PR in the times of boycott culture Part 1 – When ‘Woke’ hurts

French fashion brand Dior was recently embroiled in a controversy in China when netizens accused it of being insensitive to cultural sensibilities and discriminatory in nature. The apparent provocation: Dior posted the photo of an Asian woman with a “slanted eye”. Netizens took to social media to vent their anger, accusing the brand of feeding into Western stereotypes. Dior has removed the controversial poster from its social media handles.

The boycott army has grown into a multi-national, multi-headed hydra, transcending borders, wrecking damage in its wake. India, too, has been witness to a surge in this boycott culture in recent times.

It is something that brands and corporate have come to dread, because one is no longer sure where the next troll army is going to come for. Anything and everything can trigger a call for boycott from ‘indignant’ netizens – something that seems innocuous or witty or tongue-in-cheek, or related to race, gender, religion, culture.

In this two-part Indepth feature report, Adgully seeks to figure out the role of Public Relations in such situations. How can PR organisations help a brand salvage a situation when negative events threaten the brand’s reputation? What should be the role of the PR? What strategies can be employed to respond to boycott calls from nefarious elements and minimise their impact on the organisation’s reputation and trust factor?

“In any crisis, the first critical step is acknowledgement, and staying in denial or ignoring the problem can have serious repercussions,” emphasises Kunal Kishore, Founder and Director, Value 360 Communications. “Regarding strategies, there cannot be defined steps or a replicable process for every crisis. One has to see it from a long-term perspective. Once you scientifically start to work on the situation, the steps towards mitigation and overturning reputation loss begin to emerge clearly,” he adds.

Varghese M Thomas, Chief Communication Officer, Greaves Cotton, admits that dealing with boycott calls can be a challenging and complex task for any communications team. He lists out certain strategies that can be employed by the organisation to respond to boycott calls and minimise their impact on its reputation. He adds that it is important to remain calm and professional in these situations and prioritise transparency and communication with key stakeholders:

• Closely monitor social media: PR professionals should closely monitor social media platforms and other online channels for any signs of boycott calls. This can be done by using social media listening tools to keep track of the conversations and mentions related to the brand.
• Respond quickly and transparently: PR professionals should respond quickly and transparently to boycott calls. They should acknowledge the concerns raised by the boycotters and provide an open and honest response. This can help to build trust and credibility with customers.
• Engage with stakeholders: PR professionals should engage with stakeholders, including customers, employees, and suppliers, to understand their concerns and address them proactively. This can help to demonstrate the organisation's commitment to its values and build stronger relationships with key stakeholders.
• Focus on positive messaging: PR professionals should focus on positive messaging and highlight the organisation's strengths and positive contributions to society. This can help to shift the narrative away from the boycott and minimize its impact on the organisation’s reputation.
• Take action: PR professionals should take action to address the concerns raised by the boycotters. This can include making changes to the organisation's policies and practices, engaging with advocacy groups, and investing in social responsibility initiatives.
• Work with trusted influencers: PR professionals should work with trusted influencers to help promote the organisation's positive message and counter the boycott narrative. Influencers can help to amplify the organisation's message and reach new audiences.

“Most of the boycott calls that we have seen are triggered by some specific actions taken by brands that have triggered or allegedly ‘hurt the sentiments’ of the aggrieved people. Those actions are often new ad campaigns as we have seen in case of brands like Tanishq, Manyavar or even Zomato and Swiggy. These boycott calls are also typically amplified by large online groups behaving like a mob, who only want the brand to bow down, apologise, and withdraw their campaign,” notes Amrit Malik, Associate Manager, Evoc.

According to her, depending on the nature of the grievance and the brand’s own assessment of its culpability, it can choose to either stay quiet and simply let the storm blow over, stand firmly behind the campaign or the action (effectively refusing to bend to the boycotters’ demands), or apologise and withdraw the offending campaign.

“While the choice of the appropriate strategy out of the three mentioned above is entirely a subjective call for the brand and its communications team to take, there are obvious repercussions of each of these strategies and the organisation’s PR teams must be mindful and prepare for these. At a fundamental level, effective crisis management, as in the case of a boycott campaign, requires building an internal capacity to anticipate the potential scale of any erupting crises, and have a plan of action ready. It also needs a set of working principles or protocols that prioritise the recognition of looming crises and can help communicators with the challenging task of acknowledging and addressing uncomfortable truths, both internally as well as externally,” Malik adds.

The crucial role of PR

Corporate communication/ PR executives need to engage with those elements that have initiated boycott calls, such as social media influencers or activist groups, to understand their concerns and address them effectively.

Malik makes an important observation about the boycott army. She points out, “As we have seen in most recent cases, the boycott calls are made not by genuine customers having legitimate grievances, but by powerful mobs or influencers who tend to get aggrieved easily, or are always looking for reasons to get offended.” According to her, they are also looking to flex their muscles and put the brand on the defensive. She argued that it is often difficult or even futile to engage with them because these groups or activists are not playing by the rules of logic or rationality, rather are only fueled by emotions.

Having said that, she adds, there are always cases when there are genuine missteps by brands through certain actions, social media posts, or even campaigns that were uncalled for. In such cases, it is necessary for the brand to acknowledge their mistake through effective engagement with the aggrieved parties, even if they are not actual customers.

“As such, whether to engage or not depends on case to case. Effective counsel on whether and how to engage with aggrieved parties ideally comes from an external PR partner who can candidly and convincingly point to the organisation if they made a mistake, or did something wrong, and they ought to apologise. Internal stakeholders are often too thick in the game to have a neutral, unbiased view of the unfolding situation. Finally, even when it is decided to engage, organisations still need to evaluate if they should be making public statements and disclosures that address all stakeholders including the aggrieved parties, or engage just with the aggrieved parties in private. Here again, an external PR agency’s inputs are valuable,” Malik adds.

Kunal Kishore points out that corporate communication and PR have the most crucial role in a crisis in the business. This is because it is the only function that can rebuild the reputation. “A crisis is not a one-day affair; it takes many years of work to build a brand’s reputation, and a crisis can impact this overnight. As such, the flow of information cannot be controlled in today’s day and age. The PR function can reinforce the brand’s values and mission across several platforms and begin to rebuild its reputation,” he adds.

According to him, the role of the communications professional in such a scenario would be to understand the motive behind the boycott calls. Sometimes, he adds, it might result from an individual or group trying to gain the limelight by creating an uproar. “Only a thorough assessment will allow the PR person to understand if customer/ public sentiments have genuinely been hurt. If this is the case, the brand can move on to corrective measures with a clear understanding of the concerns raised.”

A significant threat

Boycott calls from nefarious elements can pose a significant threat to an organisation’s reputation and financial performance, says Shruthi Bopaiah, Global Head – Marketing, Communication and Culture Bridgeweave Ltd. According to her, in order to respond to such calls effectively and minimise their impact, organisations can employ some strategies. “The first step in responding to a boycott call is to determine its legitimacy. It is essential to assess whether the boycott is driven by legitimate grievances or is a result of malicious intent. This will help the organisation determine the appropriate response strategy. If the boycott is driven by legitimate grievances, organisations should take corrective action to address the concerns raised by the organisers. This can include changes in policies or procedures to improve working conditions, reduce environmental impact, or enhance product safety. The organisation should build a crisis team and work closely with other departments such as legal and marketing to ensure a coordinated response that mitigates any legal or financial risks associated with the crisis. The crisis team should create a plan outlining the messaging, the channels to use, and the actions to be taken. Organisations should monitor social media channels to identify boycott-related conversations and respond promptly to negative comments or misinformation,” she explains.

“Responding to boycott calls requires a proactive and strategic approach that focuses on open dialogue, transparency, corrective action, positive public image, and social media monitoring. By adopting these strategies, organisations can minimise the impact of boycotts on their reputation and financial performance,” Bopaiah affirms.

The corporate communication team can engage with stakeholders who have initiated boycott calls in several ways to understand their concerns and address them effectively by engaging with stakeholders respectfully and transparently to minimize the impact of the boycott on the organisation's reputation, states Varghese M Thomas. He lists the following steps that can be considered:

• Listen: PR executives should actively listen to the stakeholders and understand their concerns. They should engage in respectful and open dialogue to gain insights into the underlying issues and reasons for the boycott.
• Be empathetic: PR executives should show empathy towards the stakeholders’ concerns and recognise the impact that their actions may have on the organisation.
• Provide transparent information: PR executives should provide transparent and factual information about the organisation’s policies, practices, and values. This can help to address any misunderstandings or misperceptions that may have led to the boycott.
• Offer solutions: PR executives should offer solutions that address the stakeholders’ concerns and demonstrate the organisation’s commitment to its values. This can include making changes to policies or practices, engaging in dialogue with advocacy groups, or investing in social responsibility initiatives.
• Communicate effectively: PR executives should communicate effectively with stakeholders through various channels, including social media, press releases, and direct communication. They should ensure that the messaging is consistent, transparent, and responsive to the stakeholders’ concerns.
• Work with trusted influencers: PR executives can work with trusted influencers or other key opinion leaders who have credibility with the stakeholders to help promote the organisation’s positive message and counter the boycott narrative.

Traditionally, organisations and their leaders have been known to keep away from controversies, because of the potential impact of taking stands on their brands and businesses, points out Anup Sharma, Communications Strategy Consultant.

“With growing awareness consumers are wanting brands to be accountable and want the brands, organisations and the people associated with the brand to do the right thing morally. For the ‘WOKE’ consumers, brands and organisations staying silent on social and moral issues is not acceptable, and it’s more important than ever for brands to take a stand on public issues and speak out,” he emphasises.

According to Sharma, as more and more business leaders choose to speak out on contentious political and social matters, CEOs will increasingly be called on to help shape the debate about such issues. “This will come with its own set of challenges – the risks of boycott. There is no business which is exempt from the threat of a consumer boycott. In the last few years, the country (and the world) has witnessed a soar in boycott calls against various brands, companies, celebrities, various movies, OTT platforms, web series and songs. Consumer expectations are at the heart of this besides activism. There have been a number of examples of brands getting in hot water over various issues. But in the recent past the boycott trend has become very prominent and one of the major reasons is the power of social media which has given voice and reach and its potential to rake up a topic,” he adds.

As a result, Sharma further says, brands have become more cautious and very sensitive. “Extra care is being taken to check on potential threats of hatred and boycott. Topics on politics, religion are a strict no-no for most and some are extra guarded on social issues which may have the potential to flare up a particular group. Teams also use social listening tools which may show trending topics and give insights on the need to join the conversation, raise awareness and take meaningful action.”

He further adds that many organisations now have strict internal guidelines and do a due diligence to gauge the sentiments of any important campaign and messaging shared to avoid backlash and boycott on social media.

“For big-budget brand campaigns and movies, legal opinion is also sought beforehand. On the issue of taking a stand on social and moral issues, there may not always be written guidelines, but many organisations do keep a tab on their employees taking a public stand on issues which could cause embarrassment to the organisation and its brand. Discouragement may also come in other forms like being excluded from certain projects, promotions may suffer, appraisals may get affected and so on and so forth,” he concludes.

(Tomorrow - Part 2 of this Indepth feature report will talk about the importance of media relations, lessons learned from past crises, and much more.)