry as readers; the bloody civil war in Syria, protests in Brazil over rising costs and falling living standards and the violent Turkish demonstrations to name a few.

Closer to home, we worry about the long-lasting impact of global recession, the ongoing banking crisis, inequality in society…

As humans, we like to feel that we are fighting for a good cause; doing the right thing, sticking it to the man. However, there are clear signs in the UK that today’s ‘radical’ is something of a ‘pop radical’ – simply identifying with a cause rather than becoming deeply immersed in a movement or protest.

Pop Radical consumers will often pay attention to those matters which are causing the most hype, but little more than this. This is a trend that holds serious implications for the whole business of corporate social responsibility and for what marketers, brands and organisations should be doing in an unsettled world.

On the surface of it, we’re an angry bunch. Future Foundation data shows that, for example, 66% agree/strongly agree that British people should be more angry about inequality in society; 80% think we should be angrier about the high bonuses paid to bankers; and 54% claim they would be willing to boycott manufacturers whose products contribute to polluting our environment.

The natural reaction among brands is to appease the anger and subdue the radicalism – and those that don’t will suffer the wrath of a baying mob.

Cue a raft of cosmetic marketing campaigns, such as Starbucks’ response to its tax avoidance PR disaster – a scheme whereby consumers can buy an extra coffee for someone less fortunate than them. Or Gucci’s range of ‘eco-friendly handbags’, which come with a ‘passport’ detailing the cow’s provenance.

But there is another truth – the notion of an ‘Angry Britain’ – is, in many ways, a myth.

Focusing on the 54% who say they would boycott products based on their poor environmental performance – of these, just 13% strongly agree, a significant drop from the 22% who strongly agreed in 1986 (although to be fair, higher than the 8% strong agreement in 2011). This doesn’t indicate a strong protest movement.

There is also an age and generational effect – 54% of Baby Boomers agree strongly that we should be angrier about high bankers’ bonuses; this drops to 37% of 16-24 year olds – a far cry from the 70s vision of a campaigning youngster.

And there’s a research issue too: people generally like to say they’re fighting for a cause. Yet turning once again to our question about shunning products which contribute to pollution, when asked face-to-face in 2011, 54% of consumers agreed they would support a boycott. When this was moved to online methodology, the number dropped to 40% (it has now risen to 48%).

There is a social norm at play – we want to be seen to be fundamentally caring and empathetic of wider social issues.

There are a couple of trends at play here. First is Localism. It is human nature to feel most protective/concerned about issues closest to us – geographically as well as emotionally. It’s really hard to see our impact on the environment; so much as we would like to think we’re angry about big bad companies polluting the environment, we’re just as likely to get enraged about a small, niche, local issue.

There’s also the impact of social media, which has done much to further the cause of radicalism – enlightening and educating us about a whole raft of new global issues – but at the same time diluting and creating so much noise in an ever-more crowded space.

There’s also the political rhetoric: if we are ‘all in it together’, what’s our role to be in creating a fairer society, post-recession?

This isn’t to say, of course, that brands can or should ignore the demands and requirements of the public. It is more that there is a growing need for CSR that goes beyond the hygiene factor; while there is no real sign of any wide-scale movement towards radicalism in the UK, there is a strong consumer expectation that companies must care not just about maximising revenue, but about their wider social responsibilities.

This will not abate, even as anger becomes less intense, which is why Sainsbury’s’ sponsorship of the London Paralympic Games is a great example of a new role for CSR – encompassing HR and employee engagement as well as marketing.

Brands can learn from the movement. Pop Radicalism is by its very nature interesting, creative, shocking and theatrical (look at the media circus surrounding the Occupy movement in 2012). Audiences cluster, photos make their way on to social media. Edgy subversion is appealing – a concept which is alive and well in retail (pop-up shops), holiday-making (dark tourism), fashion (Vivienne Westwood, Fendi), music (Odd Future, Common), entertainment (The Hunger Games, Fifty Shades of Grey)…

Market sectors rejuvenate themselves courtesy of the Pop Radicals in their own midst. One can only expect this will continue to be true.

But be wary of making assumptions about Gen Y – although traditionally considered to be the most likely activists, there is evidence that in fact risk-averse 16-24 year olds are less radical than previous generations.

There is, of course, still a huge appetite for the theatricality of radicalism and all of the peer recognition it garners. Look, for example, at craft beer brand Brewdog – a self-styled ‘beacon of non-conformity’. Tactics have included a London launch in an Abbott 433 armoured tank, the introduction of a ‘Never Mind the Anabolics’ beer and the roll-out of the first beer brewed on the ocean floor launched, complete with pirate ship.

Pop Radicals are looking for rebellion but within a ‘safe’ framework, and brands are well placed to provide reassurance in this context: safety, security and consumer control.

In the future, many companies will be increasingly inclined to concentrate on social causes that are closer to home and that strike a genuine chord with consumers’ current concerns, that activate local radicalism – rather than more distant international causes. The winning brands will be the ones which speak to the pertinent issues of the day.