Should brands get involved in politics? Should brands take a side in street uprisings? In the world of brands, is it right to adopt a particular “attitude” when you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place?
Some countries – we’ll call them “Western” countries – claim they own such concepts as “modernity”, “development”, “advanced democracy” and “human rights” like they have a patent on them. People who live in these countries talk about how “proud” they are of these concepts every chance they get. And they never miss an opportunity to “lecture” other countries about these concepts! Ethnic origin, race, and gender equality are the basis of these concepts, so isn’t it a major contradiction that much of the social order of these countries are based on practices that are the exact opposites of such equality?
In all the time since the USA officially abolished slavery in 1865, the lack of progress made became clear once again as we witnessed the harsh reality of the killing of George Floyd by policemen in Minnesota.
Reactions against this incident were not limited to the USA, and during the demonstrations on streets around the world, we witnessed three basic behavioral dimensions. First and foremost are what I call “social protest brands” as peaceful demonstrations branded “Black Lives Matter”, using the slogan “I Can’t Breath” flooded screens, newspapers, and social media. The second reaction was to “grab what you can” from large stores that people targeted. The third were the “vengeful” actions to destroy political and social figures, symbols, sculptures, and monuments in an attempt to make countries face their own histories of “racism”.
Today, the issue of “racism” dominates the agendas of the world economy and leading political actors, and it’s not going anywhere. And this concerns everyone on the planet, not only black people, and is as important as global warming.
The developments leading to the street protests against police violence are, of course, not new. In particular, the disconnect between the legal proceedings following the incidents and the public conscience cause “racism” to rise from the ashes every time.
Throughout history, there have been efforts to bring anti-racism to the attention of the public, particularly in the USA. Events that might be considered cornerstones of historical development such as whether Afro-American athletes could compete in the 1936 Berlin Olympics during the Nazi regime; Rosa Parks becoming a symbol of civil disobedience by unfurling a flag against white/black discrimination on city buses in the 1950s; civil rights movements in the USA led by Afro-American leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X; and the American athletes who climbed the medal platform wearing black gloves at the 1968 Mexico Olympics are all examples proving the existence of a strong “gas entrapment” ticking like a time bomb in the background of social life.
When did brands start to take sides?
However, a new page in anti-racism protests was opened by the American National Football League (NFL) in the 2000s. A number of football players kneeled during the USA National Anthem before a game in protest against “racial discrimination”. These protests are known by the name of one of the star players who took part: Nick (Colin) Kaepernick, who was making a lot of money, and could have made much more. Instead, he became the first victim of the protests when the NFL National League Management and the directors of his club who feared the iron fist of politics ended his football career. His name was now on the “blacklist”.
However, Nick Kaepernick, who said his civil activist spirit was more important than “anything” became a role model, and not just for American football or Afro-American athletes, but for “everyone” who took a stand against “racial discrimination”. And as soon as he was blacklisted, something unexpected happened: Nick Kaepernick became the face of Nike, the global sports and clothing brand. The news read as follows: “In its 30th year, Nike, the American NFL’s official sponsor, restores belief with Colin Kaepernick. Saying, ‘Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything’ the face of the brand has led to public indignation in the USA… Kaepernick posted the campaign visual on his Twitter account on September 3. After posting this visual, American Republicans showed their reaction by burning Nike products.”
Public opinion was divided in two: Those who supported Nike’s decision versus those who boycotted its products by tearing them to pieces and burning them in the streets. Not long after, another Afro-American face of the brand, tennis player Serena Williams declared her support of Nike: “Serena Williams is the current queen of the tennis world. Nike produces ad campaigns with Serena Williams as well and their advertising agreement continues. To comment on the incident, Williams shared a childhood photo of herself that said, ‘It’s only a crazy dream until you just do it’ adding the following: ‘Especially proud to be a part of the Nike family today.’”
Is NFL’s Apology to Kaepernick a Clean Slate?
Time passed. Another news item dropped like a bombshell on newspaper headlines and television screens following the killing of George Floyd: The American National Football League’s statement that its decision regarding Nick Kaepernick was “wrong” and that it would apologize to Kaepernick.
“An American (NFL) manager, Roger Goodell, declared that he would support former player Colin Kaepernick in his return to the organization after his dismissal from the league due to his protest in 2016. Talking to the American press, Goodell stated that he hoped that Kaepernick, who had been forced to retire early after his protest, would return to the league: ‘If Colin wants to resume his career in the NFL, then he should take the step and talk to a club. If he has such a desire, I would talk to the team that wants him and give the deal my support.’ Saying that should he decide not to resume his sports career, Kaepernick could still be good for the NFL, Goodell said ‘Kaepernick may not want to resume his sports career. In this case, the NFL is ready to provide financial and moral support to his social responsibility projects.’”
Show of “Brotherhood” between Nike and Adidas!
Another interesting development occurred in the world of brands during the days of heavy protests against the killing of George Floyd. Nike’s archrival, Adidas, openly supported Nike’s pro-protest messages on Twitter. Adidas’ retweet of Nike’s message was very clear and simple: “Together is how we move forward. Together is how we make change.”
Nike was one of several brands slammed by consumers and civil society for ignoring inhuman working conditions in contract workshops in South Asian countries in the 1990s. Consumer boycotts continuing for many years were evolving into cases that represented the need for a global brand such as Nike to take its power from globally shared values.
Wendy’s Comes to the Fore!
2020 will undoubtedly be remembered as the year when large scale reactions against racial discrimination around the world made history. However, parallel to these developments, things happened in the world of brands as well. For example, on a day when public demonstrations against the killing of George Floyd were at their peak, another Afro-American, Rayshard Brooks, was killed in the parking lot of a Wendy’s in Alabama, again by police. People boiled with rage, and the first thing they did was burn the Wendy’s to the ground. A brand that had been around for years suddenly found itself the focus of a racist issue! Let’s note that Wendy’s had donated 500 thousand dollars to the funds fighting against racial discrimination ten days before this incident. However, as part of our evaluation of the connection between brands and politics let’s keep in mind that Wendy’s CEO James Bodenstedt donated this amount after some news suggested that he had donated 400 thousand dollars to Donald Trump’s campaign in 2018. Although the company said, “No claim can overshadow our support to the “Black Lives Matter” movement”, the question remains whether the burning of the hamburger restaurant after the killing of Brooks by the police in a Wendy’s parking lot resulted from people associating the “brand” as a Trump supporter! In other words, did a brand get caught up in a political agenda again? So, did the incident in Alabama cause consumers to stop visiting Wendy’s 6.500 other branches? Time will show.
The Most Radical Decision a Brand can Make in its History!
With racism dominating the agenda in the USA, brands witnessed another historic development as Aunt Jemima, the famous 130-year old pancake brand, announced that it would no longer use a black woman as its trademark, and that the brand name would be changed. Afro-American Nancy Green was known as a missionary, cook, and a storyteller in the 1800s, and in the world of brands, Aunt Jemima had been privileged to use her visual figure as their trademark. The brand’s owner, the Quaker Foods company, stated that they would work to meet consumers’ expectations regarding “racial equality”. In a similar development, the dairy products company Land O’Lakes, which had turned a century old a few months previous, removed the Native American figure as the face of its brand.
Consumers’ and Employees’ Brand Expectations in Social Issues
The first reactions to Facebook’s silence in the face of all these developments came from its own employees. While employees continued to react saying, “Why are we still not raising our voices?”, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s indecisive attitude towards racism caused some major advertisers to re-consider their relationship with the brand. Important brands such as North Face and Ben & Jerry’s announced they were withdrawing their ads due to Facebook’s failure to take a clear position.
A news article in the Guardian presented research showing that consumers tend to spend money on brands that adopt innovative values. 87% of the participants said that they would spend their money on brands that supported the social issues they believed in, and 88% of the participants stated that they might support boycotts of brands that behave irresponsibly.
What it all comes down to is that society is after “sincerity” not an “image”. Brands today that strive to create the “image” that they’re meeting society’s expectations by donating funds or materials/supplies are not very convincing. Society wants to see where brand owners, managers, and employees “sincerely” stand. They want to see them stand with people on the street at the cost of being arrested, as Ben & Jerry’s owners Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield did.
Leave a Reply