Glossier lays it bare for democracy
Assessing the brand's latest voter advocacy initiative ahead of Election Day 2024
On Sunday, the makeup brand and cultural phenomenon Glossier published a provocative full-page ad in The New York Times featuring some prominent cleavage under the headline, “Vote for you.”
The hero creative featured a curvaceous female frontal photo with an empassioned call to action: “Vote for your daughter’s future. Vote for your grandmother’s legacy.” It signed off by pointing readers to a landing page on When We All Vote that enables anyone to check their voter status and, if needed, register seamlessly in their state.
Like many of you, I am casually aware of Glossier’s reputation and youthful, digital-first brand positioning. Unlike most folks, I’m an expert in how brands intersect with movements for change – what works, what falls flat, and how brands can build meaningful, durable advocacy platforms that deliver positive impact for the benefit of people and planet, and for the bottom line.
So, I took 20 minutes to assess the credibility and impact of Glossier’s election effort so you don’t have to.
First, let’s be super clear: good on Glossier for putting the brand out there on behalf of a world in which women control their own bodies, and in which every citizen can exercise our right to participate in American democracy. At its essence, the campaign is executed boldly, with a clear POV, while avoiding partisan traps.
At the same time, when brands attempt to market themselves through advocacy, we need to ask: what’s behind the campaign? What level of real commitment do we see from Glossier, and what gives the brand credibility to show up in this way? Are they invested in real impact, or just like the lewk?
According to the Business of Fashion, which had the exclusive on the campaign, the ad was part of a broader effort from Glossier to encourage voting among its younger, mostly female demographic – with a strong emphasis on the stakes for women’s health and reproductive rights in the Nov. 5 election. Glossier reported donations to two relevant frontline groups – Ignite National and Reproductive Freedom for All (previously known as NARAL) – and plans to run digital advertising and billboards, presumably featuring a similar message and creative (although this wasn’t revealed), in seven swing states between now and Election Day.
If you just want the quick and dirty, here’s the TLDR on my initial thoughts:
Glossier is using a good dose of its significant cultural muscle to help mobilize young women to vote – and it’s doing so with a clear nod to the life-or-death stakes around reproductive rights and women’s health in this election. That alone shows courage and commitment. Next cycle, I’d like to see the campaign start earlier, since it launched after the voter registration deadline in crucial states like Arizona and Georgia, making its ads there pretty worthless. And I think Glossier could have a far greater impact – both in boosting civic participation, and for the brand’s reputation – with a more integrated effort, including a homepage takeover on Glossier.com, more shareable content, and an op-ed from founder Emily Weiss in a targeted media outlet.
But if you’re interested in understanding the level of credibility behind Glossier’s latest effort, that’s where I can help. Below, I’ve stacked up the public info I found in a 20-30 minute review of Glossier’s impact and advocacy record against my framework outlining the ingredients of successful brand advocacy (a trusty tool I’ve written about in Fast Company). Read on!
House in Order / Overall Advocacy Mindset
Grade: C
According to company materials, Glossier was founded with a strong ethos defined as “Skin First. Makeup Second.” They’ve always been about empowering women and so-called “democratizing beauty,” and seem to have a decent record of action against the company’s stated values.
First, a couple observations at the core of the company:
Most impressive to me, the company backs this up with an all-female C-Suite (nearly unheard of in a business of any size; in 2023, Glossier reportedly did >$300M in sales, and was last valued at $2 billion, according to Puck). They’ve kept products accessibly-priced – a huge promise kept.
When it comes to business practices core to the company’s products and the human beings involved in bringing them to market, I’d say Glossier is lacking – at least in transparency. From a supply chain perspective, the company publishes a summary of its Supplier Code of Conduct – table stakes for any brand these days – and says it “may” conduct supplier visits (nothing about formal factory audits).
Then, turning to community support and advocacy:
Glossier has what appears to be a foundation called Glossier for Good (let’s not let the cliche, undifferentiated use of “___ for good” distract us too much) that delivers grants to up-and-coming Black-owned businesses in the beauty space and donations to groups that support women entrepreneurs. These groups are listed on Glossier’s website, although there are a few “total funding” numbers on the site, so it’s hard to tell what’s accurate.
At the same time, Glossier has not implemented a scalable giving model into its business (say, X% of net sales or revenue), which would ensure consistent support for community groups supposedly at the heart of the business – proportionate to the size of the business – in good years, and bad.
Instead, Glossier tells customers it donates $5 from every sale of “local merch” – products designed for individual retail stores designated to benefit a local nonprofit – and it lists those groups. These products likely represent a tiny part of the brand’s total business, most of which is famously online, so it’s likely these numbers are very small.
Agenda or “Lane”
Grade: B
Glossier obviously knows its audience of young women and doesn’t appear to stray from relevant issues. At the same time, supporting Black women entrepreneurs and encouraging women to vote for pro-choice leaders are fairly disparate terrains. I think the brand could certainly benefit from a tightening of focus around one hard-hitting issue (i.e. defending reproductive rights), which would enable greater consistency of involvement in a specific movement ecosystem, which would enable each action to accumulate impact – and brand value – over time, and provide deeper opportunities for storytelling and customer engagement.
Skin in the Game
Grade: B-
In their Instagram post sharing the voting campaign, Glossier announced donations to two relevant organizations: Ignite National, a group that trains young women to run for public office; and Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly known as NARAL), which works to defend reproductive rights. According to BoF, “representatives from Ignite will also visit Glossier retail stores to help convert shoppers into voters.”
In addition, the company says it will buy digital and out-of-home advertising promoting its GOTV message in seven swing states.
Glossier did not disclose the value of these donations nor the ad buy, however, which leaves the weight of this campaign’s impact pretty unclear. (The NYT ad is primarily a PR tactic, designed to drive media attention, not a direct means of reaching and mobilizing voters.)
Impact-First Mentality
Grade: C+
By my count, the campaign’s Oct. 13 launch date means it’s already too late for unregistered voters to get registered in two of the seven swing states where Glossier says its campaign will run (Arizona and Georgia share an Oct. 7 deadline). Of course, voter turnout is still incredibly important for anyone invested in reproductive freedom, so let’s hope audiences in Arizona and Georgia see tailored creative.
If you’re a cynic realist like me, having worked inside many a marketing org, Glossier likely prioritized a major fragrance launch on Sept. 25 and didn’t want anything smacking of politics to get in the way of that business-critical rollout. National Voter Registration Day, which could have been a natural moment to kick off a voter registration campaign, was the week before – on Sept. 17.
(BTW, the really cynical thought? Note the headline “Vote for you” – then consider the fragrance collection, called Glossier You.)
Apart from timing, Glossier smartly focused its social posts on the frontline advocates it’s funding – Ignite National and Reproductive Freedom for All – and, according to BoF, “representatives from Ignite will also visit Glossier retail stores to help convert shoppers into voters.” This is all good stuff.
Yet one missed opportunity really stands out to me. Visit Glossier.com and you’ll see no mention of this campaign or the brand’s interest in encouraging voters anywhere. The homepage looks as commercial as ever. If an e-commerce pioneer that did ~80% of its sales online before the pandemic had truly wanted to make the biggest possible impact, it would have allowed the provocative voting message to take over its homepage – instantly reaching millions of women and potential voters visiting the site, and providing a seamless call to action without relying solely on advertising to convert audiences.
Creative Strength / Cultural Resonance
Grade: A-
I think Glossier hit the nail on the head with the NYT ad creative. The image of makeup-free cleavage will be viewed as provocative to some, totally beautiful to others, and – hopefully – emotionally resonant to most that fall within the brand’s intended audience. The ad was executed with simplicity and focus.
I can’t rate the digital creative beyond Glossier’s organic IG post, but I’ll update if I see it shared somewhere.
In Summary
Final Grade: B-
Part of the unique superpower brands bring to advocacy movements is the ability to reach and mobilize audiences that love and trust that brand. However, this requires a willingness to lend your brand channels to advocacy and impact. Sure, it means your customer’s typical buying experience might temporarily include an extra step, or you give over a commercial messaging space (i.e. brand email) to a non-sales topic.
But brands that invest consistently in credible advocacy efforts are rewarded, not punished, for this type of behavior. Glossier missed an opportunity to boldly integrate its brand channels into the campaign – and I’d guess that’s a big reason why it hasn’t garnered press attention beyond a couple industry outlets so far.
Side note: An op-ed from Emily Weiss about the importance of voting when reproductive freedom for generations of American women is literally on the ballot would have also helped elevate the entire campaign by answering the question “why” these issues matter for Glossier, its employees, and its fans. This approach would have the added benefit of putting the brand directly in front of policymakers, media and opinion leaders, and other influential muckity-mucks who don’t typically pay attention to Glossier.
At the same time, the folks at Glossier clearly see the business value in leveraging advocacy, and have shown themselves capable of executing with a good measure of impact and credibility. It’s a great start and I hope customers appreciate it. For next time, I hope Glossier will take some time to design and develop a durable, focused, and fully integrated advocacy platform – the kind that acts as a force-multiplier for positive impact, both for real-world issues and business growth.