The irony surrounding Unilever's relationship with Ben & Jerry's stems from the stark contrast between Unilever's global business strategy and the overt political activism of its subsidiary. Unilever, a multinational conglomerate with a vast portfolio of household brands, has traditionally focused on maximizing shareholder value through widespread market appeal and brand consistency. However, by allowing Ben & Jerry's to pursue an advertising campaign that dives deep into "woke" and socialist ideologies, Unilever has inadvertently placed itself at odds with a significant portion of its consumer base. This is particularly ironic given that Unilever's primary objective is to sell products like ice cream, which should appeal to a broad, apolitical audience. Instead, Ben & Jerry's has used its platform to alienate potential customers by focusing on controversial issues like the return of "stolen Indigenous land" and advocating for social justice causes that not everyone supports, thus risking a boycott from consumers who prefer their ice cream free from political agendas.
 

Moreover, Ben & Jerry's, under Unilever's ownership, has a history of pushing the envelope with its social and political stances, which often seem at odds with Unilever's more conservative corporate strategy. The irony is palpable when one considers that Ben & Jerry's was initially acquired for its unique brand identity and social mission, which Unilever agreed to preserve. Yet, this mission has led to campaigns that appear to serve more as political statements than as efforts to promote ice cream sales. For instance, their Fourth of July tweet in 2023 sparked significant backlash by suggesting the U.S. should return land to Native Americans, a statement that was seen by many as out of touch with the celebratory mood of the holiday. This move not only risked alienating patriotic consumers but also highlighted the incongruity between Unilever's profit-driven motives and Ben & Jerry's activist marketing, essentially making a spectacle of Unilever's brand management strategy.
 

Finally, the situation underscores an irony in corporate social responsibility where Ben & Jerry's, under Unilever's wing, can advocate for ideologies that might not align with the corporate ethos of profit maximization. While Ben & Jerry's campaigns resonate with a segment of consumers who appreciate corporate activism, they simultaneously risk turning away those who see such actions as virtue signaling or inappropriate corporate overreach. The irony lies in the fact that while Unilever's other brands maintain a relatively apolitical stance to avoid controversy, Ben & Jerry's is permitted to engage in high-stakes political discourse, potentially damaging Unilever's broader reputation and financial health. The fallout from these campaigns, including significant market cap losses for Unilever, illustrates how a brand's attempt to stay "woke" can indeed lead to business risks, contrary to the conventional wisdom that purpose-driven branding always pays off.