The Expanding Role of CSR in Today’s Market

CSR has shifted beyond traditional profit motives to embrace broader social and ethical responsibilities. As businesses commit to addressing pressing social issues, disability inclusion remains an area where significant progress is still needed. People with disabilities (PWDs) are often excluded from marketing strategies and brand communications. This inclusion gap persists, even though this significant demographic consists of 1.6 billion people, constitutes 22% of the population, and collectively controls $18 trillion in buying power (Return on Disability 2024). Organizations have a valuable opportunity to expand their market reach and create positive social impact by integrating disability-inclusive CSR initiatives.

Aligning CSR with Consumer Expectations for Social Impact

Modern consumers prioritize authenticity and purpose in the brands they support, expecting companies to address social causes in a way that feels genuine. A report indicates that 87% of consumers favor brands with active social or environmental initiatives, while 76% avoid those that fall short in these areas (Cone Communications 2017). Embracing disability inclusion within CSR not only helps brands align with evolving consumer expectations but also fosters a strong sense of trust and connection. CSR efforts address inequities faced by marginalized groups, including PWDs. As organizations integrate disability inclusion into their CSR efforts, it is imperative to embrace the mantra of the disability community, “Nothing about us without us.” It emphasizes the importance of involving people with disabilities in decisions that impact them. By supporting disability-inclusive CSR, brands can build long-lasting loyalty and contribute to a fairer, more accessible marketplace.

Addressing the Representation Gap in Marketing

Despite increasing emphasis on diversity, disabled individuals remain vastly underrepresented in media and advertising. In 2021, a Nielsen study reported that only 1% of ads featured disabled individuals. Similarly, the 2018 Public Relations and Communications Association’s Census revealed merely 2% of communications professionals identified as having a disability (Khatwani 2018). This lack of representation perpetuates an empathy gap, where stereotypes are reinforced and authentic perspectives from the disabled community are missing. Including PWDs in advertising not only provides accurate representation but also gives voice to their experiences, enabling brands to develop campaigns that resonate with real consumer needs. Expanding representation allows brands to dismantle barriers, cultivate inclusivity, and bridge the empathy gap in media.

Applying the Inclusive CSR Design Framework

Lteif et al.’s (2025) framework introduces four dimensions for inclusive marketing: sensory, cognitive, behavioral, and social accessibility. Each addresses a unique accessibility aspect, offering brands a way to reach diverse audiences.

1. Sensory Accessibility: Sensory accessibility ensures that content reaches individuals with different sensory needs, like those with low vision. For example, Schick Intuition partnered with a popular blind social media influencer, Molly Burke, for its “Content For All” initiative. This effort focused on improving the accessibility of its social media content with the addition of detailed textual image descriptions and accessible hashtags while highlighting the importance of sensory accessibility in social media (DeSantis 2021).
2. Cognitive Accessibility: Cognitive accessibility accommodates a range of cognitive abilities. IBM’s “Neurodiversity @ IBM” program involves neurodiverse employees in creating content to ensure that it meets diverse needs (Grant Pickens 2021).
3. Behavioral Accessibility: Behavioral accessibility removes functional barriers to improve usability. Starbucks’s Signing Store, codesigned by Deaf employees, includes an open layout floor plan to support signing and integrates a two-way visual ordering system to set a new standard for retail accessibility (Blanchard and McAlpine 2018).
4. Social Accessibility: Social accessibility emphasizes inclusive portrayals in media. Google’s 2024 Super Bowl ad, “Javier in Frame,” featuring a low-vision user and created by a blind filmmaker, shows that disability representation can be impactful and socially affirming (Shaul 2024).

Aligning CSR with these four dimensions allows brands to develop campaigns that prioritize accessibility, ensuring that people with disabilities feel valued and empowered.

Financial and Social Benefits of Disability-Inclusive CSR

Investing in disability-inclusive CSR delivers significant financial and social benefits, establishing it as a strategic business decision beyond ethical commitment. The Public Relations and Communications Association’s (2023) Accessible Communications Guidelines underscores that accessible communications improve brand preference, purchase intent, and loyalty among disabled consumers and their networks, whereas inaccessible content risks alienating this demographic, damaging brand reputation.

Financially, the advantages are substantial. A recent study by Accenture and Disability:IN (2023) found that companies focused on disability inclusion report 1.6 times higher revenue, 2.6 times higher net income, and double the economic profit compared with those without disability initiatives. This data highlights that disability-inclusive CSR not only meets societal expectations but enhances profitability.

Further illustrating the business value of disability inclusion, a 2022 Forrester report estimates a $100 return for every dollar invested in accessibility (Bureau of Internet Accessibility 2024). Positive word of mouth within the disabled community and its allies further amplifies these gains, strengthening brand loyalty and expanding market reach. These benefits demonstrate why accessibility and inclusion are strategic priorities that also reinforce brand equity.

Policy Recommendations for Advancing Disability-Inclusive CSR

Public policy can play a vital role in promoting disability inclusion. Policy makers should consider the following:

1. Disability-Inclusive Hiring Incentives: Offering financial incentives to companies hiring, retaining, and supporting PWDs at all levels helps bridge representation gaps and fosters cultures where PWD perspectives enhance brand strategies and public initiatives.
2. Accessibility Certification Programs: Establishing a certification for disability-friendly brands based on Lteif et al.’s (2025) four accessibility dimensions would set a high standard, helping consumers identify accessible brands.
3. Mandated Accessible Marketing Tools: Requiring that marketing tools support assistive technologies ensures that disabled employees can fully participate in campaign creation, enhancing accessibility internally and externally.
4. Public–Private Partnerships for Inclusive Design Research: Collaborations between government, businesses, and nonprofits can drive innovation in inclusive design, accelerating the development of accessible products, tools, and experiences that meet the needs of PWDs.

Conclusion

Lteif et al.’s (2025) article provides brands with a powerful roadmap to foster disability-inclusive CSR, guiding them to consider sensory, cognitive, behavioral, and social dimensions in their marketing strategies. By embracing this framework, brands can move beyond surface-level inclusion efforts to build authentic connections with people with disabilities, fostering social equity and creating marketing that resonates meaningfully with diverse audiences.

Disability-inclusive CSR not only advances consumer trust and long-term loyalty but also unlocks untapped financial potential by expanding access to a market often overlooked. Through the integration of these inclusive design principles, brands can transform their approach, contributing to a marketplace where people of all abilities feel recognized, empowered, and valued. As more companies adopt this framework, they reinforce their corporate image as leaders in inclusivity, paving the way toward a future where marketing serves as a genuine bridge to belonging for all.

References

Accenture and Disability:IN (2023), “The Disability Inclusion Imperative,” (accessed March 20, 2025), .

Bureau of Internet Accessibility (2024), “What’s the ROI of Web Accessibility?” (January 3), .

Cone Communications (2017), “2017 Cone Communications CSR Study,” (accessed March 20, 2025), .

DeSantis, Rachel (2021), “Blind YouTube Star Molly Burke Is Fighting to Make Social Media More Inclusive: ‘Really No Excuse,’” People (June 29), .

Blanchard, Lauren and David McAlpine (2018), “Starbucks Opens First US-Based Sign Language Store,” New York Post (October 24), .

Grant Pickens, Carla (2021), “Neurodiversity Acceptance Month 2021: Awareness, Acceptance, & Advancement,” IBM Newsroom (April 6), .

Khatwani, Neha (2018), “Opinion: Why the PRCA is taking decisive action on diversity in PR,” Gorkana (February 19), .

Lteif, Lama, Helen van der Sluis, Lauren G. Block, Luca Cian, Vanessa M. Patrick, and Maura L. Scott (2025), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 44 (2), 214–31.

Nielsen (2021), “Visibility of Disability: Portrayals of Disability in Advertising,” (August), .

Public Relations and Communications Association (2023), “PRCA Accessible Communications Guidelines: 2023 Edition,” (accessed March 20), .

Return on Disability (2024), “Annual Report 2024,” (September 20), .

Shaul, Brandy (2024), “Google Pixel Celebrates Accessibility in Its Latest Super Bowl Ad,” Adweek (accessed March 20, 2025), .

Go to the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

The post Bridging the Gap: Disability-Inclusive Corporate Social Responsibility as a Catalyst for Equitable Marketing Transformation appeared first on ���������.

There are three players in the online misinformation ecosystem: publishers, platforms, and people. Publishers refer to content creators, such as traditional media companies or individuals who create content. This content is posted on platforms and shared by people with their networks. Interventions to mitigate misinformation can target or co-opt any of these three players. For example, interventions targeting people can get them to better discern truth from falsehood, to increase their sharing of true information, to reduce their sharing of false information, or to fact-check information before sharing it. A recent megastudy () compared the efficacy of nine different interventions and found that they were all helpful taken in isolation, but the study did not comment on their joint effect. This could provide an opportunity for intervention design.

To spur creative ideas, as well as reduce the incentive to try small, incremental ideas that are likely to be statistically significant but may not be practically meaningful, we are soliciting registered reports.[1] “Registered Reports is a publishing format that emphasizes the importance of the research question and the quality of methodology by conducting peer review prior to data collection. High quality protocols are then provisionally accepted for publication if the authors follow through with the registered methodology” ( n.d.). This call for papers asks authors to submit a registered report that proposes new empirical work designed to initiate, develop, and test potential solutions to mitigating the generation and propagation of mis- and disinformation, in an ecologically valid way. Our goal is to encourage the testing of theory-driven ideas that are feasible and scalable.

Authors should address key questions in their submission in addition to presenting the theoretical framework or mechanism, relevant pretests and pilot studies, and the proposed empirical test. These key questions include whether the proposed interventions would work on real social platforms, whether they are desirable from a societal standpoint, the potential downsides and criticisms of the intervention, their feasibility and scalability, and whether the effects are persistent over time. It is also critical to carefully consider the relevant outcomes of interest to combat misinformation.

Interventions could be related to the key players and could address topics such as (but are not limited to):

• PUBLISHERS
  • Addressing the goals of generating fake news
  • Tackling incentives and disincentives for publishers
• PLATFORM
  • Creating products such as algorithmic and platform-based solutions
  • Testing platform-based cues (e.g., fake-news flags) and policies (e.g., account restrictions)
• PEOPLE
  • Building communities/societies that are resilient to fake news
  • Testing cognitive and motivational mechanisms to increase discernment of truth vs. falsehood and reduce spread of fake news

In addition, interventions could test potential policy solutions or address incentives for platforms, such as their revenue streams (e.g., advertising-based interventions).

We welcome submissions that feature empirical work, whether experimental or nonexperimental, including field studies. Submissions that propose solutions based on original conceptual insights, methodological innovations, and that offer clear managerial or policy contributions are particularly welcome. Pretesting and pilot-testing ideas can help improve the strength of the registered report; such pretesting of stimuli/methods/measures and pilot testing, along with appropriate power analysis, can be included to establish proof of concept, effect size estimations, and the feasibility of proposed methods. Any pilot experiments should be included in the final version of the manuscript (in the main text or the appendix) and should be clearly distinguished from data obtained for the manuscript via preregistered study/studies as proposed in the initial registered report submission.

Submission Details

Submissions will undergo a two-step double-anonymized review process, with the first step being the submission of a registered report and the second step being the submission of the manuscript (if the registered report is accepted). Registered reports will be screened by the guest editors and those that pass the initial screen will be sent to reviewers for feedback. The same reviewers will be requested to review the manuscript as well. See the special issue FAQ Page.

Step 1: Registered Report Submission

Authors will first submit a registered report via (please select “Special Issue Submission” as the manuscript type). This is essentially a proposal in the form of a partial manuscript that includes hypotheses, rationale for the proposed study/studies, experimental design, and methods. The authors should also propose a timeline (which should not exceed nine months) for completing the registered study/studies and agree to preregister their study/studies before conducting it/them. Registered reports should be anonymized for peer review. Authors are strongly encouraged to submit the proposed studies for IRB approval at this stage. If the registered report is accepted, this amounts to provisional acceptance of the final manuscript regardless of the outcome of the study. Registered reports should not exceed 5,000 words of text without including references.

Step 2: Manuscript Submission

For the registered reports that are accepted, authors will be asked to follow through with their plan for data collection and to supplement the registered report with the results of their empirical work (conducted after preregistration). Authors will have up to nine months to conduct the study/studies and submit the manuscript. The complete manuscript will be reviewed for adherence to the proposal contained in the registered report and its accordance with Open Science principles such as making data available in a repository and access to complete stimuli and study materials in a web appendix. Acceptance is not contingent on the results supporting the predictions stated in the registered report. Final manuscript submissions must adhere to Journal of Public Policy & Marketing’s submission guidelines.

Commentary

In the special issue’s first commentary, “,” authors Cameron Martel and David Rand offer a review of interventions designed to reduce belief in, and sharing of, misinformation and discuss practical challenges with deploying these interventions in the field. The authors also argue that heterogeneity of content, audience, and context should be considered when designing interventions. The ideas in this commentary can help scholars design interventions that help stop the spread of misinformation online, and can inspire ideas for submissions of registered reports to the special issue. We invite you to read the commentary and share with your network!

FAQ Page

For specific questions, please contact the special issue editors at jppm.mitigate.misinfo@gmail.com, and visit the special issue FAQ Page.

Registered Report Submission Deadline: September 15, 2025

Special Issue Editors

, Columbia Business School, Columbia University

, Institute for the Public Understanding of Risk (IPUR) and NUS Business School, National University of Singapore

[1] Note here that invited submission of a registered report is different from requiring preregistration of studies. Preregistered empirical studies refer to the registration of hypotheses and plans for data collection and analysis in sites such as AsPredicted or OSF. Such preregistration will be required only if a registered report submission is accepted by the journal.

The post Call for Papers | Journal of Public Policy & Marketing: Mitigating Misinformation appeared first on ���������.

The answer lies in rethinking marketing’s role in society. Marketing—services marketing in particular, which began with a focus on the marketing of intangible services—has recognized the need for an additional imperative: guiding managers in serving society. This evolution reframes marketing’s potential, positioning it as a strategic force for helping to address some of the world’s most pressing challenges. By embracing this role, marketing can help businesses generate both societal value and sustainable profits.

Importantly, all organizations—professional services, retailers, manufacturers, and others—are service organizations to some degree. Whether they offer services exclusively or provide both goods and services, services now dominate economic output, add value, and contribute to employment in both developed and developing economies. Even manufacturers are increasingly offering services to complement the sale of goods, underscoring the reality that all organizations play a role in the service economy. 

Moving Beyond Traditional Corporate Social Responsibility

For decades, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been the primary way businesses give back to society. CSR initiatives are often well-intentioned but typically operate separately from the core business functions. Many CSR programs are viewed as external efforts, disconnected from what companies fundamentally do to create value.

However, today’s challenges require more than the traditional CSR approach. Many consumers and other stakeholders demand greater accountability and integration of social impact into a company’s central strategy. Enter social profit orientation (SPO)—a cultural imperative that moves beyond isolated acts of goodwill and weaves social impact directly into the company’s mission. SPO shifts the focus to proactively making societal benefits a core element of business operations.

In a recent article, we examined how companies can adopt SPO to make social impact an integral part of their operations, ensuring that societal contributions move beyond peripheral initiatives to become central to business strategy.

This transition reframes the question: How can companies address social and environmental challenges without sacrificing profitability? The answer, as SPO demonstrates, is by embedding purpose into their business DNA, leading to long-term sustainable value creation that benefits both society and shareholders.

The Role of Services Marketing in Social Profit Orientation

By nature, services marketing is boundary-spanning—it requires deep integration across functions like operations, human resources, and management. This integration facilitates marketing professionals connecting various business functions in service of a larger purpose.

In SPO, services marketing plays a critical role in aligning a company’s societal contributions with its business objectives. Marketing leaders can craft campaigns, initiatives, and partnerships that showcase the company’s commitment to solving pressing social problems—whether it’s addressing climate change, improving community access to better housing, education, or healthcare, or promoting inclusivity. In this new paradigm, marketing no longer functions as an afterthought or add-on—it becomes the driving force behind societal and business growth.

For example, World Central Kitchen has redefined disaster relief, providing sustainable solutions for hunger while addressing systemic issues around food insecurity. Similarly, Gundersen Health System has achieved energy independence while delivering exceptional healthcare, demonstrating the profound impact of combining social responsibility with business goals. These examples highlight how SPO can be applied across sectors, with services marketing at the core of these efforts to align societal contributions with business objectives.

From CSR to SPO: A Practical Guide for Marketing Professionals

For businesses looking to make this transition, moving from CSR to SPO requires a significant shift in mindset and operations. Marketing professionals are uniquely positioned to lead this transformation. Here’s how companies can successfully transition and implement SPO:

1. Secure Board Commitment

The first step in embedding SPO into a company’s strategy is securing top-level commitment. Without strong support from the board, SPO initiatives often face underfunding or lack priority. Marketing leaders must advocate for the business case behind SPO, showing how social impact initiatives can generate brand loyalty, customer and employee retention, and even revenue growth. Board-level buy-in is crucial to ensuring that SPO is implemented as a core business function rather than a peripheral program.

2. Champion the Champion

While one or more visionary executives or change champions will be responsible for leading the SPO transformation, marketing must play a critical role in supporting the champion(s). This includes providing essential stakeholder research, market insights, and promotions that highlight the benefits of SPO, helping to secure buy-in from key stakeholders. Marketing professionals can provide the data and narratives needed to rally the organization behind the transformation. And marketing professionals themselves may perform the “champion” role.

3. Develop an Initiative Framework

SPO is not about supporting every social initiative available. Companies need to be strategic in selecting societal initiatives that align with both their core values and business objectives. Marketing professionals, particularly service marketers, with their boundary-spanning capabilities, can facilitate collaboration across departments in designing a decision framework. Departments such as operations, finance, human resources, and corporate strategy should be involved in this process to ensure that the initiatives selected are aligned with the company’s strengths and potential for long-term societal impact. This approach ensures that resources are allocated wisely, contributing to both the community and the bottom line.

4. Achieve Early Wins

As with any major change, quick wins are crucial. Early successes demonstrate the value of SPO and build internal and external support for further initiatives. Marketing teams should focus on highlighting these early wins through targeted campaigns that show the positive effects of SPO.

5. Foster Leadership Synergy

For SPO to succeed, there must be alignment between senior leadership and grassroots efforts within the company. Marketing professionals are in a unique position to facilitate this connection, ensuring that social impact initiatives are supported from the top while engaging employees at all levels. This fosters a culture where SPO is a company-wide priority, not just an executive initiative.

6. Forge Strategic Partnerships

No company can drive large-scale social change alone. Strategic partnerships with external organizations—whether nonprofits, governments, or other businesses—are often essential to amplifying the reach and impact of SPO. Marketing professionals are well-versed in building relationships and can lead efforts to form partnerships that fill resource gaps and expand the company’s influence. These alliances further the company’s ability to create meaningful social profit.

7. Integrate Impact Metrics

Measuring the impact of SPO is critical to proving its effectiveness. Marketing professionals must incorporate tools like social return on investment (SROI) to track both the societal and financial outcomes of SPO initiatives. By integrating impact metrics into marketing dashboards, companies can clearly communicate progress to stakeholders, ensuring transparency and accountability.

8. Leverage Storytelling

One of marketing’s greatest strengths is its ability to tell stories that resonate. By crafting compelling narratives around the company’s social impact, marketing professionals can engage customers, employees, and investors in a meaningful way. Storytelling humanizes the organization and demonstrates how its actions are making a tangible difference in society. These stories are powerful tools for building loyalty and trust, showcasing the value of SPO initiatives.

The Future of Marketing: A Catalyst for Change

As businesses continue to evolve, marketing will play an even greater role in shaping the future of society. SPO is not just a model for integrating social good into a company’s mission—it’s the next frontier in marketing strategy. By embedding SPO into their core operations, companies can foster customer, employee, and other stakeholder loyalty, build sustainable growth, and help address the urgent challenges facing society.

In a world where purpose increasingly drives purchase decisions, SPO offers a clear pathway for businesses to succeed both financially and socially. Many consumers and employees are demanding that companies step up and address the urgent issues facing society. Meanwhile, managers increasingly recognize that “doing well by doing good” isn’t just a slogan—it’s a reality. In fact, McKinsey found that 48% of executives view sustainability as contributing positively to shareholder value, underscoring the growing alignment between social responsibility and business success.

Despite the growing recognition of the value of socially responsible business practices, there has been notable pushback. Some critics argue that these practices can detract from immediate financial returns or advance political agendas. However, as societal challenges like climate change and inequality become more pressing, such resistance is likely to diminish over time. SPO, by focusing on long-term value creation for both society and businesses, ensures that companies remain resilient and committed to addressing these challenges, even in the face of short-term political opposition.

Marketing professionals are at the forefront of this movement, equipped with the skills and knowledge to drive SPO forward. As companies transition to being more socially profit-oriented, they will discover that doing good isn’t just beneficial for society—it’s essential for sustained business success.

The post The Transformative Role of Marketing in Driving Social Change appeared first on ���������.

To better represent consumers who have traditionally been underrepresented in the marketplace, an increasing number of brands are extending or launching product lines that are more inclusive of a diverse consumer base.

In a , we find that inclusivity initiatives may not be seen as equally positive by all consumers. Though these initiatives are generally met with positivity, consumers who feel underrepresented in the marketplace—the very consumers these initiatives intent to serve—may respond less favorably than represented consumers. Our research team examines how feeling underrepresented can increase consumers’ skepticism about whether the products in these expanded lines will fit their needs.

Underrepresentation in the Marketplace

When consumers feel underrepresented in the marketplace, they are likely experiencing product and consumption situations in which their needs are either unconsidered, unheard, or misconstrued by companies. We find that consumers of all races feel underrepresented and, not surprisingly, feelings of representation are strongly correlated with race. In the 2020 United States Census, Black and Hispanic consumers accounted for 30.8% of the population, with the White population decreasing from 63.7% of the population to 57.8%. Despite this, White consumers have been the primary focus for skin tone related products—with many brands offering a truncated range of skin tones. As such, many consumers are left using products that do not fully meet their needs.

We suggest that consumers’ past experiences create an expectation that new products, even in different product categories, may not meet their needs. This hesitancy creates a sense of product fit skepticism: doubting whether the product will actually match skin tone needs. In turn, this product fit skepticism limits the extent of positive brand attitudes.

Across several studies we find that product line extensions aimed at inclusivity are met with more positive responses from represented consumers. Underrepresented consumers, however, have lower positive responses. We find that these lower responses span a wide range of parameters: attitude, click-through/engagement with marketing endeavors, interest in purchase, and sharing information about the product with others. This lower attitude is not because underrepresented consumers are more negative toward brand innovations overall. In fact, we find that this lower brand attitude only persists for product line extensions that are aimed at inclusivity versus general innovation. These consumers have a higher feeling that the product will not fit or match their needs.

What Can Companies Do?

How can companies better meet and articulate the needs of their consumers? We find that demonstrating respect for a consumer’s needs can help boost reception of product line extensions. Specifically, underrepresented consumers are less likely to believe that their needs are taken into account during the product development stage. When a company can show that underrepresented consumers’ specific needs have been taken into account and voices have been heard, underrepresented consumers may be less skeptical and more open to the product.

We find different avenues through which a company can demonstrate respect:

• Customization, which allows consumers to closely tailor their experiences, could reduce questions about whether the product can truly meet their needs.

• Brand positioning, a longer-term marketing tool, can demonstrate that the company cares about the needs of underrepresented consumers.

For example, Fenty Beauty’s “” campaign chose representative celebrity spokespeople, utilized social media to reignite the conversation around diversity in the beauty industry, and involved beauty scientists of color during product development. This likely converged to create a positioning of high respect of consumer needs.

Fenty Beauty’s “Beauty for All” campaign chose representative celebrity spokespeople, utilized social media to reignite the conversation around diversity in the beauty industry, and involved beauty scientists of color during product development. This likely converged to create a positioning of high respect of consumer needs.

In other words, companies need to show that their approach is not a one-off activation but part of the brand’s strategic positioning prior to launch. They need to continually articulate their positions on representation and act upon their goals even after launching products targeted at underrepresented customers. Consumers want to know that these extensions are more than just a marketing tactic.

Companies should also note that certain consumer characteristics are often correlated with feelings of representation. For instance, we find that feelings of representation in skin tone products correlate with gender (i.e., female-identifying consumers feel more represented) and political orientation (i.e., the more conservative, the more one feels represented). The strongest correlation we find is with race (i.e., white consumers feel significantly more represented). Marketers may be able to use these more observable consumer characteristics as a proxy to identify consumers with lower feelings of representation and determine who might be more skeptical of their inclusivity initiatives.

Consumers want to know that these extensions are more than just a marketing tactic.

Altogether, we show that while inclusivity-based product line extensions are generally viewed favorably in the marketplace, underrepresented consumers are still skeptical and show lower response and engagement with the brand. If companies truly want to serve the needs of a diverse consumer base, they must be willing to put in the work to demonstrate respect and ongoing care for their consumers—especially those who have not felt represented within the marketplace.

Source: Jennifer D’Angelo, Lea Dunn, and Francesca Valsesia, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post When Inclusive Marketing Doesn’t Resonate: How Brands Can Build Trust in Inclusivity-Focused Product Lines appeared first on ���������.

In a , we offer a framework for how marketing research can better incorporate intersectional marketing practices. We provide a paradigm and step-by-step guidance for marketing to engage with intersectionality. By following our roadmap, the field of marketing will not only better understand situations like racial differences in the WNBA, and contrast it with the NBA, but also predict and thoughtfully navigate these occurrences.

As marketing tackles challenges such as emerging technology, political divergence, and data replicability, we argue intersectionality offers a critical perspective and can shift how we view marketing and consumption. Intersectionality highlights systems of privilege and oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, classism) and turns theoretical social categories into interconnected consumer lived experiences.

Engaging with Intersectionality

Our project identifies three key components to engage with intersectionality: a definition, a framework, and a roadmap.

• Defining intersectionality includes considering overlapping identities simultaneously (e.g., race and gender) and examining how consumers living at these intersections uniquely experience advantage and disadvantage in the marketplace. Reese’s rise to fame as a Black woman is not the same as the experience of a White woman like Clark, for example. Their experiences as women are tied to their race, and vice versa.

• Adopting an intersectional framework requires centering consumer experience of (dis)advantage as a critical factor in any situation. Marketplace interactions, shopping trips, or consumption situations are all informed by the societal context, both past and present. The conversation about Reese and Clark is deeply embedded in the history of gender disparity in sports. It is impossible to fully understand and navigate such situations without that context.

• The roadmap for engaging with intersectionality requires critical reflection at every stage of the process, whether it is marketing research, brand strategy, or policy making. What identities are we focusing on and whose experiences are being excluded? What role does power and advantage/disadvantage play for different groups of consumers in this context? How can we avoid over-generalizing across consumer groups?

Working through the prism of intersectionality has transformative implications for how managers operate and how consumers live. For instance, any brand involved in sports (e.g., Nike, Gatorade) needs to be intentionally conscious of the history of gender and race in sports. Fashion and beauty brands need to be conscious of beauty standards and cultural appropriation. Food brands need to be conscious of food justice. Technology brands need to be conscious of the digital divide.

Any brand involved in sports needs to be intentionally conscious of the history of gender and race in sports. Fashion and beauty brands need to be conscious of beauty standards and cultural appropriation. Food brands need to be conscious of food justice. Technology brands need to be conscious of the digital divide.

Lessons for Chief Marketing Officers

Consider the following questions when crafting marketing strategies and tactics:

• How might similarities and differences across intersections in norms and access to resources/power influence stakeholders’ lived experiences (and thereby their behavior)?

• How might stakeholders with different overlapping identities (e.g., race, gender, class) be (dis)advantaged by specific policies and practices?

• Consider whether the strategic or tactical thesis behind a particular policy is based on data that are not representative of the affected stakeholders. Whose data are absent? Who is missing from the decision-making table?

The experience of advantage and disadvantage at different intersections of identity impacts the daily decisions of consumers. Denying this reality only alienates the very people who managers and policy makers are trying to serve. And given that the experience of disadvantage can come from so many different intersections of identities—age, gender, race, class, ability, sexual orientation, and so on—it is actually the vast majority of people in the marketplace whose intersectional experiences go unseen. By engaging with intersectionality, marketing can better understand and serve understudied consumers.

To summarize, embracing intersectionality exposes the power structures within the marketplace and increases marketing’s benefit to society and its ability to reflect and address the complexities of real-world behavior. Currently, measures are often developed and validated from a dominant perspective to explain broad contexts, ignoring the possibility that people at various identity intersections may experience the world differently.

Through our intersectional marketing paradigm and intersectional marketing research design roadmap, we offer directions and recommendations for all researchers as a path toward new questions that can be applied across research domains. For marketing to be at the forefront of inclusive and useful solutions, we must truly embrace the intersectional world the marketplace occupies.

Source: Esther Uduehi, Julian Saint Clair, and Rowena Crabbe, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post A New Playbook: Engaging with Intersectionality to Guide Inclusive Marketing Strategies appeared first on ���������.

The groundbreaking commitment that emerged following the saw leading companies vow to invest in enterprises primarily focused on societal well-being. This initiative aims to raise $1.1 trillion to build a more sustainable, equitable world.

In a , we explore similar transformative strategies, offering insights into how organizations can significantly enhance the common good through a social profit orientation.

Addressing the complex problems of the world—climate change, poverty, hunger, human rights, pandemics, wars, education, and more—requires business involvement. The field of services marketing, guided by the transformative service research (TSR) agenda, can play a crucial role in helping executives develop service-specific solutions to these challenges.

The Benefits of a Social Profit Orientation

Organizations with a social profit orientation integrate the creation of sustainable, positive social and environmental impacts into their core mission. This approach goes beyond traditional corporate social responsibility by embedding social goals directly into business strategies, creating sustained societal impact alongside business growth.

We find that organizations adopting this orientation not only contribute positively to society but also achieve competitive advantages, including enhanced reputation, becoming an employer of choice, and driving innovation.

Organizations that adopt a social profit orientation not only contribute positively to society but also achieve competitive advantages, including enhanced reputation, becoming an employer of choice, and driving innovation.

Our study is based on 62 in-depth interviews with leaders from 21 diverse for-profit and non-profit organizations globally. These organizations demonstrate how integrating social profit goals into business operations can align business success with social progress. Practical examples from these enterprises offer valuable guidance to others seeking to invest in societal well-being.

From reducing carbon footprints to enhancing healthcare accessibility and promoting financial inclusion, these organizations are setting industry benchmarks. Some have developed products that are both profitable and socially beneficial, while others have transformed their supply chains to be more sustainable and ethical. This dual focus on profitability and social impact is proving to be a powerful strategy for business sustainability and societal enhancement.

This alignment not only attracts top talent motivated by purpose but also helps retain them, driven by the meaningful work they are engaged in. Externally, this orientation strengthens customer and stakeholder relationships, as more consumers engage with brands that demonstrate genuine concern for societal issues.

Recommendations for Chief Marketing Officers

Our study offers lessons for CMOs and other organizational leaders:

• Performance metrics must balance financial and nonfinancial goals, and short-term and long-term outcomes. Metrics such as employee satisfaction, turnover, customer experience, product and service quality, vendor relations, carbon footprint, and the impact of social initiatives should factor into leadership compensation.
  
  
• We developed a decision tree to guide leaders in identifying social initiatives with the greatest potential. Key questions include:
  
  
  1. Is the initiative directed toward an important, underserved social need?
  2. Does it create synergy with the organization’s broader mission?
  3. Will it bolster primary operations and goals?
  4. Will it strengthen or create new stakeholder relationships?
  5. Is it scalable?
  6. Is its impact measurable?

• Managers should link initiatives to a “theory of change” and document how they impact beneficiaries. Frameworks such as ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and the can guide managers in assessing the societal and environmental impact of social initiatives.
  
  
• Hiring employees whose personal values align with the organization’s mission is more likely to result in deeply engaged, motivated, and passionate workers.
  
  
• Clearly conveying the organization’s purpose and commitment through storytelling and other communications enhances internal and external stakeholder engagement. Monitoring stakeholder sentiment allows for timely corrective action when needed.
  
  
• Prize the developing of stakeholder trust and collaboration. Creating social profit requires the pooling of talents and judicious sharing of resources.

Our research suggests that organizations across all sectors should consider realigning their strategies to support broader societal goals. We urge leaders to evaluate their operations and strategies to incorporate social profit goals, driving not just economic but also social progress. This approach will help bridge global inequalities and create more resilient and innovative organizations.

Source: Leonard L. Berry, Tracey S. Danaher, Timothy Keiningham, Lerzan Aksoy, and Tor W. Andreassen, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Turning Purpose into Profit: Strategies from Industry Leaders appeared first on ���������.

Seven out of ten people face an increase in inequality (United Nations 2020), and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this by increasing inequality in two forms: between and within countries (The Economist 2022). As such, lowering inequality is classified as one of the (#10), conceived to reduce inequalities and discrimination worldwide (The Global Goals 2023). But how exactly does inequality and its resulting discrimination actually affect people? Can inequality and discrimination hinder everyday consumption decisions? If so, what can be done about it?

A by Jorge Jacob, Yan Vietes, Rafael Goldszmidt, and Eduardo B. Andrade explored how anticipation of socioeconomic-status (SES)-based discrimination affects the price sensitivity of poor, but not rich, consumers. Although low-SES consumers tend to be more price-sensitive—and for good reason—results from five studies reveal that low-SES (vs. high-SES) consumers are willing to pay more and even accept low-value rewards to avoid more affluent commercial settings such as upscale retail stores. The authors document that this self-defeating behavior occurs because these consumers anticipate greater discrimination in upscale commercial settings. The authors refer to this as a “psychological ghetto tax,” a version of the well-documented “ghetto tax” phenomenon in which lower-income individuals end up paying more due to mobility costs, lack of information, location, and other factors.

Although low–socioeconomic status (SES) consumers tend to be more price-sensitive, results from five studies reveal that low-SES consumers are willing to pay more and even accept low-value rewards to avoid more affluent commercial settings such as upscale retail stores.

Acknowledging the relevance of this topic for a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., consumers, companies, and public policy makers), we reached out to the authors for some behind-the-scenes insights into the research process and their perspectives on the topic.

Q: How did you develop the overall idea for the project? Was the initial inspiration to determine the cause of suboptimal financial decisions among the poor, understand downstream consequences of perceived low SES stigma, or something completely different?

A: (This response is on a more personal note by the first author Jorge Jacob)

I lived in a neighborhood with extreme social inequality during my childhood. I noticed that my lower-income friends frequented malls and stores in higher-income neighborhoods less frequently than our wealthier colleagues. Even when the transportation price to go from one point to another in our neighborhood was the same as traveling outside our neighborhood. I noticed that they often paid more for a sporting item than they would pay at a retail store in another neighborhood. A few years later, I was working in a large telecom company with over 70 million customers. There was a vast majority of low-income and a minority of high-income customers, as in any unequal country. The company built stores in higher-income neighborhoods, targeting high-income customers. The stores were more upscale, more comfortable, and more quickly solved customers’ problems than those that targeted low-income clients. Although targeting high-income customers, any customer could attend these stores regardless of income. It caught my attention that, although many low-income customers frequented regions with these high-quality stores, usually for work, they rarely entered one of these stores.

The final insight for the hypothesis of this study came in the first month of my PhD when I attended a lecture by a professional born in Favela da Mare, currently a professor and manager of one of the most important NGOs in the region. In an informal part of his speech, he commented that his son wouldn’t have the courage to enter a store in a mall in a wealthy city neighborhood to search for better prices and often ended up paying more for the same item at a store in his neighborhood. He attributed this to a fear of slanted eyes and income discrimination. My advisors, Eduardo Andrade and Rafael Goldzmidt, and my PhD colleague Yan Vieites agreed to investigate whether this phenomenon affected a significant number of low-income consumers.

Q: What challenges did you face when conducting this research? In what aspects was conducting research with low-SES consumers different? Are there any tips (and/or pitfalls) for researchers and managers on how to approach this consumer segment? 

A: One of this project’s main challenges was to carry out a study with procedures that are accurate to the reality of consumers who might not be from the same social group as the researchers. A second major difficulty was recruiting participants in regions where many would not have easy access to computers or the internet. For these two difficulties, we counted on the support of local NGOs throughout the project since its beginning. We also had local residents joining the project as research assistants. Their participation enriched the project intellectually and helped us deal with the logistics, such as working with people who could recruit residents of the regions where our study took place. At all times, we maintained contact with local NGOs and with local research assistants who participated in the execution and elaboration of the project. For this reason, I believe that our main tip for researchers is that they rely as much as possible on the continuous participation in the project of people close to the studied population, especially when researchers do not belong to the same social group as their sample.

Q: You identify that the “psychological ghetto tax” prevents low-SES consumers from exerting price sensitivity. How would you explain the “psychological ghetto tax” for practitioners and in what other contexts do you think it could impact this consumer segment?

A: “Ghetto tax” is a term already well-known by scientists and many practitioners that shows the cost of being poor. Some studies in the United States show that higher prices are prevalent in some low-income neighborhoods due to the lack of competition and the prevalence of corner stores. One study also shows that people with access to a car would have more access to affordable goods and services elsewhere, while those without a car would deal with the higher local prices. Our study reveals that low-income consumers also have a psychological cost of being poor. While their lack of transportation makes them less likely to search for cheaper options in other areas of the city, we show that the expectations of prejudice in more upscale neighborhoods or stores may also operate in the same direction. This psychological ghetto tax is thus the consequence of low-income consumers’ expected discrimination in commercial settings with intergroup contact.

Q: Were you surprised that the anti-discriminatory inclusion statement in the study was the least successful intervention in mitigating the psychological ghetto tax? Does this point to a broader problem that decision makers communicate inclusivity ineffectively?

A: It was not a big surprise for us that the anti-discriminatory inclusion statement was the least successful intervention. We knew from previous research that, sometimes, diversity interventions may backfire by making the discriminated social identities and other related aspects more salient. For that reason, we guess that as this intervention blatantly highlights a reality shared by many stigmatized customers and proposes a series of measures to address discrimination, the anti-discriminatory practices statement may also have made such negative experiences overly salient to low-SES consumers. Along these lines, we think policymakers and companies should be cautious and identify whether diversity interventions make the threat of prejudice more salient instead of mitigating this fear.

Q: While you acknowledge that high population density and extreme economic disparities are common characteristics of megacities, what are other aspects that can strengthen or weaken the generalizability of the results to other countries? For example, would the results be insightful for companies from other parts of the globe (e.g., North America, Europe)?

A: We are pretty confident that results may hold for any country with high socioeconomic inequality and strong intergroup relations, like most U.S. cities or any large city worldwide. We think that some characteristics of cities and stores can increase or reduce this effect. For instance, this effect may be higher in cities like Rio de Janeiro, where wealthy and humble consumers live very close to each other. However, we guess that in stores in wealthy areas with diverse staff (e.g., with members of different socioeconomic backgrounds and races), we should expect this effect to be lower.

Q: If you were to be given the power to do so, what is one policy you’d like to implement to help low-SES customers make better marketplace decisions?

A: We would not say that low-income consumers make worse decisions. We think they just tend to make decisions less psychologically painful. However, we think that constant diversity training for all the employees of the companies may help mitigate discriminatory behavior harming low-income consumers. Along with that, policies capable of reducing income inequality may be capable of avoiding the psychological ghetto tax in the long term.

Read the full article:

Jorge Jacob, Yan Vieites, Rafael Goldszmidt, and Eduardo B. Andrade (2022), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 59 (6), 1083–1100. doi:

References

The Economist (2022), ““

The Global Goals (2023), ““

United Nations (2020), ““

The post “Psychological Ghetto Tax”: How the Poor Pay More to Escape Bias appeared first on ���������.

Patterns of love, work, parenting, and caring for the elderly, along with prominent social movements calling for workplace equity and positive gender representations in media, have altered conventional notions of gender roles worldwide. Two of the most prominent contemporary examples are freedom to transition across gender and the legalization of same-sex marriage in an increasing number of nations.

These social transformations mean that a large number of consumers are changing their attitudes toward style, social interaction, and enertainment. As a result, companies have been forced to reimagine their strategies, and marketers have to accommodate a broadening array of gender identities and practices. It is common to see ads featuring working mothers assisted by stay-at-home fathers, men using cleaning products and makeup, and retailers offering a range of gender-neutral products. On its website, the PHA Group, a global PR/digital media company based in the UK, shows how the beauty industry is embracing gender fluidity by offering gender-neutral products and cause-based promotional strategies rather than targeting customers based on their sex.

In a , we explore how the socialization of researchers—especially their commitments to particular research values and practices—impacts the types and results of gender-based research published in top-tier marketing journals. We find that the socialization and commitments to research values and practices is the reason why much of this research does not reflect contemporary society or marketing practice.

Our international team examined academic papers on gender published in the top-tier marketing journals over a nearly 30-year period (from 1993 to 2021) and find that a majority of research focuses on gender differences between men and women, as well as gender traits such as men being assertive and women focusing on relationships. Also profiled is research on gender roles, such as relationships between husbands and wives, mother/fathers with daughters/sons, and studies where traditional assumptions of what it means to be a man or woman predominate.

We find that less than 10% of articles address the social construction of gender experiences and identities in examples such as stay-at-home fathers and women’s empowerment in engaging in DIY activities. There are few studies on sexuality, such as investigations of the consumption practices of LGBTQIA+ consumers. An even smaller number of papers explore gender injustice and violence (e.g., depictions of violence against women in advertisements as well as equality, diversity, and inclusion). The smallest category of studies consider how products and brands are “gendered” (i.e., how marketers and consumers attribute masculine and feminine characteristics to products and brands).

Differences Versus Similarities

Our analysis shows that quantitative research methods predominate published research on gender, and the focus on differences totally eclipses attention to similarities in research dealing with gender-based resource imbalances in societies. Further, our results show that most of the quantitative work on gender relies on convenience samples and that just under half of the convenience samples are composed of college students. Given that students have higher education levels and fewer life experiences than the general adult population, we question the representativeness and generalizability of research based on students in generating knowledge of gender in marketing and in society.

We recommend that marketing researchers ensure their research methods include traditional and nontraditional, as well as genderfluid and nonbinary, gender positions and roles to reflect contemporary society. We encourage academics and practitioners to address the ethical implications of their findings on gendered persons and marketing strategies. Such work might feature the societal impact of hiring retail staff with a particular “look” or physique, which would be a step to ensure that research published in top-tier marketing journals is in step with current gender expressions.

In sum, our study links the way researchers think about gender to research methods and findings published in the top-tier marketing journals.

Lessons for Stakeholders

• For researchers: Describe similarities between genders and differences within genders. Do not focus only on differences between men and women.
• For journal editors: Encourage diverse and innovative submissions.
• For reviewers: Demand contemporary scales in submissions investigating gender.
• For teachers: Include gender topics in classes on consumer behavior and marketing and write case studies that feature diverse genders and gender relations for these classes.
• For academic institutions: Incentivize gender research and related faculty innovations.
• For companies: Update thinking and methods to reflect evolving genders and gender relations in societies.

Overall, updating gender research to be more diverse and inclusive and to feature the impacts on gendered persons will make the findings more relevant to industry and to society, and result in better marketing research for a better world.

From: Lisa Peñaloza, Andrea Prothero, Pierre McDonagh, and Kathrynn Pounders, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post How Marketing Research Must Adapt to Modern Gender Concepts appeared first on ���������.

The initial public policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic was rife with chaotic decision making and wide variations in the implementation of governmental guidelines. Social distancing was the primary intervention proposed by most governmental agencies, but these measures/mandates saw mixed results because many were unwilling to comply due to factors such as politicization, widespread fake news, and lack of a scientific temper.

Brands, for their part, were quick to incorporate COVID-19-related narratives in their advertising strategies. While such advertisements likely influence brand-related outcomes (such as sales and customer awareness), it is not clear whether they impact social outcomes unrelated to the brand—the so-called “spillover” effects. In a , we assess the impact of COVID-19-related brand advertising on social distancing behavior.

We analyzed advertising and mobility data with quasi-experimental econometric methods and found that, in general, counties where brands ran a greater number of COVID-19-related advertisements showed higher levels of social distancing. This societal “spillover” of advertising was substantial. For example, a 1 percentage point increase in COVID-19-related advertising led to an average of 466 additional people (compared to 2019) staying fully at home each day. This effect was more pronounced for larger markets such as New York (6,527 people) and Los Angeles (5,612 people). Given that social distancing was critical to preventing virus spread (especially before the vaccine was developed), this spillover effect may have contributed to saving lives.

We also find heterogeneous advertising effects based on brand-level and demographic variables. Our results indicate that the effect of advertising on social distancing behavior is amplified among more educated populations but attenuated in more conservative and rural counties, which tend to be more white. Overall, our findings bear substantive implications for the power of brand advertisements to affect important societal outcomes and for government communication strategies. Our findings have implications for other public health emergencies (e.g., climate change) as well.

Could brand advertising fill the void when government agencies fail to adequately respond to public crises? The answer seems to be an overwhelming yes. A recent study by the Edelman Trust Barometer found that individuals tend to trust businesses (61%) more than governments (53%), and an astounding 86% believe that CEOs must lead on societal issues while 68% want CEOs to step in where governments fail. Our results concur: COVID-19-related brand advertising effects on social distancing behavior are almost 11 times stronger in the absence of a cogent policy response (e.g., shelter-in-place, masking) from government agencies. This suggests that brands may play a critical role in weathering public crises.

The Effect of Salience

We identify salience as one of the primary underlying psychological mechanisms that help explain our findings. When the pandemic was less prominent or salient in people’s minds, brand advertising played a more significant role in making the pandemic and its consequences more salient in their mobility-related decision-making processes. We also find that the brand advertising effects vary based on several factors such as product category and demographics. For example, ads from certain product categories such as entertainment, alcohol and tobacco, and politics have a negative effect on social distancing behavior. Further, the effects are stronger in areas with greater population and higher levels of education.

Although to a much lesser extent compared to brands, federal, state, and local government agencies also engaged in COVID-19-related advertising. But we find that government ads, overall, do not have a significant effect on people’s social distancing behavior, although the effects seem to vary from county to county.

Managerial Implications

Our study offers the following guidance to brand managers and policymakers:

1. Brands have tremendous opportunities to disseminate socially relevant messages embedded in the narratives of their TV ads to impact socially beneficial outcomes. Brands can be strategic about their advertising not only from a brand-outcome standpoint but also from a societal-outcome standpoint.
2. Government agencies may need to rethink their communication strategies when dealing with major public health crises requiring public compliance with critical safety guidelines. They may benefit from adopting alternative means of communication to minimize reactance or annoyance. This may involve collaborations with trusted public figures and/or social media influencers or offering incentives to firms in certain categories (i.e., those with increased ad effectiveness) to incorporate relevant narratives in communications directed at their followers and consumers, respectively.
3. Brand managers and policymakers could use the findings from this study to devise more efficient, targeted, and timely communication strategies to deal with future health crises. Our findings are generalizable to other public crises, such as climate change. Brand ads with relevant narratives may help increase the salience of the crisis and influence critical mitigative behaviors, such as promoting recycling and switching to clean energy.

. 

From: Ayan Ghosh Dastidar, Sarang Sunder, and Denish Shah, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Can Brands Influence Social Outcomes? The Impact of COVID-19-Related Brand Advertising on Social Distancing Behavior appeared first on ���������.

For more information visit

The need for brands to connect with consumers through culture is an established concept. However, the manner and the speed now required to do so successfully —and in a way that drives bottom-line impact— has evolved faster than the latest fling on “Love Island.” With brands hustling to react to the latest meme, trending TikTok dance or societal crisis, it can be difficult to quantify how these efforts impact cultural relevance, cement customer loyalty and drive brand love.

But how do you measure cultural relevance? A brand video hitting viral status or basking in the afterglow of soaring sales following the launch of a new program are certainly markers, but that’s not a holistic view. If only culture had a crystal ball… has entered the chat.

Determined to untangle all the elements that make up a truly culturally relevant brand, Allison+Partners Consumer Brands team built a first-of-its-kind, proprietary tool to measure how brands rank within culture at any given time. While some may think this sounds like the Upside Down, we call it, “” (BGIQ).

And don’t worry consumer marketers, BGIQ won’t take your job, but it will help you do it better – we pinky swear. Created by combining our consumer brand prowess with best-in-class performance and intelligence chops, BGIQ produces a comprehensive and real-time score that details how culturally relevant a brand is at any moment in time.

Brands measured through BGIQ receive a score from 1-100 that assesses how well they perform against five indicators: Plugged into Pop Culture, Disrupting the Norm, Living with Purpose, Always Inclusive, and Modern and On-Trend. We started by scoring 50 of America’s favorite brands from up-and-coming to iconic and everything in between, which can be seen by visiting .

So, who cracked the cultural nut? Brands that performed well across the performance indicators include:

• Liquid Death – Love it or hate it, this canned water company is putting “death to plastic” in everything it does and gives sustainability a new kind of edge.
• MAC Cosmetics – Not only does the brand smash gender norms in the makeup space, it also brings to life its inclusive messaging across platforms. MAC is even tapped into the tech space with a recently announced partnership with Launchmetrics and Microsoft for a beauty-focused hackathon.
• Calm – The mental health app never misses a beat when it comes to tapping into topical conversations. From its 30 second commercial spot of rain to help consumers feel the Calm during a stressful election season to partnering with Harry Styles to read app subscribers a bedtime story. 

BGIQ also allows brands to see how they measure up against their top competitors to give teams an unfair advantage. Once scored, brands can work with Allison+Partners to use their BGIQ results to find whitespace, inform campaign planning, and develop marketing and PR programming to achieve greater cultural relevance.

The new scoring tool is the latest culture-focused product to come out of Allison+Partners’ award-winning Consumer Brands Practice and a natural evolution of the agency’s culture engagement offering that turns trends into actionable brand moments.

To see if your brand was scored in the first 50 or to make an inquiry, please visit: or email BGIQ@allisonpr.com.

is a creative instigator who believes brands must live at the intersection of culture and commerce. Currently she is Partner + President of Consumer Brands at Allison+Partners. She has spent her career developing award-winning campaigns for major consumer brands and has launched every shaving innovation for Gillette from Sensor to Fusion ProGlide, helped M&M’s put the color purple in the bag, was the creative force behind Driscoll’s Rosé berries and drove Budweiser’s success at Super Bowl LV. A noted industry leader, Lisa is often quoted on brand and marketing trends and has served on numerous award juries, including Cannes Lions, The Clios, Brand Film Festival, Sabre Awards, Silver Anvils, Snackable Content and PRWeek Awards, among others. She has been recognized by PRovoke Media as an Innovator 25, by PRWeek as a Hall of Femme and a Champion of PR and has won more than 65 awards on behalf of her clients.

The post Measure Your Brand’s Cultural Relevance with Brandgeist IQ appeared first on ���������.