BONGANI MALUNGA
A ‘charm offensive’ is defined as a calculated campaign of using one’s charm to gain favour or support. Until recently this was perceived as the perfect way for a business to attract customers, they charmed the customer with eye catching adverts, a positive message or an impressive campaign. The feel-good factor used to be an effective tool, but over the years as everybody adopted the same model, it appears that the use of positive charm is now outdated, as it does not sell.
In the current era of a Trumptonian world, it appears that being offensive is the new way of charming the public, deliberately or unintentionally, companies have found ways to capitalizing off negativity. The phrase “there’s no such thing as bad press” has been used over and over again to downplay controversy, and unlikely as it may appear it has evolved into a school of thought that has been adopted by retail and major businesses all over the world when using bad publicity to garner attention.
It is always a ‘win-win’ situation for companies when they get bad publicity, as the public focus on their brands expands their appeal to a wider audience. The need to rectify their wrongs and apologise in turns becomes a positive message; that they care enough to they patch their errand ways with the public and after a while its “business as usual” for the business, with new customers who liked the remedial actions taken.
Last year H&M, a retail giant with numerous global stores, ruffled more than a few feathers as they placed a picture of a young black child wearing a new range of their sweaters (hoodies) with the words “coolest monkey in the jungle” imprinted on them. The sweater was advertised on their United Kingdom website and it immediately received negative reviews. The company was criticized for racism. A few days ago another retail giant, Gucci advertised a product which had features resembling the historic depiction of African Americans as ‘black-face’ according to critics and the outraged activists and communities in the USA.
Gucci posted a Balaclava jumper (worth $850) which had a mask like feature covering a model’s face again resembling the historically condemned “Black Face.” The design was interpreted as being racially insensitive and offensive. Numerous rappers have threatened to boycott the store according to inews.co.uk. Famous rappers T.I, Soulja Boy and 50 Cent have led boycotts of the store with 50 Cent going to extreme lengths by posting a video burning his Gucci clothes on Instagram.
Historically, black people have been the subject of racially charged slurs as a result of colonialism and slavery. Black people have often been referred to as monkeys (among many other offensive names). To this day, the racial slurs continue to exist and it appears H&M and Gucci have, in recent years, opened a new can of worms by being racially insensitive. Both have removed the offending lines and issued public apologies but the damage has already done, the fallout was immense as major celebrities have come out to disassociate themselves with the two major brands.
But was damage really done to their brands? Experts suggest that the controversial advertisements are a deliberate ploy to get people talking, this then leads to more clicks on their websites for those who are not aware of the company. In the case of H&M, the attention on their products grew in the immediate aftermath of the controversy, there were also unconfirmed rumours of an 80 percent discount on the website as a way to soften the public backlash and induce sales.
It is a smart tactic if the 80 percent discount reports are true, they found a way to turn a negative into a positive, no matter how disgusted the public is, very few would turn down an opportunity to buy their merchandise at low prices.
H&M hardly trended on social media before the “monkey fiasco”, it is still questionable how the decision makers of the company overlooked the possibility of a backlash from the public, as the name monkey has been used to demean, ridicule and disrespect the black race all over the world but somehow H&M did not consider this.
If their intention was not to ‘harm’ anyone they should have bravely defended their advert, the fact that they took it down, apologised and stated that they would handle the matter internally stops short of proving that they were irresponsible and insensitive in the first place.
Writing for Forbes Magazine, marketing expert A J Agrawal stated that “It’s difficult to use shock marketing without offending at least a portion of your audience. Some entities have been successful in finding the happy medium between being intriguing and being plain offensive, but for most, it is a struggle. America’s diversity makes it hard to implement controversial marketing techniques without being shot down by one group of people or another. Thus, most companies or people who shock their audience understand and accept that they can’t be everyone’s friends; the profit benefits outweigh the enemies made.” The marketing researcher went on to note that “Brands can benefit greatly from what is often referred to as “shock marketing.” Keep in mind that even with the benefit, you will have some negativity. You may gain new customers, but you will lose some old customers too.” This statement has been borne out to be true as the controversy spreads to markets and people that may share the offensive sentiment while leaving many other customers who do not care, untouched.
In 2017, a Chinese company created a controversial detergent advert in which a woman (Chinese) is seen flirting with a black man, the woman then playfully pushes the man into a washing machine which swallows him and he later emerges as a clean Chinese man, much to the delight of the woman.
The advert caused a stir around the world as it was labelled as a racist promotion, depicting a black man as dirty and not pure, while showing a Chinese man as a picture of cleanliness and purity. Dove also got in trouble for showing images which displayed a black woman lifting her shirt and turning into a white woman seemingly after using Dove lotion.
Many called for a boycott of Dove products, but the company quickly released a statement saying the following, “An image we recently posted on Facebook missed the mark in representing women of colour thoughtfully. We deeply regret the offence it caused. This did not represent the diversity of real beauty which is something Dove is passionate about and is core to our beliefs, and it should not have happened. We have removed the post and have not published any other related content. We apologise deeply and sincerely for the offence that it has caused.”
This begs the question of why the companies did not think about the possible reactions they would get? Surely every company draws out a strategy and discusses each campaign in high level board meetings before the advertisements are published. It could be unfair to say the companies deliberately go out to display racist adverts, but they have not done themselves any disfavours by adopting the offensive model of advertising.
Closer to home, Nandos SA has been a marketing sensation in terms of taking slight jabs at other companies or political figures, their provocative model has won them admirers as their humour has won the hearts of many customers. They cannot be categorized in the same manner as Gucci, H&M and Dove, they are playful, witty and comical but they have offended many along the way.
Their model of humour to promote their meals may be considered less harmful but they are still using the model of capitalizing on controversy to market their products, it is a useful method, one that seems to be the new “it thing” all over the world.
Offensive or not, companies have and will continue to provoke reactions with the aim of being relevant, to trend and to reach out to new customers, hate it or love it, it appears to be here to stay.
A ‘charm offensive’ is defined as a calculated campaign of using one’s charm to gain favour or support. Until recently this was perceived as the perfect way for a business to attract customers, they charmed the customer with eye catching adverts, a positive message or an impressive campaign. The feel-good factor used to be an effective tool, but over the years as everybody adopted the same model, it appears that the use of positive charm is now outdated, as it does not sell.
In the current era of a Trumptonian world, it appears that being offensive is the new way of charming the public, deliberately or unintentionally, companies have found ways to capitalizing off negativity. The phrase “there’s no such thing as bad press” has been used over and over again to downplay controversy, and unlikely as it may appear it has evolved into a school of thought that has been adopted by retail and major businesses all over the world when using bad publicity to garner attention.
It is always a ‘win-win’ situation for companies when they get bad publicity, as the public focus on their brands expands their appeal to a wider audience. The need to rectify their wrongs andapologise in turns becomes a positive message; that they care enough to they patch their errand ways with the public and after a while its “business as usual” for the business, with new customers who liked the remedial actions taken.
Last year H&M, a retail giant with numerous global stores, ruffled more than a few feathers as they placed a picture of a young black child wearing a new range of their sweaters (hoodies) with the words “coolest monkey in the jungle” imprinted on them. The sweater was advertised on their United Kingdom website and it immediately received negative reviews. The company was criticized for racism. A few days ago another retail giant, Gucci advertised a product which had features resembling the historic depiction of African Americans as ‘black-face’ according to critics and the outraged activists and communities in the USA.
Gucci posted a Balaclava jumper (worth $850) which had a mask like feature covering a model’s face again resembling the historically condemned “Black Face.” The design was interpreted as being racially insensitive and offensive. Numerous rappers have threatened to boycott the store according to inews.co.uk. Famous rappers T.I, Soulja Boy and 50 Cent have led boycotts of the store with 50 Cent going to extreme lengths by posting a video burning his Gucci clothes on Instagram.
Historically, black people have been the subject of racially charged slurs as a result of colonialism and slavery. Black people have often been referred to as monkeys (among many other offensive names). To this day, the racial slurs continue to exist and it appears H&M and Gucci have, in recent years, opened a new can of worms by being racially insensitive. Both have removed the offending lines and issued public apologies but the damage has already done, the fallout was immense as major celebrities have come out to disassociate themselves with the two major brands.
But was damage really done to their brands? Experts suggest that the controversial advertisements are a deliberate ploy to get people talking, this then leads to more clicks on their websites for those who are not aware of the company. In the case of H&M, the attention on their products grew in the immediate aftermath of the controversy, there were also unconfirmed rumours of an 80 percent discount on the website as a way to soften the public backlash and induce sales.
It is a smart tactic if the 80 percent discount reports are true, they found a way to turn a negative into a positive, no matter how disgusted the public is, very few would turn down an opportunity to buy their merchandise at low prices.
H&M hardly trended on social media before the “monkey fiasco”, it is still questionable how the decision makers of the company overlooked the possibility of a backlash from the public, as the name monkey has been used to demean, ridicule and disrespect the black race all over the world but somehow H&M did not consider this.
If their intention was not to ‘harm’ anyone they should have bravely defended their advert, the fact that they took it down, apologised and stated that they would handle the matter internally stops short of proving that they were irresponsible and insensitive in the first place.
Writing for Forbes Magazine, marketing expert A J Agrawal stated that “It’s difficult to use shock marketing without offending at least a portion of your audience. Some entities have been successful in finding the happy medium between being intriguing and being plain offensive, but for most, it is a struggle. America’s diversity makes it hard to implement controversial marketing techniques without being shot down by one group of people or another. Thus, most companies or people who shock their audience understand and accept that they can’t be everyone’s friends; the profit benefits outweigh the enemies made.” The marketing researcher went on to note that “Brands can benefit greatly from what is often referred to as “shock marketing.” Keep in mind that even with the benefit, you will have some negativity. You may gain new customers, but you will lose some old customers too.” This statement has been borne out to be true as the controversy spreads to markets and people that may share the offensive sentiment while leaving many other customers who do not care, untouched.
In 2017, a Chinese company created a controversial detergent advert in which a woman (Chinese) is seen flirting with a black man, the woman then playfully pushes the man into a washing machine which swallows him and he later emerges as a clean Chinese man, much to the delight of the woman.
The advert caused a stir around the world as it was labelled as a racist promotion, depicting a black man as dirty and not pure, while showing a Chinese man as a picture of cleanliness and purity.
Dove also got in trouble for showing images which displayed a black woman lifting her shirt and turning into a white woman seemingly after using Dove lotion.
Many called for a boycott of Dove products, but the company quickly released a statement saying the following, “An image we recently posted on Facebook missed the mark in representing women of colour thoughtfully. We deeply regret the offence it caused. This did not represent the diversity of real beauty which is something Dove is passionate about and is core to our beliefs, and it should not have happened. We have removed the post and have not published any other related content. We apologise deeply and sincerely for the offence that it has caused.”
This begs the question of why the companies did not think about the possible reactions they would get? Surely every company draws out a strategy and discusses each campaign in high level board meetings before the advertisements are published.
It could be unfair to say the companies deliberately go out to display racist adverts, but they have not done themselves any disfavours by adopting the offensive model of advertising.
Closer to home, Nandos SA has been a marketing sensation in terms of taking slight jabs at other companies or political figures, their provocative model has won them admirers as their humour has won the hearts of many customers. They cannot be categorized in the same manner as Gucci, H&M and Dove, they are playful, witty and comical but they have offended many along the way.
Their model of humour to promote their meals may be considered less harmful but they are still using the model of capitalizing on controversy to market their products, it is a useful method, one that seems to be the new “it thing” all over the world.
Offensive or not, companies have and will continue to provoke reactions with the aim of being relevant, to trend and to reach out to new customers, hate it or love it, it appears to be here to stay.