In this installment of Marketing Muckraking, we explore the question...should brands be "political"? And what does it mean to be "political" in the context of global capitalism? Are we turning to corporations because we've lost our faith in government? What do we do, as brand consumers and business owners, with the answers to these questions? How do we build a better world? In June, the world’s most powerful advertisers gathered at Cannes Lions, where this year’s biggest themes included AI, ad tech, influencer marketing, and most notably — “dialing down the politics,” which was the directive to jurors voting on the advertising industry’s top awards. While the Cannes leadership never made a statement on the issue, it’s hard not to see these jury instructions as a direct response to recent right-wing fueled culture wars, specifically as it relates to “woke” M&M’s spokescandies, Bud Light’s short-lived influencer deal with Dylan Mulvaney, and the backlash in response to Target’s 2023 Pride line. But even without making a statement, the message from Cannes Lions leadership was loud and clear: “Shut up and sell.” And they really brought that home when they awarded their “Marketer of the Year” award to — Anheuser Busch’s Chief Marketing Officer. Yes, that’s right, after exploiting Dylan Mulvaney to gain market share, then dropping her into a sea of death threats and right wing violence when their sales suffered, Anheuser Busch won the top marketing award in the world for the second year, making history as the only brand to ever win this award twice in a row. Dylan Mulvaney confirmed in late June that Bud Light never reached out to her after the backlash, which further confirms their stance towards the LGBTQIA+ community: “We won’t stand with you, but we will sell to you.” Award-winning marketing here, folks. In the wake of what some call “woke washing,” also known as “rainbow capitalism”, “pink washing”, or “green washing” — all terms synonymous with corporations positioning themselves as friendly to progressives, social and environmental causes, and historically excluded groups to gain market share — the growing efforts by right wing extremists to make examples of brands with messages they don’t like, have opened up conversations around whether brands should “stay out of politics” and stick to selling. This is my bat signal. We need a muckraker on the scene because if we leave it up to advertising apologists, well — they’re gonna keep giving awards to hypocrites who care more about profits than people or the planet. And if we leave it up to whichever talking head is auditioning to replace Tucker Carlson, they’re gonna keep inciting hate to promote their Make America Gilead Again agenda. So, the question we’re muckraking about today is: “Should brands be political?” But before we can answer this (or not answer this, because you know my style) we gotta clarify — what does it mean for brands to be “political”? How do we define politics in this context? Let's go...