There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Isaiah Fapuro 10 Apr 2019

    What Lush haven’t been able to demonstrate well in its decision making, is a real understanding of the cultural climate in the UK. The spycops campaign was ill conceived and clearly not on brand; any decent marketer would have been able to spot this – I suspect that this was a move inspired by their US counterpart, where a campaign like this would probably have yielded a stronger positive response.

    Cutting out social seems to me be more of a cost saving exercise; it is getting harder to demonstrate strong ROI from social. I myself have had to close certain social channels down to their poor traction. They also run the risk of ‘complainant apathy’ as the barrier to voicing feedback gets harder, and people turn off and just move on to another brand. I also think that they are relying on their global brand power. I wouldn’t be surprised if we started to see store closure, with a city centre focus. Dark social is a thing! Being a fan of the brand either way I wish them good luck.

  2. Kleo Rooney 11 Apr 2019

    I commend them for making this move. It doesn’t mean they can’t get back on social media later, but I think it’s a great move.

    I’ve been wondering for a little while now if businesses can operate without social media and now Lush can be the test case. I’m very keen to keep following their story and seeing how it works for them. I really hope it does work though and they can shine a light on social media not being the be all and end all so that other companies will follow suit.

  3. Mark Schroeder 18 Apr 2019

    This statement leads me to think the writer doesn’t understand what it means to actually have genuine ethics… “there are big problems with social media, from brand safety fears and harmful content, to Facebook and Google’s digital dominance. It is admirable to want to build one-to-one connections with consumers and cut ties with the algorithms driving so much of digital marketing, but is it worth risking the wider business to achieve this?”

    Ask Patagonia or Iceland: if you genuinely believe something is harmful, you don’t do it, regardless of the risk. If instead you decide to continue to do it – as the writer suggests – your ethics clearly weren’t worth mentioning.

    In this age of distrust in corporations, it’s been shown many times that there’s a body of consumers who reward businesses with authentic ethics. This could be said to be a mainstay of Lush’s so-called “modern form of capitalism”.

Leave a comment