With Black Lives Matter, Brands Stumble with Statements About Race

 

 

 

Will consumers continue holding corporate entities accountable for their stance on civil rights issues? Yes, but in our analysis the sentiment needs to include demonstrated action rather than superficial statements.

 

While some lauded the fact that companies with racist brand identities like Quaker Oats, Aunt Jemima, and Land O’ Lakes butter made the effort to eliminate those icons, the larger question remained: what’s changed within these brands? Other than removing a mascot, how have they changed their personnel strategy and corporate culture?

 

While consumers applauded brands’ removal of racist mascots from brands like Aunt Jemima, others asked: what took you so long, not to mention, how is the change reflected internally.

 

Data from research firm Piplsay certainly calls that into question.

 

In a survey of 30,452 Americans, it becomes clear that corporations have an upward climb towards earning the respect of consumers.

 

---

The fact is, time and again, brands use marketing to communicate change without making it systemic to the organization.

---

 

65% think brands should be required to take a stand against racism with 46% believing that such actions could potentially lead to a credible change.

 

 

Still 61% say that just removing a racist mascot will not make a measurable difference. Rather, that the priority should be addressing racial bias within the organization (we think both should be at the top of the list and consecutive, quite frankly.)

 

Most telling is that 56% of consumers would be willing to show preference to brands that overtly speak out against racism. The vast majority – 60% — in this segment being Generation Z and Millennials.

 

Research from AceMetrix reveals how consumers view ads as either “empowering” or “exploitative.” More than a few ads only struck middle-ground.

At b. on brand, our concern is that in a time of economic crisis, just how far will companies go to do the heavy lifting needed to change their core values and demonstrate that change at the top level?

 

Time and again brands use marketing to communicate change without making it systemic to the organization.

 

Case in point: research from AceMetrix shows that when Nike created their anti-racism campaign with the message, “For Once, Don’t Do It”​ (a play on their slogan, “Just Do it”) as a means to call on people not to ignore racism, but many wondered if the brand’s aim was still about selling shoes rather than promoting political activism.

 

Nike’s “For Once Don’t Do It” campaign had the heart but the message felt more like it was about restraint rather than deep-seated change of character.

It seems obvious but executives didn’t get it.  A message that says, “don’t do it” doesn’t ask for a major change in thinking rather, it simplistically requests restraining a negative feeling or impulse to be racist. You might as well say, “Be Nice.” There’s no intrinsic evolution or moral accountability.

 

---

We believe that reactive advertising, which is pretty much what all of these ads were, is seldom if ever effective because you are tacitly late to the party.

---

 

Likewise, an ad by MacDonald’s that aimed to support the Black Lives Matter movement called out the names of those who were victims of police violence. But the overall perception was that the ad was exploitative and taking advantage of the movement’s momentum.

It may have felt “deep” to put those names on the screen, but what else was MacDonald’s doing to stop more names from being added to the list?

 

MacDonald’s overlooked the fact that they weren’t walking the talk with their own employees.

The brand’s biggest mistake was that it completely ignored the fact that many of their employees are black and had been demanding better protections against discrimination in the workplace and increased safety measures against COVID.

 

Demonstrate your change, don’t just talk about.

 

We believe that this kind of reactive advertising (which is pretty much what all of these ads were) is seldom if ever effective because you are tacitly late to the party. You waited until the last minute to make a statement.

 

Corporate entities need to take a more holistic approach to change within their organization. A brand that demonstrates that it has taken the time to collaborate with its stakeholders and develop a company-wide manifesto for changing the brand’s ideology and behavior will go much further in creating change than a major advertising campaign; especially one which ultimately is designed to deflect the blame.

 

Goodbye Uncle Ben, farewell Aunt Jemima: the truth is, removing a racist mascot is a short-term superficial promise of change but it does not address the fact that consumers know who’s in charge at the top, and chances are, they’re white and a major part of the problem.

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.