Literature in food marketing provides many examples of implicit associations and tensions of which marketers should be aware. For example, a brand that positions its product as healthy and tasty may struggle to gain traction in the market because consumers tend to associate good-tasting food with low health value, and therefore assume healthy food tastes bad. Often, consumers make purchases based on heuristics and perceptions. This note provides insights on some of the main tension in the literature. The note can be used alone, but fits nicely with the cases "Just: Positioned to Target Mainstream Tastes?" (A) and (B) (UVA-M-0956 and UVA-M-0957).

In April 2017, Kevin Johnson took over the reigns as CEO of Starbucks, the iconic coffee giant. He faced a number of key decisions to keep the global retail giant competitive, but one in particular loomed large. Over the last few years, Johnson's predecessor, Howard Schultz, had increasingly used Starbucks as a progressive platform in an attempt to influence the world around its stores, whether he was aiming to smooth out race relations in the United States or support marriage equality. (Schultz was so vocal about these issues, in fact, that many people speculated he harbored secret political ambitions for his post-Starbucks career.) The case examines Schultz's memorable 2015 Race Together campaign and invites students to debate whether Johnson's work should be focused on (1) similar attempts to align Starbucks with progressive ideals and social causes, or (2) Starbucks' profitability and shareholder value alone. Were there certain times or circumstances where it was appropriate to engage in brand activism, and what impact might these initiatives have on brand integrity and the bottom line? In addition to inviting students to analyze the financial, branding, and employee- and customer-relations implications of social activism at Starbucks, the case also allows them to develop a framework for when and how brand activism might be appropriate in the future.

This technical note offers students a definition of brand activism (as contrasted to corporate social responsibility) along with an explanation of the different forms that this corporate practice can take. Specifically, students are introduced to the concepts of both progressive and regressive brand activism, in addition to the different causes the activist efforts may champion, whether social, legal, or environmental, to name a few. In order to illustrate these different categories and the sensible ways for managers to approach brand activism, examples of both successful and unsuccessful brand activism initiatives are provided, including those of Benetton Group, Dove, Patagonia, and Pepsi. While these companies' moves were intentionally designed to resonate with consumers, students are also presented examples of companies that unwillingly elicited activist customer responses (including GrubHub, Uber, Nordstrom, Starbucks, and Papa John's). Finally, the examples of Jack Daniels and Chick-fil-A illustrate deliberate corporate decisions not to communicate their values, while an explanation of boycotting and buycotting helps students understand the impact that brand activism initiatives can have on the bottom line.

Well suited for MBA and undergraduate marketing programs, this case uses product positioning and placement during the early growth stages of a start-up's brand in the food industry to unfold circumstances that allow for an analysis of the firm's positioning and food marketing decisions. All products are plant-based foods distributed nationally in the United States. Seeking to target mainstream tastes and low price, tensions among the three pillars of the brand's marketing strategy, which are quality, accessibility, and sustainability, leave the case open to explore uncertainty, positioning, marketing mix, and consumer behavior. The A case opens with Josh Tetrick, Just's founder and CEO, facing an obstacle to the brand around accessibility. Target delisted all Just products in its stores after receiving an unverified, anonymous letter claiming that some of the products were unsafe and mislabeled. Although it only accounted for a small percentage of sales, losing Target affected Just's ability to meet its distribution goal to reach price-conscious consumers where they shopped and its greater goal to build a food system where everyone could eat well.

Well suited for MBA and undergraduate marketing programs, this case uses product positioning and placement during the early growth stages of a start-up's brand in the food industry to unfold circumstances that allow for an analysis of the firm's positioning and food marketing decisions. All products are plant-based foods distributed nationally in the United States. Seeking to target mainstream tastes and low price, tensions among the three pillars of the brand's marketing strategy, which are quality, accessibility, and sustainability, leave the case open to explore uncertainty, positioning, marketing mix, and consumer behavior. The B case brings in another twist as Just announces plans to publicly launch a meatless product line.