Brand proposals that prohibit political positioning are seen as a step backwards and a lack of understanding of the role of influencers
The social changes in recent years have led society to demand more active and engaged positions from brands and influencers. A movement that can be seen from the vaccination campaigns against Covid-19 and the positions against the War in Ukraine to reports such as the 2022 Edelman Barometer and awards such as the Cannes Lions.
A minefield in this process is political-electoral positioning, which is now putting pressure on the influence marketing market with clauses that can harm freedom of expression. In an election year and with the country in turmoil, some brands have reached out to content creators with proposals that prohibit partisan political statements or demonstrations of support, as Fátima Pissarra, CEO of Mynd, told Propmark.
The cases, according to the interviews made by the report, are aimed at professionals who position themselves on the left or as favorable to the former president and current candidate for the Planalto, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
“I think there’s a perception by brands that if she supports an influencer who votes for a certain party, consequently, it’s as if she’s supporting a certain party. Which, for me, as Mynd, is wrong. You hire an influencer for the who he is, who he talks to and how he communicates with his followers,” explained Pissarra.
For Eric Messa, coordinator of the Publicity and Propaganda course and the Center for Innovation in Digital Media at FAAP, the old adage of not discussing “football, politics and religion” helps to understand the fear of brands around partisan political discussions. . “When we talk about social issues, I believe that companies are doing very well, but, in fact, when we talk about political issues, the subject becomes delicate”.
But social transformations, which show people’s greater trust in companies compared to government institutions and the media, demand new attitudes. “In this very delicate moment of ours, companies need to take some risks, such as supporting and maintaining partnerships with digital influencers who decide to position themselves politically. This is a moment of transformation that we live in that I think is worth trying, despite the risks”, he opines.
Criticism of this type of attitude has become recurrent among professionals. Influencer Victor de Castro says that he has already received proposals with the requirement that he not talk about politics until the end of the year, one, even, with a value above what he usually receives. Usually, his team already vetoes it when they see the clause, but as the amount was high, the final decision was his. “What I found is that for some companies it may be interesting to silence some influencers”, he says.
He adds that, unlike exclusivity clauses, which have already called for withdrawal on some occasions, the political restriction is stricter. “Every time we say no because of the clause, the work falls.”
For Ricardo Silvestre, founder and CEO of Black Influence, which works with more than 100 professionals, the requirement “denotes regression”. “The influencer is a person who needs to express himself when he understands a certain subject”. According to him, there is a perception of growing discomfort and concern in conversations with his peers in the influence market.
The path chosen by these brands stems from a fear of cancellations and haters, according to João Finamor, a professor of digital marketing at ESPM’s Prime MBA. For him, the consequence of a lack of scenario planning, with positive and negative perspectives.
“This type of behavior is a setback and a lack of understanding of what an influencer is, which is a person who, through their content, generates authority, new connections and a seal for brands”, he explains. “What the brand wants is a poster boy from the 2000s, all perfect, generic and not an influencer”, he adds.
