In a world where consumers increasingly expect brands to take a stand on social and political issues, Coca-Cola's global marketing director Manuel "Manolo" Arroyo said the company is trying to remain "neutral." But can such an attitude exist in today's hyper-connected society, or is it simply an abdication of corporate responsibility? When we look at Coca-Cola's marketing policies and their impact on different communities, the question remains: can neutrality be a sustainable approach, or is it time for Coca-Cola to rethink its marketing narrative?
A history of target marketing for Coca-Cola
"Whatever your political, religious, sexual preferences are, we welcome everyone," Arroyo said. “But the difference essentially lies in the overlapping statements. "It's not our business to go there," he said. In fact, for the sake of neutrality, Coca-Cola will avoid topics that may polarize a segment of the consumer base; Interestingly, history shows that Coca-Cola is neutral in terms of marketing objectives. Several studies document how the beverage giant targets minority communities, particularly Hispanic and African-American populations. This type of targeting has led to high rates of obesity and related health problems in this population.
Charity or self-interest?
Coca-Cola's philanthropic efforts further confuse the connection between altruism and self-preservation. Although initiatives such as donating millions of dollars to minority organizations are philanthropic, they have a dual purpose. These donations help Coca-Cola avoid public debate about the health risks of sugary drinks, thereby neutralizing potential criticism. Is this funding really charity or a strategy to silence dissent?
Corporate responsibility and corporate neutrality
Arroyo's position that holding social positions is "not part of her job" clearly misses an important point. Companies like Coca-Cola certainly influence social discourse, whether they realize it or not. Insisting on "staying in line" may seem like a simple tactic to avoid corporate responsibility, but what are Coca-Cola's ethical obligations to consumers?
The limits of "neutral" marketing. KickGlass perspective
KickGlass Marketing is an innovative approach that forces brands to truly connect with their consumers. He advocates recognizing the "multidimensional and unique personality" of each client. From this perspective, Coca-Cola's policy of "not supporting or criticizing any group" is problematic. This "neutral" stance contrasts with KickGlass Marketing's emphasis on authentic relationships, which are an important element in building long-term brand loyalty.
Loss of social ties
Today's consumers expect brands to reflect their values and make a positive contribution to society. They are knowledgeable and socially conscious. Coca-Cola's unwillingness to address everyday threats to minority consumers, such as racial profiling and community erosion, makes its "neutral" stance not only outdated, but potentially dangerous. Companies fail to understand the importance of understanding how social structures affect people's lives.
Call for real participation
If Coca-Cola wants to attract the attention of today's socially conscious consumers, performance alone is not enough. Brands need to move from a "neutral" position to one that truly cares about all of their consumers, especially those facing social issues. Coca-Cola can no longer act as a passive player, contributing to problems it ignores under the guise of neutrality.
The result. Neutrality is not an option
Arroyo's claim that Coca-Cola plays no role in social issues is not a simple evasion; This is gross negligence in terms of corporate social responsibility. At a time when social awareness is not an option but a necessity, brands like Coca-Cola must be transparent and active contributors to the well-being of society. It's time for Coca-Cola to come up with a new strategy that goes beyond simple "inclusive marketing." A strategy that genuinely cares about consumers and the issues that affect them.
