“Whole-Ass One Thing” Brands and Moral Licensing
Have you ever done something you felt was really “good” like donate to charity or help out a friend, and then afterwards treated yourself to something you would normally consider “bad”, like eating a huge chocolate bar or buying something expensive? This is actually a really common behaviour that is known as Moral Licensing.
If you’re unfamiliar with the concept, it is basically the theory that doing a “good” thing or being “good” in some way allows us to justify “bad” behaviour later. In other words, we use examples of our own good behaviour to make us feel better when we do something morally dubious or problematic.
Examples of moral licensing range from the small-scale and relatively harmless (“I went to the gym yesterday therefore I can eat this McDonald’s”) to the more insidious and harmful (“I’ve spoken out against racism before therefore I am incapable of being racist myself”). Self-licensing of the larger scale is often unconscious but I think many of us will recognise some of those smaller behaviours ourselves- most commonly when we think we have “deserved a treat” of some kind because we have worked hard or been good in some way.
At first, this concept seems instinctively counter-intuitive, we want to believe that doing a good and virtuous thing sets us on a path of doing more good and virtuous things, but in fact, the opposite is more often true. There have been loads of interesting studies on this (worth a longer google when you have time) that prove the point. One of my favourites was carried out at the University of Toronto, where Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong found out that students who were instructed to buy things from an eco-friendly shop were more likely to cheat and be dishonest when later asked to take part in a money-splitting task. Because they had done something “virtuous” by shopping in a more environmentally friendly way, they gave themselves tacit permission to then behave less virtuously.
This is most obviously of interest to brands in terms of targeting. If we know that people are more likely to want to treat themselves after they’ve done something “good”, then there’s a whole host of contexts that “treat” brands should be playing into. For example, should luxury handbags be advertised in gyms instead of deodorants? Should fast food be advertised on charitable giving sites?
However, personally I’m more interested in looking at brands and moral licensing from a different angle. Rather than thinking about moral licensing in terms of human behaviour, I think it’s actually more important to think about the way brands often engage in moral licensing themselves.
Moral licensing is a psychological theory yes, so not something we could normally attribute to brand behaviour. However, brands choose to behave like humans in many different ways; additionally, our current advertising culture teaches and encourages us to assign personality traits to brands and thus think of them in human terms. Because of this, I don’t think it’s huge a jump to associate psychological theory to brand behaviour – which is exactly what I’m about to do.
If we argue that based on their behaviour and attributes, brands are viewed as personalities then it is fair to say that these personalities are as guilty as any human of moral licensing. In fact, I would go as far to say they are some of the worst offenders.
In today’s world, social justice and politics is creeping further into media and the world of brands. Advertisers are fighting to be a legitimate part of the conversation. Whether they are aligning with pop-feminism or shouting about charitable donations, it seems like they are desperate to prove their “goodness” to the world. But what often happens is that they feel like shouting loudly once is enough and then they don’t follow these claims or actions through the rest of their business.
While people may be forgiving of their own self-licensing, this is something they will not accept from a brand. From a consumer perspective, it is very obvious when brands engage in moral licensing and we just don’t buy it.
One example of this that stands out to me is Dove, famous for their Real Beauty campaign that has been hugely successful for them and is something they have stuck with for over a decade. However, the downside of politics and feminism being more accessible is that people have got smart about what these concepts actually mean. So, in recent years people have realised that the same people telling them to love their flaws with Dove are the ones releasing old-fashioned and objectifying deodorant ads for Lynx (both being Unilever companies.) Realisations like this have meant that people distrust social justice and moral standpoints from brands, so it is even more critical that when we do approach these subjects it is done well.
So what’s the answer here? I think it’s simple. Firstly, don’t underestimate your audience because they will see through any falseness. Secondly, if you want to stand for something then you have to go all in. Every aspect of your business and communications needs to align. Pick something your brand genuinely cares about and embrace it. Otherwise, your consumer will lose respect for your brand.
An example of a brand who is doing this well is Procter and Gamble, the creators of the Cannes Lions winning Always #LikeAGirl campaign. This commitment to address gender inequality is expressed across their brands, for example Ariel who in India released an ad called #SharetheLoad, tackling the disparity in household chores between men and women as asking “Why is laundry only a mother’s job?” They have also vocally supported International Women’s Day and the Women’s March.
To conclude, I want to end with the words of Parks and Recreation’s Ron Swanson who I think sums up how should tackle moral platforms with our clients: “Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.”