We explained the meaning of the concept of "woke" in the context of social marketing in the North American market and its popularity in social media with a conservative profile. We asked whether socially responsible and sometimes even intrusive promotion methods calling for respect for the criteria of the DEI principle, i.e. diversity, equity and inclusion, and promoting the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) index, i.e. correctness in environmental aspects, social and corporate marketing are effective or do they alienate existing and target customer groups.
We provided examples of companies that adopted this method of marketing to promote their goods and services (when they "go woke") and analysed whether, as a result, they actually lost financially and image-wise due to such promotion methods (do they "go broke").
We discussed the advertising campaign of Budweiser Light beer, traditionally associated with lower-middle-class customers, with rather conservative social and personal views, advertised by a transsexual person, i.e. socially progressive and not necessarily traditionally perceived as the target group for this particular product.
We mentioned the controversial advertising campaign of Gillette company, critical of the so-called toxic masculinity and persistently reprimanding its customers (men) who are traditional customers for this company's shaving products, for being insensitive to the harm against the weaker.
We commented on recent films and series on the Netflix platform, such as "Cleopatra", boldly postulating an image of the Egyptian queen questionable as to its historical accuracy, and recent film productions from the Disney film studio, questioning traditional values in children's stories and promoting a new and different, very a contemporary and socially progressive interpretation of favourite children's fairy tales ("Snow White").
We recalled Nike's brave and loyal campaign supporting Colin Kaepernick, an athlete and player of the NFL (American football league) advertising its products, who wanted to express opposition to police brutality and discrimination against African Americans in sport, but met with hate and ostracism instead.
We provided several other examples of marketing campaigns of well-known companies and consumer behaviour, but the thesis "Go woke, go broke" found no support and did not resonate with the audience gathered in the auditorium. When voting FOR and AGAINST, whether the financial consequences of using socially responsible and progressive promotion methods are truly disastrous for the companies who use them, twice as many votes expressed OPPOSITION (30) to the truthfulness of the "Go woke, go broke" principle than FOR (13) in its support, and proved that this principle, at least in the understanding of the students of our University, is groundless and has no future in modern marketing.
We ended the student debate with this conclusion, but the discussion on the slogan "Go woke, go broke" will undoubtedly continue on social media. Now, however, thanks to participating in our debate, you will know what people are talking about and will be able to take part in the discussion knowledgeably. We wish you successful polemic in the virtual world and cordially invite you to the next debate!