How political should brands be?

Dear reader,

We maintain that the central task of brands is a purely economic one - ensuring sales and earnings for the brand owner.

Of course, this also includes conveying a value proposition that ensures identification with the brand.

The extent to which this also includes the expression of political attitudes has often been discussed in connection with current radicalization trends, wars or migration issues. A brand can only make credible comments on these issues if they are related to the business model, for example with regard to procurement and sales markets, target groups or employees.

The discussion is different when political or social content is part of a brand's DNA, as is the case with Patagonia, Oxfam or Ben & Jerry's, for example. If the political or social convictions rooted in the brand are watered down or sacrificed as part of a business strategy, the entire brand is at risk. This is how the intervention of the two founders of Ben & Jerry's should be interpreted, at least we don't assume that the buyback plans have an economic background. Or what do you think?

And here is the link: https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel-konsumgueter/ben-jerrys-gruender-wollen-eiscreme-marke-angeblich-zurueck/100111708.html