A Lesson in Corporate Wokeness: The Disaster After Making Aunt Jemima a Pariah

[TBoneTX 45,248]

A Lesson in Corporate Wokeness: The Disaster After Making Aunt Jemima a Pariah

 

Though it is finally cooling, lingering effects are still seen with the cultural furor surrounding the beer brand Bud Light.  [...]

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/bradslager/2023/04/20/a-lesson-in-corporate-wokeness-the-disaster-after-making-aunt-jemima-a-pariah-n2622208

[Dashinka 24,479]

But at least Pepsi/Quaker beefed up their ESG score.  There is a price to pay for that level of wokeness.

[yuna628 9,671]

14 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

A Lesson in Corporate Wokeness: The Disaster After Making Aunt Jemima a Pariah

 

Though it is finally cooling, lingering effects are still seen with the cultural furor surrounding the beer brand Bud Light.  [...]

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/bradslager/2023/04/20/a-lesson-in-corporate-wokeness-the-disaster-after-making-aunt-jemima-a-pariah-n2622208

So I'm going to say something from my perspective after looking through that article, and you'll likely not agree, but hey maybe food for thought?

 

One thing a lot of people seem to go towards when buying a product is brand loyalty. They may associate an icon with a brand which makes it instantly recognizable. Some may be so loyal they will never try something new. Others may try something new, just because they are an exploring person, or perhaps they are experiencing financial hardship so they look for something cheaper, some may give up a product entirely for the same reason, or of course there is still a supply chain issue/lack of availability.

 

I don't often see pancakes as something that people tend to have every single week. In my house it used to be more of a luxury item, and when we had it for special holidays, we were loyal to a particular brand of mix. Same with syrup. There is one syrup that a lot of people use in this state, because it's a generation thing. It's sorta like Old Bay here, it's just what people use. As a kid I can only recall having pancakes for Easter, Christmas morning, or as a special treat. Now my husband is a pancake and waffles person. He likes fixing them all the time, but we still are loyal to the brands we have. I can tell you that Aunt Jemima isn't one of them. 

 

For those that were once loyal to that brand, I'd say the author of the article does not prove his argument because he lacks investigation into other possible causes of sales downturn. Supply chain issues, inflation, lack of funds, lack of product, and lack of new brand recognition could all play a part. He did not seem to look at competing sales, which I suspect suffers from the same problem. I don't really buy that a large percentage of the public felt so grievously injured that they could never dare swallow a rebranded Aunt Jemima ever again. Of course there may be some, but not enough to make an impact.

 

That is why I largely laugh at people chucking cases of beer out or shooting it (hey you bought them to destroy them so the company gets your $s and it saves your life not drinking cheap swill). It happens nearly every year. Book and CD burnings, film protests, offensive ad campaigns, food rebranding and endorsements. A company can choose to put what they want on a product and can choose to change that product at any time. A lot of companies started putting artificial sweeteners in their products and not notifying the public. One example was Seagram's ginger ale - which changed the product to foul tasting. It took a few years, but Seagrams realized it wasn't that great of an idea. The same with a cider company I enjoy which put artificial sweetener in - completely changed the formula. Took about two years for them to change it back. Currently, there have been some interesting dairy shortages I've noticed - especially when it comes to lactose intolerant types, creamers that claimed to be organic or free of flavorings. Inflation, supply chain, and lack of money flow have led to companies consolidating products, or subtle rebrandings. One coffee creamer company that many people were loyal to, have rebranded the packaging and neglected to tell everyone that instead of having a few 'simple' ingredients like milk, sugar, and cream it is now changed to buttermilk, HFCS, soybean oil, a thickening agent.. etc. That change has spurred somewhat of an uproar. A lack of supply means there are less options to switch to, and is causing shortages in other competing brands. In the UK, some of our favorite drinks we take for granted here have had whole formula changes in response to new government regulations and taxes involving sugar. It is now laden with artificial sweetener combinations in 'non diet' drinks. Sweeteners that have been proven to be unhealthy and dangerous. 

 

I am not offended when a company wants to rebrand or market to people other than me. I am not offended that gay or trans people want to drink beer. They exist and have to drink something. If we are to be a free country for all people? We are free to make choices. I care if a product is a good product, tastes okay with good ingredients. I have not ever felt that the logos for Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima were appropriate. Those logos being there or not on the product do not make me want to buy them more or less, because there are other better and cheaper options. If someone isn't buying Aunt Jemima or Pearl Milling because there is no longer a ''mammy'' on the bottle, I'd say I hope they have some other healthier life priorities to fixate on.

[Boiler 45,442]

Most of the people I know who drink Light beer sic, drink Coors, now there must be Bud drinkers as well, but can not think of any.

 

Would I be able to resist making a comment to someone who drinks Bud in the current situation, probably not and I am sure I am not the only one. Something like what day of girlhood are you on?

 

The historical classic is Gerald Ratner. This is Marketing 101, do not upset your customer base.

[yuna628 9,671]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Most of the people I know who drink Light beer sic, drink Coors, now there must be Bud drinkers as well, but can not think of any.

 

Would I be able to resist making a comment to someone who drinks Bud in the current situation, probably not and I am sure I am not the only one. Something like what day of girlhood are you on?

 

The historical classic is Gerald Ratner. This is Marketing 101, do not upset your customer base.

Well can you tell me who exactly is the customer base for 'Aunt Jemima' that would become so upset because a 'mammy' was no longer on the logo? Admittedly there are some people who remembered the actress that portrayed her somewhat fondly, but I just can't think of who a potential customer could be that would become enraged at never having a 'mammy' on the bottle ever again? Are these people actively buying these products for their racial iconography? If that were the case I would say any modern company would not want to attract those sort of customers.

 

I can say that my family would buy Uncle Bens from time to time but not because of it's racial icon, simply because it's a well-known brand compared to the other choices. I tend to not though, I think it isn't the best quality for the price, though it does cook as it should. I tend to use options like Royal, Mahatma, Nishiki, and Rice Select. You can get big bags of that stuff.

[Boiler 45,442]

It takes a lot of effort to build a brand, I would buy a Supermarket own label probably, which also has had money invested in them.

 

I can see that people associate with something and keep buying that because of that, take Branston, it was not only a brand but do not remember much alternative now there is and a price issue.

 

Of course this is a game which can never be won as given time any association can and probably will be branded to have negative associations. So an era for non brands, quality and price. Soap Operas were called that for a reason, not sure those sort of products still advertise on the TV.

 

Robertson's moved away, they did not make a fuss about it, Bud went the other way effectively they put a Gollywog on the can.

[Dashinka 24,479]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

So I'm going to say something from my perspective after looking through that article, and you'll likely not agree, but hey maybe food for thought?

 

One thing a lot of people seem to go towards when buying a product is brand loyalty. They may associate an icon with a brand which makes it instantly recognizable. Some may be so loyal they will never try something new. Others may try something new, just because they are an exploring person, or perhaps they are experiencing financial hardship so they look for something cheaper, some may give up a product entirely for the same reason, or of course there is still a supply chain issue/lack of availability.

 

I don't often see pancakes as something that people tend to have every single week. In my house it used to be more of a luxury item, and when we had it for special holidays, we were loyal to a particular brand of mix. Same with syrup. There is one syrup that a lot of people use in this state, because it's a generation thing. It's sorta like Old Bay here, it's just what people use. As a kid I can only recall having pancakes for Easter, Christmas morning, or as a special treat. Now my husband is a pancake and waffles person. He likes fixing them all the time, but we still are loyal to the brands we have. I can tell you that Aunt Jemima isn't one of them. 

 

For those that were once loyal to that brand, I'd say the author of the article does not prove his argument because he lacks investigation into other possible causes of sales downturn. Supply chain issues, inflation, lack of funds, lack of product, and lack of new brand recognition could all play a part. He did not seem to look at competing sales, which I suspect suffers from the same problem. I don't really buy that a large percentage of the public felt so grievously injured that they could never dare swallow a rebranded Aunt Jemima ever again. Of course there may be some, but not enough to make an impact.

 

That is why I largely laugh at people chucking cases of beer out or shooting it (hey you bought them to destroy them so the company gets your $s and it saves your life not drinking cheap swill). It happens nearly every year. Book and CD burnings, film protests, offensive ad campaigns, food rebranding and endorsements. A company can choose to put what they want on a product and can choose to change that product at any time. A lot of companies started putting artificial sweeteners in their products and not notifying the public. One example was Seagram's ginger ale - which changed the product to foul tasting. It took a few years, but Seagrams realized it wasn't that great of an idea. The same with a cider company I enjoy which put artificial sweetener in - completely changed the formula. Took about two years for them to change it back. Currently, there have been some interesting dairy shortages I've noticed - especially when it comes to lactose intolerant types, creamers that claimed to be organic or free of flavorings. Inflation, supply chain, and lack of money flow have led to companies consolidating products, or subtle rebrandings. One coffee creamer company that many people were loyal to, have rebranded the packaging and neglected to tell everyone that instead of having a few 'simple' ingredients like milk, sugar, and cream it is now changed to buttermilk, HFCS, soybean oil, a thickening agent.. etc. That change has spurred somewhat of an uproar. A lack of supply means there are less options to switch to, and is causing shortages in other competing brands. In the UK, some of our favorite drinks we take for granted here have had whole formula changes in response to new government regulations and taxes involving sugar. It is now laden with artificial sweetener combinations in 'non diet' drinks. Sweeteners that have been proven to be unhealthy and dangerous. 

 

I am not offended when a company wants to rebrand or market to people other than me. I am not offended that gay or trans people want to drink beer. They exist and have to drink something. If we are to be a free country for all people? We are free to make choices. I care if a product is a good product, tastes okay with good ingredients. I have not ever felt that the logos for Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima were appropriate. Those logos being there or not on the product do not make me want to buy them more or less, because there are other better and cheaper options. If someone isn't buying Aunt Jemima or Pearl Milling because there is no longer a ''mammy'' on the bottle, I'd say I hope they have some other healthier life priorities to fixate on.

People have the ability to vote and discriminate with their dollars.  There have also been quite a few failures out there, I remember "New Coke", but you are right, there is a lot to be said of brand loyalty when it comes to marketing, and when companies start messing with that, it is quite risky.  

[yuna628 9,671]

23 minutes ago, Boiler said:

It takes a lot of effort to build a brand, I would buy a Supermarket own label probably, which also has had money invested in them.

 

I can see that people associate with something and keep buying that because of that, take Branston, it was not only a brand but do not remember much alternative now there is and a price issue.

 

Of course this is a game which can never be won as given time any association can and probably will be branded to have negative associations. So an era for non brands, quality and price. Soap Operas were called that for a reason, not sure those sort of products still advertise on the TV.

 

Robertson's moved away, they did not make a fuss about it, Bud went the other way effectively they put a Gollywog on the can.

A trans person is not a gollywog and that person's face was not branded on every single can for the end of all time. Trans people do exist and do apparently, as human beings drink and eat. Therefore lots of products they use every day, just like you and me. What gets to the heart of things to me is why are people so offended that someone different from them eats and drinks the same things they do? Now I do not think that because of predicaments like this that arise, ANY company should be in the business of endorsements or branding packaging to support causes if you want a straight across the board no potential to offend anyone risk management sort of thing. I thought from time to time conservatives want to be bold with offending, promoting free speech for all, not canceling anyone, and supporting causes to rock boats so it seems a wee hypocritical. But ultimately someone is going to get offended at something at any given moment. I mean did anyone get upset at Bud Light when they usually make rainbow pride cans? Five of the ten best selling beer brands in the US (and a whole host of other alcoholic brands) have consistently done branding, charity sponsorships, and partnership deals with LGBTQ causes. We seem to be living in an outrage generation, where someone has to get angry about something and influence others to do the same, and that seems a little snowflakey to me - which works both ways. People can indeed vote with their dollars, but the outrage-mongering seems childish at times.

Edited April 21, 2023 by yuna628

[Dashinka 24,479]

7 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

A trans person is not a gollywog and that person's face was not branded on every single can for the end of all time. Trans people do exist and do apparently, as human beings drink and eat. Therefore lots of products they use every day, just like you and me. What gets to the heart of things to me is why are people so offended that someone different from them eats and drinks the same things they do? Now I do not think that because of predicaments like this that arise, ANY company should be in the business of endorsements or branding packaging to support causes if you want a straight across the board no potential to offend anyone risk management sort of thing. I thought from time to time conservatives want to be bold with offending, promoting free speech for all, not canceling anyone, and supporting causes to rock boats so it seems a wee hypocritical. But ultimately someone is going to get offended at something at any given moment. I mean did anyone get upset at Bud Light when they usually make rainbow pride cans? Five of the ten best selling beer brands in the US (and a whole host of other alcoholic brands) have consistently done branding, charity sponsorships, and partnership deals with LGBTQ causes. We seem to be living in an outrage generation, where someone has to get angry about something and influence others to do the same, and that seems a little snowflakey to me - which works both ways. People can indeed vote with their dollars, but the outrage-mongering seems childish at times.

And the activist shouting can be just as childish.  Personally I do not see conservatives trying to silence anyone, but I definitely see Leftist activists trying to silence anyone that does not agree with them politically or socially.  Look at how many conservative speakers have been silenced, but I guess that is ok as long as the activist/loudest voices get their way.  Personally I do not care what InBev/AB does, I don't frequent their product, but if people choose to discriminate against their product or question their brand loyalty based on a company's political activism that is a personal choice and a risk the company takes.  I know a lot of people that do not want activism thrown in their faces and they can do what they want.  In the meantime, maybe the Left needs to become more accepting of other's views as they have seemed to lose their ability to be accepting of different views.

[Boiler 45,442]

Dylan Mulvaney is a gollywog, an offensive caricature. Meets the definition

 

Personally I find it funny, modern day feminism being taken over by men etc. That may be rooted in cross dressing being a not insignificant component of British humour.

 

I also find it funny how things have switched, how we are supposedly shamed by things that were ok and are now not only to be replaced by more ridiculous replacements,.

 

Looking over just a few years it seems those screaming Believe the Science do not believe in Biology.

 

As an agnostic my conclusion is that many people who in past times would have been rooted in their religious beliefs no longer have that to support them and have in effect replaced it with a non religion religion. Bit of a shame really but perhaps the human psyche needs it.

[MarJhi 958]

20 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

What gets to the heart of things to me is why are people so offended that someone different from them eats and drinks the same things they do?

It has nothing to do with someone different eating or drinking the same thing as you do. It has everything to do with someone making a mockery of women and being rewarded for it. Actually, the person never calls himself a woman, he says he is on his journey into "girlhood", which quite frankly is a little creepy. Personally, I have never seen or met a female of ANY age who acts like this man does outside of someone doing a skit about an outrageously silly pre-teen female that nobody has ever seen the likes of. He is doing an Al Jolson style blackface routine.

[Boiler 45,442]

Listening to LPR

 

All about GAC and it’s history

 

Obviously they are in favour

 

Now if someone suggested castrating rapists they would have a melt down but ok for children 

[Boiler 45,442]

It feels like we have gone back to One flew over the Cuckoos Nest, weird.

[yuna628 9,671]

27 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Dylan Mulvaney is a gollywog, an offensive caricature. Meets the definition

 

Personally I find it funny, modern day feminism being taken over by men etc. That may be rooted in cross dressing being a not insignificant component of British humour.

 

I also find it funny how things have switched, how we are supposedly shamed by things that were ok and are now not only to be replaced by more ridiculous replacements,.

 

Looking over just a few years it seems those screaming Believe the Science do not believe in Biology.

 

As an agnostic my conclusion is that many people who in past times would have been rooted in their religious beliefs no longer have that to support them and have in effect replaced it with a non religion religion. Bit of a shame really but perhaps the human psyche needs it.

A gollywog is a racist caricature of a black person made up by other people to racially denigrate them. A trans person is a trans person. They are not a caricature. To make the leap you are is to say that a trans person is an offensive caricature of themselves made up by other people to racially denigrate them. Cross dressing for drag performances may be said to be a caricature and an art form, and it is one that is very old indeed.

 

30 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

And the activist shouting can be just as childish.  Personally I do not see conservatives trying to silence anyone, but I definitely see Leftist activists trying to silence anyone that does not agree with them politically or socially.  Look at how many conservative speakers have been silenced, but I guess that is ok as long as the activist/loudest voices get their way.  Personally I do not care what InBev/AB does, I don't frequent their product, but if people choose to discriminate against their product or question their brand loyalty based on a company's political activism that is a personal choice and a risk the company takes.  I know a lot of people that do not want activism thrown in their faces and they can do what they want.  In the meantime, maybe the Left needs to become more accepting of other's views as they have seemed to lose their ability to be accepting of different views.

I'll make an example here: if I, the CEO of one of the most important brands in the world decided to put a conservative activist or cause on the cover of a product which caused massive backlash and global outrage. It led to people storming the grocer, ripping product off the shelves, setting fire to it, led the nightly outrage-monger news show, caused celebrities to start loading up crates and shooting them, to the point it caused me to change direction within a week, apologize for no reason, and hire whatever gigantic liberal the mob preferred? You would say this is a bad thing.

 

That is precisely more or less what is being done to Bud. Briefly it happened to Pearl Milling and Ben's too. Those brands were willing to stick with whatever tiny shred of principles they had. To me, in this Bud just ends up looking dumb by caving. Regardless of if a pride flag is branded on a product or not, a trans person, a person that is very different from you may end up using the same products you do. Because ultimately we are all human. For the people that have been crying all week about this, they have got bigger problems than a can of beer.

10 minutes ago, MarJhi said:

It has nothing to do with someone different eating or drinking the same thing as you do. It has everything to do with someone making a mockery of women and being rewarded for it. Actually, the person never calls himself a woman, he says he is on his journey into "girlhood", which quite frankly is a little creepy. Personally, I have never seen or met a female of ANY age who acts like this man does outside of someone doing a skit about an outrageously silly pre-teen female that nobody has ever seen the likes of. He is doing an Al Jolson style blackface routine.

You don't know the person, so you don't know what their public and private persona is. All you see is what you see in public. Gay and trans people do not mock me or my femineity. They do not threaten my existence or my happiness as a person. If they do to you and others, that might be something to seek help about.

Edited April 21, 2023 by yuna628

[MarJhi 958]

12 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

You don't know the person, so you don't know what their public and private persona is. All you see is what you see in public. Gay and trans people do not mock me or my femineity. They do not threaten my existence or my happiness as a person. If they do to you and others, that might be something to seek help about.

He is essentially wearing blackface. Acting like a cartoon character of a pre-teen girl and dressing up like Audrey Hepburn is nothing more than cosplay. Hair, makeup, dresses and acting silly aren't things that make a woman a woman (or a girl as he likes to pretend).

 

Also, who said anything about gay people? What does this have to do with gay people?