• by Justine Feron , Op-Ed Contributor, August 7, 2018

You’ve seen them before: well-intentioned ads that try to forge unity but instead end up creating more division – or simply uniting people in their resentment of the ad. 

So is every brand that tries to take a stand or bring people together doomed to become a cautionary tale? Grey conducted research about the state of togetherness in our country and what role, if any, people believe brands can play. What we discovered is at once heartening and challenging. On one hand, it seems that there are opportunities for brands to successfully step into the fray and make a meaningful difference in advancing causes or creating unity. On the other hand, simply making another feel-good ad is not enough, and can in fact do more harm than good. 

This conclusion is the result of ad testing conducted in partnership with Unruly, a firm with more than a decade of experience gauging millions of viewers’ reactions to branded videos. Together, we selected togetherness or issue-driven ads produced by a wide swath of major brands – from a variety of categories – and tested their emotional and brand impact among a sample of 500 Americans using its content testing tool UnrulyEQ. Each participant provided their conscious reactions to the ads, while facial coding captured their unconscious responses.  

We expected the ads we tested – many of which seemed explicitly designed to tug heartstrings and build brand affinity – to outperform Unruly’s advertising norms. Yet we discovered that the ads we tested were no more effective than the average ad. As it turns out, saying all the right things in the world doesn’t matter if those words aren’t backed up by action. 

More specifically, here’s what we found: 

Mixed On Brand Messaging: When asked what role brands should play when it comes to forging unity, 60% of respondents said that brands should try to bring people together. Yet 50% indicated that brands should avoid political issues and instead focus on selling their products. Part of the explanation for these seemingly contradictory findings could be that for some, getting political and forging togetherness are synonymous, while for others those actions are mutually exclusive. Take AirBnb’s We Accept ad from the 2017 Super Bowl, for example. Released in the aftermath of Trump’s travel ban, reactions to the political ad ranged markedly on social media. What was seen as uplifting by many was viewed as divisive by others. 

Brand Relevance Is Vital: Another significant finding is that the difference between success and failure for a brand that wades into togetherness or issue-driven advertising can be how credible the connection between brand and subject matter is (or isn’t). On average, just over half of viewers associated the videos they saw with the correct brand. This lags significantly behind Unruly’s brand attribution norm of 65%. When the videos we tested were perceived to have little to do with the brand, respondents were quick to criticize what some perceived as a random choice of issue. 

But it’s not all bad news. Of the 12 ads we tested, two stood out in terms of believability. Both achieved 45% believability – significantly higher than the average of 37%. In each of these cases the brand’s message was clearly linked to their business. One was praised by a respondent as: “interesting, informative, lets you know the product they are selling.” 

Action Is Essential:  Nearly half the respondents we polled agreed that the messages they saw were good, but they wanted to know what the brands were actually doingto help. 

Within the sample of ads we tested, a singular ad with a clear message for action stood out from the pack. Emotional response and brand favorability were higher for this video than for others we tested (although still average relative to Unruly’s testing norm), likely in large part because it specified the concrete actions the brand is taking to support women in technology. One respondent said the brand was clearly “putting their all into a very important human resources failing.” 

So with this knowledge, what can brands do now? 

First, brands should be doing relatively more and saying relatively less.In an era where social impact is felt via marches, movements, and media moments, branded togetherness communication needs to be backed up by substantive action or risk feeling underwhelming or trite. 

Second, brands should look beyond the ad as the default means of expressing support and encouraging change. They should also donate, advocate for legislation, fund initiatives, create experiences, and engage in other positive actions. 

Finally, brands should go all the way, or not go at all.Taking a stand seems to be most effective when it comes from brands with deeply-held beliefs and the conviction to follow through. 

The bottom line? Brands driven by their values or conscience can make a difference, but ads alone can sometimes do more harm than good.