In a controversial industry? Here's how to win over the public.

OnlyFans. Ozempic. The cannabis industry. End-of-life care. OpenAI.

What do these all have in common?

They’re ‘taboo’ topics.

And what tends to happen with such topics? The public discourse around them takes on a predictable pattern. It begins with concern around how safe the thing is. Next comes skepticism about its effectiveness. And then, of course, morality.

This is what Jasmine Bine of AdWeek calls 'Moral Static,' and it's one of the most interesting brand frontiers I’ve seen analysed.

Let's look at Ozempic, for example.

When it first started becoming popular, the public discourse around semaglutide followed the aforementioned pattern. And it ended in the exacerbation of the question of its morality. Was it immoral for obese people to 'cheat' using Ozempic to shed extra weight?

And it is always the same whenever new technologies, inventions, or ideas force us to face our deeply held (and sometimes false) biases.

When those biases come to the surface in the face of these new technologies and ideas, we resort to an argument of morality.

Think about the Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. This phenomenon describes the widespread concerns about new technologies—whether they be novels, radios, or smartphones—that we see throughout history.

In the 1700s, new cotton spinning technologies were met with literal violent uproar.

Moral static isn’t genuine or nuanced discourse. It’s the 'chaotic buzz of blunt moral objection with no real path or discussion toward progress,' explains Bine.

'When innovations threaten peoples’ identities, they cling to one-size-fits-all arguments, and instead of producing a clear conversation about how we can update our models of what is right and wrong, these categories produce static.'

One category we see this being quite pronounced is food and diet.

It’s not uncommon for us to tie our moral compass to the kind of diet we subscribe to, whether that be whole foods, vegetarianism, veganism, or carnivorous.

So, of course, food brands see their fair share of moral static.

Oatly, a brand of oat milk, is an example of this. The brand is facing pushback upon its launch by the very country it's manufactured in. Many in Sweden are arguing the milk is nutritionally inferior to cows’ milk. Critics are also proclaiming the company’s sustainability promises were falsified.

Obviously, these claims are easy to dismiss and disprove.

So, as the pattern goes, people began pointing fingers at Oatly’s slogan, 'Flush the Milk,' calling it an attack on a Swedish way of life for dairy farmers and consumers. And just like that, the brand's narrative became riddled with moral static.

Discourse around morality and ethics is important when new technologies and ideologies come on the scene.

Not questioning things can lead to some pretty complicated places, as we’ve seen in the past. But moral static goes beyond looking at new technology or products with a critical eye.

People will always have biased reactions, but moral static is our 'lazy default.' It's challenging things with no actual way to back our claims. It’s the outrage in the TikTok comments that causes hysteria and confusion with no intention of finding a genuine solution.

So, what’s a brand to do?

Morality, as we know, is difficult terrain for anyone to navigate, but brands in particular have it far worse. Being in the public eye and tied to so many identities mean you’re under immense pressure to get it right.

Bine’s solution? Deal with it through humour, irreverence or irony, rather than doubling down on the moral question.

However, for some brands, moral static is necessary for growth. Sometimes you have to place your brand and the consumer at the very centre of the question: What is the right way to live?

'That question can only be answered from the horizon of a new world. And one thing brands do really well is build new worlds,' explains Bine.

But there are rules:

'To erase the belief, replace the belief.'

No amount of logic or brute force will compel people to let go of the moral arguments they cling so dearly to, even if they’re 'wrong.' People need something to believe in, so beliefs cannot simply be erased. People must have something to replace them with.

So brands in moral static categories cannot just fight old ideas. They must give us new moral frameworks for navigating the world.

An example of this is MedMen’s 'Forget Stoner' campaign. There has historically been a lot of moral static in the cannabis category. Many associate people who smoke marijuana with negative stereotypes.

This campaign didn’t try to erase the 'bad stoner' belief. Instead, they gave us a new belief that replaced the moral static. 'Forget Stoner' showcased teachers, construction workers and entrepreneurs using their products instead of sick people asking for pain management. And this painted a very different picture of people who use marijuana.

This was an easy framework for the public to believe in, and it swiftly crowded out the old one.

Ditch the ‘Us vs. Them.’

Picking a fight is almost never worth it for brands in moral static categories. You are already in an inflammatory position in the middle of a values war.

'So much of moral static is ensnared in an “us vs. them” mentality, and often, brands get caught up in that kind of thinking too,’ explains Bine. Which is fine. However, it's a high-risk place to be, because the second our moral headwinds change, you’re screwed.

When Robinhood positioned themselves as a financial friend that helped you 'play the system,' the Us vs. Them mentality worked well. That was until a user took his own life after mistakenly believing he’d lost a fortune due to the display in his Robinhood account. All of a sudden, playing the system didn’t seem so virtuous.

Community, community, community!

As if I don’t stress this enough in every avenue of marketing, the same goes for moral static. Brands have a duty to create safe community spaces where people can explore new behaviours without fear of judgement.

While many say the opposite, changing people’s behaviours can often be what allows them to change their beliefs.

Community is how people create like-mindedness and harmony. It is only here that people come to new agreements and craft new cultural norms. If your brand can facilitate this, you can flip the moral static that may be plaguing you.

In a world so divided, there’s a lot of mental burden for the consumer to carry.

Because they'll forever be wondering, 'What does this product say about me? Is it the right choice? Am I living the ‘right way’?

And that's exhausting and scary at the best of times.

Smart brands help lighten this load. Not inflame it.

-Sophie, Writer