Virtue Signaling or Activism?: A PR Rep's Brief Guide to Telling the Difference

The first place to start is by defining each of these terms.

Virtue signaling means to pronounce one's opinion on a specific issue to establish moral correctness.

Activism means to campaign with passion and fervor for political, social, etc. changes.

With these definitions in mind, let's move forward and explain differences in the two and why things may not be as cut and dry as you think.

There are some basic questions to ask to help you decide if someone or a company, business, organization, etc. is truly standing behind their stance on a given issue.

These questions are:

1. Has this person, business, organization, etc. previously been vocal in support of the issue(s)? If they have not, are they under new management? Do they have a new CEO, CFO, cabinet, etc. that may mean they are committed to changing previous mistakes, problems, and crises? If they have been vocal about an issue for a while, they are likely not virtue signaling (but continue through the questions to dive deeper into knowing). If they have not been but are now, they may be looking to change their previous errors. This is not always a bad thing! As I mentioned, there may be new members whose goal it is to change the deep issues in the company. If it is an individual, they may have become more educated on the topic and changed accordingly (the other questions will help you discover if they have truly changed or not).

   1. Another important question that belongs here is: How do they treat members of their company, business, organization, etc. who are most affected by the issue(s)?

2. Have they donated to a cause related to the issue(s)? Or have they created a community initiative with ties to the issue(s)? A scholarship fund? Created or taken part in some other enterprise that helps the issue(s)? Most people who do these things or companies, organizations, etc. that do these things are vocal about them so they are open and honest with their publics or audiences.

Let's discuss some examples of how to tell the difference between virtue signaling and true concern, care, and interest in a cause.

Individuals

When I use the term individuals, this includes even celebrities (e.g. Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, Mark 'Markiplier' Fischbach, Richard Marx). For the most part, individuals who are relatively unknown are not virtue signaling if they are vocal about an issue if they have been vocal about the issue or similar issues in the past. For these individuals, their creation of initiatives or donation of money is a less valuable representation of their belief in a cause than is their expression of it, along with providing links to donations, initiatives, and so on. After all, they may not have the money to donate or be in a position in which they can start an initiative. And if they expressed a different opinion before, they may have had a change of heart for any number of reasons. In this case, it would be their continued concern and vocalization of the issue(s) that would prove they aren't simply virtue signaling. For individual celebrities, it's a bit different.

Individual celebrities may have a harder time than large organizations and companies in understanding how to maneuver this correctly, as they may not be versed in public relations and likely do not have a PR representative. If a celebrity is expressing their view on a particular issue, you need to ask the questions I set forth. Have they been vocal about this issue or about similar issues in the past? If not, have you noted positive and consistent changes to their previously problematic beliefs? Are they spreading pertinent information related to the issue(s)? Are they making appropriate donations or taking part in or building initiatives?

Small Groups

Small groups (some YouTube stars fall into this category, such as Game Grumps or Hi5 Studios) can be in a difficult position when it comes to political and social issues. Much like individuals, they may not yet be in a position to have a PR professional to help them create appropriate responses. Even with PR, leaders/management may be scared to take any stance for fear they are seen as speaking for the whole small group. If they do take a stance, go back to the questions. Do they often speak on this topic in this way? Are they helping spread appropriate information? Are they involved in charities? Are they making donations?

Larger Groups (Businesses, Organizations, etc.)

Larger groups (Johnson & Johnson, Dove, Walmart, etc.) are held to a slightly different standard than individuals and small groups. The vast majority of larger groups have PR professionals to help guide them through political and social issues. When these large groups take a stance, it is often assumed to be virtue signaling or an attempt to boost their sales.

So, we return to the questions. Do they commonly and frequently discuss the issue(s) at hand? Do they have initiatives designed to help related causes or the specific cause? Do they publicly make donations to appropriate organizations and charities regarding the issue(s)? If they seemed to have an opposing view in the past, have the leaders in the group changed? Are there new dynamics, new goals, new visions from the new leaders?

And here is where question # 2a becomes important. If the company is posting in favor of, let's say Pride Month, the company needs to have LGBTQ+ individuals on its team and those members must be treated as well as others in the company (paid appropriately, given the same opportunities, etc.). A company cannot simply say it cares about a cause without backing it up.

If these companies are not transparent with their initiatives and/or donations, demand they be! If these companies are well-known for treating those who are affected by the issue(s) differently than other team members, demand they make internal changes to fit their public expressions! This likely means their PR team is failing them AND their publics. Do not be afraid to tell them that! A company staying silent about what they are doing to help the cause while being outwardly vocal about an issue or issues is at best injudicious and at worst deceitful and questionable.

Conclusion

It is easier to discern between virtue signaling and activism with larger groups than it is with most individuals and small groups. Transparency is crucial and you, as a member of one of their publics, should not be afraid to demand that they prove they genuinely care about the issue(s). In other words, the actions must match the words. As the old saying goes: Put up or shut up.