Heim, Hilde --- "Change of Mind: Marketing Social Justice to the Fashion Consumer" [2022] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 30; (2022) 11(2) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 102

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

Abstract

Marketing aims to influence consumers to buy more; however, buying more is at the very core of the fashion industry’s current malaise. A new system of marketing has arisen in the past decades that promises to offer an alternative solution: supporting the viability of brands while increasing awareness of social issues in the fashion industry and changing consumer behaviour for the better. The marketing of social justice issues or social marketing (SM) (not to be confused with social media marketing) aims to educate, influence and, ultimately, move the consumer to change their purchasing behaviour and make choices for good. Drawing on behavioural change theories and using case study methodology, this paper examines how, through crafting a desired position away from ‘product push’ and towards a social justice ‘pull’, fashion brands are experimenting with SM strategies that propose to transform buying behaviour. The findings indicate that while SM is an emerging marketing strategy for fashion brands, it results in an elevated perception of the brand and, ultimately, an increase in consumption. Although SM is not necessarily changing consumer behaviour, it is triggering public discourse and opinion. In this way, SM may still be effective in changing fashion consumer behaviour to improve social justice in the fashion industry.

Keywords

Social marketing; ethical consumption; fashion activism; fashion consumer behaviour change.

Heim H (2022) Change of mind: Marketing social justice to the fashion consumer. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 11(2): 102-115. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2405

Introduction

Marketing persuades audiences to select a product above other options (Kotler et al. 2013; Storey et al. 2015). Marketing strategies include commercial, retail and social marketing (SM). Unlike commercial marketing, which aims to entice consumers to enter a transaction in exchange for a product, SM has a societal goal and aims not only to educate the target audience about an issue but change behaviour for social good. SM, social justice marketing or cause-related marketing is often associated with charities, such as Save the Children (Boenigk and Schuchardt 2013). SM originated in the 1970s when Kotler (1970) realised that the effective techniques of commercial marketing and advertising could also be used to influence voluntary consumer behaviour for social good. Because contemporary consumers are increasingly concerned about social injustices regarding how companies treat the environment and the people who make their products, a growing number of fashion organisations and brands are shifting their marketing focus towards ethical issues or ‘campaigns with a purpose’, demonstrating how their products or services may contribute to greater social wellbeing (Woschnick 2021).

The fashion industry has caused a significant amount of harm to people and the planet over recent decades. Deeply problematic conditions abound, from environmental damage to labour abuses, lack of inclusivity, power imbalances and supply chain opacity (Jordan and Rasmussen 2018). A significant number of social justice issues sit under social and environmental pillars. The social pillar encompasses workers’ rights, fair wages and welfare (Boersma and Nolan 2022, 00221856211069238); the environmental pillar encompasses carbon emissions; excessive water use; chemical use and waste; harvesting virgin recourses; farm, animal and soil health and wellbeing (Niinimäki et al. 2020, 189-200). As a result, many brands have embarked on ‘reputation rescue’ or ‘sustainability’ campaigns, with greater or lesser success. Many of these campaigns have encountered backlash, with accusations of greenwashing (Niinimäki et al. 2020). Nonetheless, there is a distinct difference between sustainability campaigns and SM campaigns.

SM could be considered a progressive marketing strategy for fashion because it draws the customer’s attention away from product purchases and towards behaviours for ‘the greater good’. The lack of attention to this form of marketing in the fashion industry is surprising, considering the contemporary consumer’s aversion to products being pushed (even if sustainable) or being ‘sold to’ (Francis and Hoefel 2018). Indeed, consumers are responding more positively to companies and campaigns with a ‘purpose’ (Kantar n.d; McCormick and Ram 2022). SM campaigns are the focus of this study.

This study examines some of the few SM campaigns that the fashion industry has produced. Drawing on the theories of the motivation-opportunity-ability behaviour (MOAB) model (Gruen et al. 2005) and exchange theory (Hastings and Saren 2003) as theoretical frameworks for analysis, this study explores some examples of progressive marketing strategies by presenting three case studies where fashion brands or organisations have tackled current social issues with the aim of changing consumer perceptions and behaviour. The case studies are assembled through desktop research from publicly available sources and leading global marketing industry periodicals.

Campaigns were selected that aligned with social justice, sustainable and/or ethical principles and had a dominant number of media reports commenting on the campaigns. The frequent media commentary on the selected campaigns indicates their public interest, reach and effectiveness. In analysing these campaigns through the theoretical marketing models cited above, the study asks if these campaigns have led to the fundamental aims of SM, which is to change social and/or consumer behaviour. Have the campaigns educated and persuaded the customer to make more ethical consumer decisions such as reduced consumption or consumption of sustainably produced garments? This study concludes that although the campaigns are ‘nudging’ (Lee et al. 2020) the consumer in the right (socially-informed) direction, they have led to an overall increase in sales for both brand and product categories, which infers the opposite results are being achieved. However, within the increased fashion consumption figures, increases in sustainable products are also evident (Rigby 2022). Further, discourse by fashion consumers on social justice issues has been triggered as a result of SM campaigns.

SM has mostly been implemented by governments to change destructive personal behaviours, such as reducing smoking habits, using seat belts and helmets, arresting domestic violence, dealing with substance abuse and encouraging citizens to get vaccinated (Craig Lefebvre and Flora 1988; Kotler 1970; Storey et al. 2015; Varey 2010). In this way, SM campaigns have focused mainly on public health, which is considered a political good that affects the social/cultural consciousness of a society. However, commercial organisations have increasingly turned towards this strategy to generate change beyond consumption. Whereas the goal of campaigns for commercial organisations is still to maximise profits, the SM model places a premium on a company’s social responsibility hypothetically before profit. Since Kotler’s (1970) decisive expose, elucidating SM as distinct from other forms of marketing, the literature has continued to expand. At first, it was thought that consumer education was the definitive method for social marketers (Bloom and Novelli 1981). However, by the 1990s, knowledge of a social issue alone was not enough, and a more emotional approach coupled with calls to action was suggested (Donovan 2011).

At this point, a distinction needs to be drawn between sustainability marketing and SM. Sustainability marketing can be defined in two ways. In the first instance, it refers to sustainable product marketing (Belz and Peattie 2009). This means the garments’ sustainable ‘credentials’ (usually referring to materials) are promoted to the consumer—for example, that a T-shirt is 100% organic cotton (a highly disputable claim) or that a jacket is made from recycled polyester. Sustainable product marketing is distinct in that it presents the attributes of a product to entice a customer to buy that product because it was (even partially) sustainably sourced and/or produced. It does not aim at education or behaviour change as such. Indeed, this ‘claims and benefits’ style of marketing has led to allegations of greenwashing (unsubstantiated claims of sustainable production). Second, sustainability marketing can also refer to sustainable practices, similarly referred to since the 1970s as ecological marketing, green marketing and environmental marketing (Fisk 1973; Herberger 1977).

Sustainable fashion practice is fashion produced under environmentally and socially sustainable conditions. This can mean that a number of—but often, not all—parameters for sustainable practice are met (Gwilt 2011). For example, the raw fibre in a garment may be natural (e.g., cotton or wool), efficiently and organically produced (e.g., with little water/irrigation), generating low carbon emissions and producing little pre-consumer waste (offcuts); the components of a garment (e.g., the fibre, fabric or buttons) may be sourced, manufactured and retailed locally; the garment may have a potential extended life (e.g., good quality and long-lasting, and can be altered, recut, sewn, reused and resold) and/or can be recycled in sustainable ways (Gwilt et al. 2011). Ethically produced garments refer to the human, animal and environmental care taken in the production, sale and waste management of the garment, meaning that no harm was inflicted—whether ecological, physical or psychological—in these areas. Again, the claims can be disputed and referred to as greenwashing or ‘woke-washing’ (unsubstantiated adherence to equality and diversity) (McColl et al. 2021; Ritch and McColl 2021). Further, claiming sustainable product credentials is easily enmeshed with claiming sustainable practice credentials in fashion marketing. Either way, sustainability marketing is a means of building brand reputation and credibility, hence, ‘product push’ rather than bringing about behavioural changes through SM ‘pull’ towards making ethical consumer decisions, including the decision to buy less.

Marketing relies on a number of messaging strategies for its success. The message ‘appeal’ refers to particular methods of triggering emotions to prompt a shift in behaviour (usually towards consumption) (Folse et al. 2012). The appeal could include themes centred on lifestyle, fantasy, mood, personality, technical expertise, scientific evidence and/or testimonial evidence or endorsement. When marketers began turning their attention to SM, emotional appeals such as fear, shock, disgust and shame were increasingly deployed to intensify the effects of their SM campaigns. For example, in an effort to motivate women to exercise more, the non-departmental United Kingdom public body Sports England’s ‘This Girl Can’ campaign presented a social campaign fighting female body image fear (Kemp 2016). The problem identified by Sport England revealed that despite 75% of 14 to 40-year-old women saying they desired to be more active, 2 million fewer women participate in sports than men.

The ‘This Girl Can’ campaign was founded on the insight that the biggest obstacle preventing women from engaging in sports was their fear of being judged by others (Mulgrew et al. 2018, 26-35). This worry encompassed concerns about their appearance, aptitude or the simple fact that they choose to focus on themselves rather than their families. A series of campaigns were developed over several years. Effective measurements were implemented, and consequent adjustments were undertaken to improve target audience behaviour beyond the initial results (Kemp 2016). This was a complex campaign involving a variety of parties and government agencies. The campaign had over 8,000 supporters, ranging from small local sports clubs and individual fitness classes to big sporting organisations, such as the English Football Association. A total of 1.6 million women started exercising as a result of the promotion (Mulgrew et al. 2018, 26-35). Further, the number of women participating in sports and being physically active increased at a higher rate than that of men, indicating that the campaign’s approach of focusing on the target audience as individual consumers paid off. On Facebook and YouTube alone, the 90-second ‘This Girl Can’ advertisement was viewed over 37 million times. The campaign had a 500,000-strong social media following and was the subject of 660,000 tweets (Kemp 2016).

As the SM genre evolved, emotional appeals and responses were augmented by including calls to action, originally set in motion by many activist organisations. Friedman (1999) called consumer activism the behavioural agency model, as observed in consumer inaction (boycotting). Consumer boycotts try to persuade customers to avoid buying from unethical producers. For example, the Clean Clothes Campaign, launched in 1989 (and still current), encouraged people to avoid brands that partner with unethical suppliers. Balsiger (2016) traced the Clean Clothes Campaign back to the rise of ‘consumer campaigns’, showing how strategies were adapted to market situations to have brands adopt and monitor their suppliers’ codes of behaviour. Consumer agency can also take the form of positive action, that is, deliberately buying a product. In this way, consumers can support and ‘reward’ a specific company for acting in accordance with the activist’s ideals, thus, ‘buycotting’ the preferred company (Friedman 1999). Intriguingly, by comparing the interactions between campaigners and their corporate targets in Switzerland and France, Balsiger’s (2016) research demonstrated how one campaign could provoke contrasting reactions and forms of market change that are different to another’s. The two countries have very different histories of consumer mobilisation for political issues, and the campaign’s effect in France was distinct from that in Switzerland.

Activist organisations have effectively laid the groundwork for SM campaign concepts. For instance, Adbusters, an activist, anti-consumerist publication that has initiated ironic and critical campaigns against Calvin Klein, Benetton Group and other global brands in the past, launched a global Buy Nothing Day. This day of events and shopping boycotts is now observed in more than 50 nations globally on the day following Thanksgiving in the United States and Canada (Black Friday) and on the final Saturday in November in Europe. Buy Nothing Day exemplifies a blend of technology, globalisation and localisation, which has been considered an important feature of new social movements. It characterises fashion activism, according to Adbusters, by ‘standing up against the pressure to buy’ (Southerton 2011, 301). Similarly, Fashion Revolution promotes repairing rather than making new purchases (Gallagher 2019). Activist groups have pioneered concepts, launched calls to action and, in some cases, had measurable effects on selected segments of the consumer market (Minocher 2019). In this way, activist campaigns have already ‘softened’ the target audience and offered inspirational starting points for SM campaigns.

Public relations pioneer Edward Bernays set the paradigm for commercial marketing in the twentieth century (Stavrakakis 2006). When this paradigm was coupled with planned obsolescence, consumers were driven to buy more, spend more and do so more often (Bulow 1986, 729-749). By the early twenty-first century, consumption was fuelled further with ever hastier product turnovers, exemplified in the rapid inter-seasonal changes of the fast-fashion business model, with its associated social and environmental injustices (Payne 2012). Despite the known ills of the fashion industry, an intention–‍action gap arose (Young et al. 2010)—that is, despite knowing about the damage caused by low-cost fashion, consumers continued to buy it. Ethical consumption occurs when consumers make informed decisions to choose sustainably produced garments and support firms that contribute to the wellbeing of their stakeholders (Young et al. 2010).

The intention–‍action or attitude–behaviour gap is a phenomenon that occurs when a consumer’s improved knowledge and awareness of environmental issues does not convert into a widespread improvement in fashion purchasing behaviour (Dhir et al. 2021; Stringer et al. 2020). Better consumption practices may include reducing excess purchases, particularly from cheaper or low-quality sources; buying quality products that can be reused and resold multiple times before eventually being recycled/biodegraded; and purchasing garments based on ethical and environmental criteria in production processes. However, the intention–action gap persists. That is, the majority of fashion consumers still buy fast fashion regardless of their convictions to the contrary—to buy sustainable fashion (Stringer et al. 2020; Stringer et al. 2021).

Customers cite a number of barriers to improving their buying behaviour, including affordability, aesthetic appeal, lack of availability and a lack of information (Stringer et al. 2021). According to Wiederhold and Martinez (2018), transparency, image, inertia and purchasing habits are also impediments to sustainable fashion consumption. Additionally, Sudbury and Böltner (2011) revealed a detachment phenomenon in which consumers shift responsibility to third parties. Gwozdz et al. (2017) added that consumers’ abilities to make more sustainable consumption decisions are determined by personal traits such as strong habits or limited resources. Billeson and Klasander (2015) claimed that to overcome the barriers, not only should sustainable clothes be more widely available, but a paradigm shift in people’s perceptions of fashion production and consumption is also required to progress towards changed consumer behaviour. While the degree of opportunities and capacities for ethical consumption in the marketplace can be considered predictors of consumer behaviour and may help close the gap between intention and behaviour, this does not fully explain the psychological processes that lead from intention to behaviour (Woodward 2015).

The primary characteristics of the buying condition can be characterised by applying the basic four Ps of marketing (product, place, price and promotion) among other marketing models. Beyond these factors, the theoretical behavioural models of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991) and the MOAB model (Thøgersen 2014) have both been used to explain human behaviour in a variety of situations, including a variety of sustainable consumption behaviours (Vermeir and Verbeke 2008; Wiederhold and Martinez 2018). Motivation, ability and opportunity all play a role in behaviour change according to the MOAB model, which helps explain intention–‍behaviour contradictions (Thøgersen and Ölander 2006). Further, consumer orientation is critical in (both commercial and) SM. The promoted product, service or behaviour must align with the target audience by addressing a problem or fulfilling a perceived need. At the same time, the advertised good, service or behaviour must provide benefits that equal or surpass the costs.

This brings us to the exchange theory, which asks what benefits the consumer receives in exchange for adopting new behaviours or abandoning old ones (Craig Lefebvre and Flora 1988; Hastings and Saren 2003). A successful SM campaign must benefit both parties. According to Dann (2010), the behaviours that SM tactics promote should be based in part on the self-interest of the target audience and adapting to them should be linked to consumer rewards and advantages. Consistent with the value exchange notion, rewards and bonuses should be desirable to consumers to remove significant barriers. Exterior and internal restrictions could also affect a given behaviour or must be considered if a behaviour change is the goal (Stringer et al. 2020). The above is by no means an exhaustive list of behaviour change theories, of which there are several (Shove et al. 2012), but it serves to demonstrate the complex sensitivities with which SM campaigns need to be approached. An SM campaign must consider its purpose and focus, appropriate target audiences and their characteristics, as well as realistic behaviour objectives and goals. If systematically approached, effective SM strategies that enable behaviour change (e.g., consuming less) may be achieved.

The study of what motivates and influences people and organisations to buy particular products and support certain brands can utilise a number of theoretical frameworks to analyse consumer behaviour. Among these frameworks, the MOAB model (Gruen et al. 2005) and exchange theory (Hastings and Saren 2003) are of particular interest to this study. The MOAB model perceives that the consumer is motivated—sometimes by new interest (e.g., by being made aware of unjust social issues)—to seek out opportunities to purchase (presented by the social campaign) and has the ability to do so (e.g., affordable product or the ability to choose a more ethically produced product). Exchange theory refers to the customer’s desire and ability to exchange one commodity (e.g., money or decision) for another (e.g., product or product that represents a positive action). An aim of SM that aspires to reduce consumption would be to normalise a new behaviour, for example, that buying less is ‘cool’ (Spary 2021). Another aspect would be turning the tide to celebrate and reward this behaviour and, finally, stigmatising the opposite (old) behaviour—that is, over-consumption is simply no longer acceptable.

Turning to the problem of overconsumption exacerbated by fast fashion, unsurprisingly, few fast-fashion SM campaigns were uncovered for this study. Instead, it is medium to large mass manufacturers (firms that produce more than 50 items per size per colour and have a turnover of USD20 million per annum) as well as luxury brands (with the best quality, strong identity, rarity, signature aesthetic and high prices) and, importantly, activist and fashion advocacy organisations that have produced SM campaigns. This study focuses on three areas of change that could be facilitated by SM: ethical consumption (avoiding modern slavery), reduced consumption (avoiding excessive carbon emissions) and activist consumption (supporting animal rights) behaviours through, for example, boycotting or buycotting. Certainly, there are several other issues that require attention and other behaviours that can address injustices. However, this study now looks at cases where SM has attempted to influence these variations of fashion consumption. It is also important to note at this point that consumer groups themselves are an important factor in this discussion. Consumers or ‘target markets’ (i.e., groups of consumers with common attributes such as their level of disposable income, demographics, e.g., age and location, and psychographics, e.g., purchasing preferences) form a significant consideration in the marketer’s strategy.

The selected campaigns are as follows: sustainable fashion pioneer and adventure clothing manufacturer Patagonia’s ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ campaign, Levi’s ‘Buy Better, Wear Longer’ campaign and the animal rights advocacy organisation PETA’s ‘Behind the Leather’ campaign. Corporate websites of brands were accessed to gather data for the case study investigations. Brand websites were chosen because they are a standard platform used globally; they are a point of purchase channel and site for brand engagement by customers. Reports from marketing industry websites such as Campaign and The Drum were also accessed because they provide business insights.

Case 1: Patagonia’s ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ Campaign (Addressing Over-‍Consumption)

SM in fashion arguably began around 2011 with Patagonia’s ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ campaign (Varley et al. 2018). In a public-relations style newspaper advertising campaign, the message warned shoppers in the run-up to Christmas to think about the environmental impacts of consumerism and to buy only what they needed. Despite the apparent aim of reducing consumption, the campaign unexpectedly produced a 30% increase in sales (Meltzer 2017; Varley et al. 2018). This means that although initiated as a SM campaign, it had the effect of becoming a sustainable product campaign. Hepburn (2013) described this phenomenon as ‘double greenness’. Customers may buy what is labelled ‘eco-fashion’ but inadvertently buy into a process that continues the very economic and ecological direction they would prefer to avoid. Nonetheless, the campaign helped establish a strong community of people who appreciate the brand’s values and its products.

Schaefer (2020) identified a preference by consumers for purpose-driven brands over profit-driven brands. Patagonia’s brand mission and principles include social sustainability. Patagonia’s Action Works platform recently introduced the company’s goal to bring together devoted individuals and organisations in the same neighbourhoods working on environmental challenges. In this way, Patagonia is not only promoting ‘lowsumerism’ (Villa Todeschini et al. 2017) but activism by forming and uniting activist groups to address environmental challenges. The company has not been afraid to express its views on social concerns affecting people, beliefs and products, thus, sending marketing messages that resonate with their target demographic of individuals who want to buy with ‘purpose’ (McCormick and Ram 2022). The MOAB model considers the Patagonia consumer motivated by an awareness of climate change issues to seek opportunities to associate with. The Patagonia customer has the ability to make a choice for a more ethically produced product, thus, exercising their agency in taking a sustainable consumerist stand.

Case 2: Levi’s ‘Buy Better, Wear Longer’ Campaign (Ethical Consumption)

In April 2021, United States clothing giant Levi’s launched the ‘Buy Better, Wear Longer’ campaign, which featured young influencers raising awareness about the environmental impacts of the apparel industry (Spary 2021). In a somewhat commercially counterintuitive but MOAB-aligned strategy, Levi’s used the campaign to encourage consumers to demonstrate agency and be more intentional about their apparel choices: to wear each item longer, to buy second-hand or to use in-store tailor shops to extend the life of their garments (Spary 2021). Marcus Rashford, the 23-year-old football player for Manchester United Football Club and the England National Football Team, was one of several youth icons engaged in the multi-pronged international campaign. The campaign, produced by creative agency AKQA, aimed to raise awareness about the environmental implications of apparel manufacture and consumption while also promoting Levi’s as a fast-fashion alternative (Spary 2021). According to a study conducted by the Global Fashion Agenda and Boston Consulting Group, 75% of customers consider sustainability extremely or very important (Lehmann et al. 2019). However, the creative agency did not necessarily agree, believing that consumers buy the items they enjoy and, therefore, they eventually buy them again (Spary 2021). In the end, brand adulation combined with product preference equalled sales in the marketing agency’s opinion (Clark 2021). In relation to the MOAB model, the consumer is offered and enticed to consider a more expensive but longer-lasting product with the added benefit of emotional attachment.

Case 3: PETA’s ‘Behind the Leather’ Campaign (Activist Consumption Boycotting)

The PETA campaign is presented in this study as a counterbalance to the comparatively tame SM campaigns above. In doing so, the intention is to offer an additional perspective on marketing strategies available to brands as well as a fashion activist approach. Unlike the fashion brands mentioned above, PETA, as an activist non-profit organisation, is not concerned with enlisting shock tactics; in fact, it thrives on using them. Whether through the use of explicit pictures or by exploiting catastrophic news events, the goal is to get the audience’s attention in any way possible. At first glance, ‘Leatherworks’ appears to be a luxury goods pop-up shop inside one of Thailand’s largest shopping malls; however, this PETA Asia campaign video reveals what is inside the snakeskin shoes and crocodile-skin handbags: beating ‘hearts’, stretchy ‘sinew’ and pools of ‘blood’ that coat shoppers’ hands and feet (Burns 2016). The campaign by Ogilvy & Mather Thailand, which won five awards at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, aimed to raise awareness about the cruelty of the exotic skin industry (PETA 2016). Puripong Limwanatipong, Associate Creative Director of Ogilvy & Mather Thailand, stated:

‘Leatherworks’ allows viewers to experience and observe with their own eyes that every leather product caused a sensitive animal to suffer a wretched life and a terrifying death. By shocking buyers with the cruelty of the exotic skin industry, we can awaken them and start change that will save the lives of animals. (PETA 2016)

This marketing film is a clear example of a successful activist campaign. Rather than a public announcement proclaiming a point of view, the campaign forces the viewer to undergo a virtual version of the cruelty, demonstrating that emotion is significantly more effective than a ‘point of view’. In relation to exchange theory, the consumer is questioned on their choices and prompted to consider their consumer ‘exchange’ in preference for a better conscience. Although PETA is not a fashion brand, the organisation has partnered with sustainable fashion label Stella McCartney on a number of campaigns, but these are much milder in approach. Stella McCartney uses the PETA platform to validate the brand’s stance against the use of animal leather for fashion products rather than to shock the customer into behavioural change (Webb 2020).

This study set out to investigate the effects of SM strategies emerging in the fashion industry. It asked if SM campaigns persuaded the customer to change their buying behaviour—to make more ethical consumer decisions such as reducing consumption, consuming sustainably produced garments or avoiding unethically produced products. In the cases cited here, consumer behavioural change was not evidenced. In fact, the opposite resulted—that is, consumption increased. There are a number of explanations for this. Consumption has increased broadly in the fashion industry as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuing partially from a shift in spending priorities and an increased need for gratification, among other factors (Balchandani and Berg 2021). In the case of the two fashion brands, Patagonia and Levi’s, the SM campaigns raised brand awareness, appeared to align with their target market’s values and thereby attracted more consumption. In the case of the luxury animal skin products addressed in the PETA Asia campaign, many viewers reported being shocked by the campaign and not wanting to see it again (Burns 2016); however, leather goods sales have since increased, with the highest per capita revenue located in Asia (Statista 2020).

SM requires the usual marketing strategies such as a systematic approach, including situation analysis (i.e., strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, or SWOT), identification of target audience, development of strategies and approaches and choice of channels; however, more importantly, it requires the definition of behavioural objectives and goals as well as measures, pilots and relaunches, as in the case of the Patagonia marketing strategy, which began with the ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ campaign and has continued to develop in the decade since its first appearance (Varley et al. 2018). Notably, the marketing techniques are generally still closely aligned with traditional fashion marketing, for example, in style, tone, aesthetics, voice and message.

The campaign examples presented here demonstrate how SM, as Peattie and Peattie (2009) already observed, presents a paradox. Patagonia’s and Levi’s marketing agents have commented that the SM campaigns have brought their brands into a more positive light in the perception of their consumers (Clark 2021; Meltzer 2017; Spary 2021). A similar trend can be observed in sustainable product marketing. For example, ecommerce giant Zalando adds a green tag on selected product images, offering the consumer the choice of buying an eco-friendlier piece (sustainability information is in the product’s description). Zalando’s market share increased by 30% in the 2020–21 financial year (perhaps coincidentally similar to Patagonia’s increase noted above). The sale of their sustainable product offering has increased by 5.6% (Rigby 2022). However, sustainability calls for reduced production and implies that less should be purchased altogether. The bigger issue of the intention–action gap—whereby younger buyers, in particular, intend to buy sustainably but continue to buy fast fashion—also remains a stumbling block to reducing fashion consumption (Stringer et al. 2021). This leads one to ask if SM campaigns in fashion are working at all.

Since Patagonia’s 2011 campaign, the SM approach to fashion brand promotion has been on the rise, including notable campaigns such as Nike’s ‘For Once, Just Don’t Do It’ (Cohen 2020), Bodyform’s ‘Womb Stories’ (Campaign 2020), while Los Angeles-based women’s apparel company Reformation produced a cotton climate positive campaign in collaboration with technology tracing company Fibretrace (Nishimura 2021). Tommy Hilfiger launched their ‘Moving Forward Together’ campaign in 2021, inspiring the global community to unite for social change (Gilliland 2021). The Tommy Hilfiger campaign generated an increase in social media engagement as well as several contributions to the co-creation of garments from pre-consumer waste (Mark 2021). However, few SM campaigns seem to focus on changing behaviour, such as reducing consumption, as was the case with Patagonia’s and Levi’s campaigns above. Rather, more recent SM campaigns appear to generate consumer opinions, whether by accident or design. Interestingly, consumer opinions can sway into either a positive or negative perception of the brand. For example, despite Nike’s ‘For Once, Just Don’t Do It’ commercial airing at a time when customers were increasingly demanding that businesses prioritise people over profits, the majority of those who thought the advertisement was negative said they did not like the use of racial justice as a marketing tool (Christie and Koltun 2020). Therefore, it appears that SM campaigns are generating involvement and agency from consumers towards developing opinions about social change more broadly rather than effecting a specific outcome like a change in consumer behaviour, such as a reduction in consumption. This infers that the fashion consumer already understands the SM ‘campaigns with a purpose’ genre—that they understand that they are not being ‘sold to’ but that they also do not want to be preached to. This is evidenced in their responses to campaigns (e.g., in their comments on social media). The consumer prefers to be ‘empowered’ to make up their own mind. In the case of Levi’s ‘Buy Better, Wear Longer’, the consumer is offered a number of sustainable practice strategies to choose from, which requires deliberate action (and agency) on the part of the consumer, for example, to avail themselves of in-store repair shops. Therefore, choice and, importantly, opinion and discussion of choice/options add an additional layer to the buying condition.

Generating consumer opinion is dangerous territory for the SM marketer to navigate, but consumer opinion is the natural consequence of ‘taking a stand’ in SM (McCormick and Ram 2022). Unlike all previous marketing wisdom—from Bernays (2015) to Kotler et al. (2015)—in which the narrative is controlled by the marketer, in SM, the marketer can merely present the ‘good story’ and hope the consumer takes this on board and acts or reacts positively (for the brand, people and planet). This means the so-called paradox of increasing brand perception and, therefore, sales is no longer a sufficient analysis of SM results. SM has generated a more complex behavioural outcome. This study argues that rather than being led by a campaign’s themes, consumers are forming their own opinions (perhaps as a result of the SM campaign’s ‘education’ in the first place) and appear to be taking agency—acting either positively or negatively towards the brand—but not necessarily changing their own behaviour. This phenomenon would also imply that the next evolution of the SM genre stands before us.

Despite the SM paradox and more complex consumer empowerment messages, there are indicators of change appearing in society and the media, implying that acquisitiveness and over-consumption are becoming less acceptable and that a desire to minimise personal consumption is becoming less odd. As observed in both Patagonia’s and Levi’s marketing approaches, downshifting, ‘lowsumerism’ (Villa Todeschini et al. 2017) or the transition from a hard-working, high-earning, consumption-intensive lifestyle to one that is less materially gratifying but, ultimately, more satisfying, is an important trend that social marketers wanting to promote consumption reduction could capitalise on (Peattie and Peattie 2009; Shove et al. 2012). Even if many of the downshifting plans are never implemented, they demonstrate a significant latent demand for a less stressful, less consumption-oriented lifestyle (Woodward 2015) or at least a novel approach countering the prevailing consumerist paradigm, which might serve as the foundation for consumption-reducing SM success.

Finally, the interplay of marketing and activism is an emerging, if unlikely, collaboration. Ideally, we are seeking direct responses to calls to action (as stated in Levi’s campaign, ‘Buy Less, Buy Better’) (Spary 2021); however, this does not seem to be effective despite the noble efforts of social activist groups providing sufficient inspiration and direction for SM campaigns. Rather than ‘campaigning for good’, marketing firms appear to be heeding market reports that offer insights into the sentiments of the current consumer (see, e.g., WGSN, Mintel, ACORN and Drapers) and are adhering to trend forecasters’ suggestions, thus, appearing to create campaigns with a ‘purpose’ but not really believing in their success (Reinartz and Saffert 2013, 106-111). SM campaigns may signal support for fighting social injustice (Hydock et al. 2020) and aligning the brand to these causes, with or without proof. At this point, a degree of ‘authenticity’ needs to be communicated by the brand to ensure message effectiveness. Shen et al. (2012) claimed that consumer opinions regarding ethical fashion are influenced by what they believe to be socially and ecologically responsible enterprises, based on their judgments (unsubstantiated opinions) of a company’s reputation in the fashion industry. However, while SM campaigns appear to be influencing opinion—as evidenced in the comments on campaigns from media observers and the public (Pfau et al. 2008, 145-154)—the opinions are largely out of the marketer’s control. Therefore, this study concludes that while the SM approach appears to pull the customer towards proclaimed brand values and aims to change their behaviour for the ‘greater good’—as has been successful in government campaigns (Raftopoulou and Hogg 2010)—the campaigns may simply be capitalising on the appearance of altruistic values and behaviour, thus, representing yet another form of greenwashing—or ‘purpose-washing’—which is, ultimately, reliant on the (unpredictable) market opinion response.

This study has explored the emergence and effectiveness of SM among fashion brands. Awareness and activism towards injustices and informed planning and deployment of robust SM campaigns could lead to behavioural change—as evidenced in government campaigns (Raftopoulou and Hogg 2010)—but is not necessarily easily translated to the fashion market. The contemporary consumer is unlikely to respond to a sermon-style campaign for ‘good’ and is more likely to respond if given the tools of empowerment, including the particularly powerful tool of expressing their opinion publicly. This is dangerous territory for social marketers because they are out of control of the narrative in this scenario. Nonetheless, SM campaigns offer the contemporary consumer agency in their consumer behaviour decisions.

This study was an initial examination of SM through case studies of three campaigns marketed to English-speaking consumers in the Global North. Future studies of SM in fashion may include qualitative and quantitative research in culturally and geographically diverse areas, how businesses secure their survival while promoting less consumption, how reduced or shifting consumption might be effectively measured and communicated, and how changed consumer behaviour may lead to transformative change. Further investigation is also warranted into the power interplay between the consumer, the brand and the marketer as it continues to shift, investigating which entity has the dominant influence and values and why. Through crafting a desired position, away from product push and towards a social agenda pull, SM may still hold the potential to facilitate sustainable consumption behaviour towards ethically produced fashion. In this way, SM may contribute to changing the mind of the fashion consumer to make decisions for the better.

Correspondence: Dr Hilde Heim, Senior Lecturer Fashion Communication, Manchester Fashion Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom. h.heim@mmu.ac.uk

References

Balsiger P (2016) The fight for ethical fashion: The origins and interactions of the Clean Clothes Campaign. New York: Routledge.

Belz F-M and Peattie K (2009) Sustainability marketing: A global perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Boenigk S and Schuchardt V (2013) Cause‐related marketing campaigns with luxury firms: An experimental study of campaign characteristics, attitudes, and donations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 18: 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1452

Boersma M and Nolan J (2022) Modern slavery and the employment relationship: Exploring the continuum of exploitation. Journal of Industrial Relations, 00221856211069238. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221856211069238

Bulow J (1986) An economic theory of planned obsolescence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 729-749. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884176

Craig Lefebvre R and Flora JA (1988) Social marketing and public health intervention. Health Education Quarterly 15(3): 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500305

Dann S (2010) Redefining social marketing with contemporary commercial marketing definitions. Journal of Business Research 63(2): 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.013

Dhir A, Sadiq M, Talwar S, Sakashita M and Kaur P (2021) Why do retail consumers buy green apparel? A knowledge-attitude-behaviour-context perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 59: Article 102398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102398

Fisk G (1973) Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. Journal of Marketing 37(2): 24-‍31. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250047

Folse JAG, Moulard JG and Raggio RD (2012) Psychological ownership: A social marketing advertising message appeal? International Journal of Advertising 31(2): 291-‍315. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-31-2-291-315

Friedman M (1999) Consumer boycotts: Effecting change through the marketplace and media. New York: Routledge.

Gruen TW, Osmonbekov T and Czaplewski AJ (2005) How e-communities extend the concept of exchange in marketing: An application of the motivation, opportunity, ability (MOA) theory. Marketing Theory 5(1): 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593105049600

Gwilt A (2011) Producing sustainable fashion: The points for positive intervention by the fashion designer. Shaping Sustainable Fashion: changing the way we make and use clothes. London: Earthscan.

Gwozdz W, Steensen Nielsen K and Müller T (2017) An environmental perspective on clothing consumption: Consumer segments and their behavioral patterns. Sustainability 9(5): 762-789. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050762

Hastings G and Saren M (2003) The critical contribution of social marketing: Theory and application. Marketing Theory 3(3): 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059310333005

Herberger RA Jr (1977) Henion, Karl E, II and Kinnear, Thomas CL: Ecological marketing [Book Review]. Journal of Marketing 41(3): 143-144. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250952

Hydock C, Paharia N and Blair S (2020) Should your brand pick a side? How market share determines the impact of corporate political advocacy. Journal of Marketing Research 57(6): 1135-1151. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022243720947682

Kotler P (1970) Corporate models: Better marketing plans. Harvard Business Review 48: 135-149.

Kotler P, Burton S, Deans K, Brown L and Armstrong G (2015) Marketing, Pearson Higher Education Australia.

Lee E-J, Choi H, Han J, Kim DH, Ko E and Kim KH (2020) How to ‘nudge’ your consumers toward sustainable fashion consumption: An fMRI investigation. Journal of Business Research 117: 642-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.050

Lehmann M, Arici G, Boger S F, Martinez-Pardo C, Krueger F, Schneider M, Carrière-Pradal B and Schou D (2019) Pulse of the fashion industry: 2019 Update. Boston.

McColl J, Ritch EL and Hamilton J (2021) Brand purpose and ‘woke’ branding campaigns. In Ritch EL and McColl J (eds) New perspectives on critical marketing and consumer society: 145-154. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83909-554-220211012

McCormick H and Ram P (2022) ‘Take a stand’: The importance of social sustainability and its effect on Generation Z consumption of luxury fashion brands. In Athwal C (ed.) Sustainable luxury. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mulgrew K E, Mcculloch K, Farren E, Prichard I and Lim M S (2018) This girl can# jointhemovement: Effectiveness of physical functionality-focused campaigns for women’s body satisfaction and exercise intent. Body Image, 24, 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.11.007

Nayeem T (2012) Cultural influences on consumer behaviour. International Journal of Business and Management 7(21): 78-91. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n21p78

Niinimäki K, Peters G, Dahlbo H, Perry P, Rissanen T and Gwilt A (2020) The environmental price of fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1: 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9

Pfau M, Haigh M M, Sims J and Wigley S (2008) The influence of corporate social responsibility campaigns on public opinion. Corporate Reputation Review, 11, 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2008.14

Raftopoulou E and Hogg M K (2010) The political role of government‐sponsored social marketing campaigns. European Journal of Marketing, 44, 7/8, 1206-1227. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011047599

Ritch EL and McColl J (2021) Woke awareness for sustainability. In Ritch EL and McColl J (eds) New perspectives on critical marketing and consumer society: 155-170. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83909-554-220211013

Shen B, Wang Y, Lo CKY and Shum M (2012) The impact of ethical fashion on consumer purchase behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 16(2): 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021211222842

Shove E, Pantzar M and Watson M (2012) The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. London: SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250655

Southerton D (ed.) (2011) Consumer protest: Anticapitalism. In Encyclopedia of consumer culture. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994248

Stavrakakis Y (2006) Objects of consumption, causes of desire: Consumerism and advertising in societies of commanded enjoyment. Gramma: Journal of Theory and Criticism 14: 83-105. https://doi.org/10.26262/gramma.v14i0.6515

Storey JD, Hess R and Saffitz G (2015) Social marketing. In Glanz K, Rimer BK and Viswanath K (eds) Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice: 411-438. 5th ed. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Stringer T, Mortimer G and Payne AR (2020) Do ethical concerns and personal values influence the purchase intention of fast-fashion clothing? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 24(1): 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-01-2019-0011

Stringer T, Payne AR and Mortimer G (2021) As cheap as humanly possible: Why consumers care less about worker welfare. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-06-2021-0158

Sudbury L and Böltner S (2011) Fashion marketing and the ethical movement versus individualist consumption: Analysing the attitude behaviour gap. European Advances in Consumer Research 9: 163-168. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1006845/eacr/vol9/E-09

Thøgersen J (2014) Social marketing in travel demand management. In Gärling T, Ettema D and Friman M (eds) Handbook of sustainable travel: 113-129. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7034-8_8

Thøgersen J and Ölander F (2006) The dynamic interaction of personal norms and environment‐friendly buying behavior: A panel study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36(7): 1758-1780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00080.x

Varey RJ (2010) Marketing means and ends for a sustainable society: A welfare agenda for transformative change. Journal of Macromarketing 30(2): 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0276146710361931

Varley R, Radclyffe-Thomas N and Webb W (2018) Patagonia: Creative sustainability strategy for a reluctant fashion brand. In Bloomsbury Fashion Business Cases. London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474208796.0044

Vermeir I and Verbeke W (2008) Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics 64(3): 542-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007

Villa Todeschini B, Nogueira Cortimiglia M, Callegaro-de-Menezes D and Ghezzi A (2017) Innovative and sustainable business models in the fashion industry: Entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and challenges. Business Horizons 60(6): 759-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.07.003

Wiederhold M and Martinez LF (2018) Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude–behaviour gap in the green apparel industry. International Journal of Consumer Studies 42(4): 419-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12435

Woodward S (2015) Accidentally sustainable? Ethnographic approaches to clothing practices. In Fletcher K and Tham M (eds) Routledge handbook of sustainability and fashion: 138-131. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203519943

Young W, Hwang K, McDonald S and Oates CJ (2010) Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development 18(1): 20-‍31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.394

International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

Heim, Hilde --- "Change of Mind: Marketing Social Justice to the Fashion Consumer" [2022] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 30; (2022) 11(2) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 102

Introduction

Correspondence: Dr Hilde Heim, Senior Lecturer Fashion Communication, Manchester Fashion Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom. h.heim@mmu.ac.uk

References