Everyone knows that your brand should stand for something, but what happens when that stance is unpopular? This question came to mind as I witnessed lines around the block for Chick-fil-A this past weekend in South Carolina, despite the turmoil generated by their public opposition to gay marriage.
Until recently, Chick-fil-A was seemingly doing everything a brand should do: it was well positioned in the market, delivered a strong product and message, and had deep ties with its customer. The brand has always stood for good, wholesome Christian family values. They close all of their locations on Sundays so that their employees can spend time with their families (even doing so during the 1996 Olympics). And of course, these values resonate strongly in the Southern Bible Belt where the brand has a strong presence. But this week, Chick-fil-A’s “family values” backfired with the confirmation that they support organizations that oppose gay marriage (among other anti-gay initiatives).
Chick-fil-A is holding strong to their position and their actions, fully owning up to and disclosing their beliefs. This honesty has come at a cost, though. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have both stated that the company is not welcome in their city and boycotts are planned nationwide. Jim Henson Co. pulled its Muppet Toys from Kid’s Meals and is now making donations instead to organizations that support gay rights. Meanwhile, Christian conservatives are calling for a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” and conservative politicians are rallying around the brand. And, in South Carolina this weekend, I watched the lines at local Chick-fil-A: they were as long as they always were, indicating that their core customer has remained loyal to the brand.
Leaving personal beliefs aside, Chick-fil-A is a good case for why it’s important to know your target audience. The brand’s values resonate strongly in the Bible Belt, and the brand remained true to them (and those customers who believe the same thing), despite the uproar. Chick-fil-A is not “flip flopping” their position as some companies (and politicians) have been known to do. And they have avoided much of the volatility that comes from lack of transparency or complete honesty.
The sacrifice that Chick-fil-A makes (aside from negative press) is that they now have a limited potential customer base. However, they most likely consciously made the decision that limiting the pool to those customers is a sacrifice they are willing to make to continue to support the organizations of their choosing. I imagine, based on the strength of support that is currently being shown for the brand in its key markets, the brand will most likely continue to be viable among its core constituency.
For those of you following along, today is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and Chick-Fil-A released a statement indicating that they did not create it.
And yesterday, in the first press release on the matter, they state:
"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."
Whether this means they are changing their position is unclear. What is clear is they are trying to focus on selling chicken (vs. being mired in politics), despite the popular press - perhaps in hope that the negativity will fade with time?
Additional food for thought:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/us-chick-fil-a-controversy/index.html?h...
If we replace the word "gay" with "black" or "Jew" would you feel the same way?
Good point Margaret. I would certainly not feel the same way. You've got me thinking.
While I disagree with the politics expressed by Chick-fil-A, I am appalled that the mayors of Boston and Chicago, so-called public servents, would use their offices to restrict freedoms of religion and speech. Neither Menino nor Emmanuel are welcome in my home.
For a company that for so long has focused on its product and on delivering a superior customer experience, Chick-fil-A now risks prompting consumers to consider the image that their brand represents and may unnecessarily alienate many potential customers, particularly in states such as MA. Hopefully, they continue to make great chicken sandwiches!
Putting aside personal beliefs, from a purely brand perspective, they're making a tough but smart marketing decision to align with their true customer. This is a great example of segmenting the market and choosing what you will and will not be in order to serve your core customer. Too often brands become watered down when they try to be "all things to all people" and they lose the "brand love" and loyalty of the core. By segmenting the audience and really knowing their customer, a brand can weather negative publicity from opposing views.
Even though it's highly unlikely the Cathys were so calculated (rather, just true to their personal beliefs), as a brand strategy, their unwillingness to do an about-face shouldn't damage the brand.
Hmmmm...not sure. It seems to me they could be cutting off their beaks to spite their face. If, for example, CfA said, "we've been thinkin' and ponderin' and we've done decided we were being a bit narrow-minded...we want to came out loud and clear on the side of love (a 'fundamental' tenet of Christianity) whatever form it takes" they could doube their market share and remain true to their face, errr, faith?
Great post - as much as I disagree with Chick-fil-A's politics, it does seem that Christian conservatives in particular may be looking for some consistency, especially as Romney is still seen as a bit of an opportunist or too liberal for them.
Leave a Comment: