TACTIC: if you know your audience are concerned about people’s rights, distract them from thinking about workers’ rights in your supply chain & align your brand with the hard won civil rights of its consumers.
“Fazer ‘Blue’ Chocolate Cocoa School Campaign“ A corporate charity fundraising campaign by Fazer. Campaign advert in Helsingin Sanomat above.
Finland’s favourite chocolate company Fazer takes out a full front page ad in a leading daily newspaper. They promise to give 5 cents from every bar of Fazer Blue to a school building project in the Ivory Coast. This is where the company’s cocoa beans are grown by child slaves. Do these children need a school or something more from Fazer?
Page reference: Eeva Kemppainen (2024) Fazer ‘Blue’ Chocolate Cocoa School Campaign. followthethings.com/fazer-blue-chocolate-cocoa-school-campaign.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“No Pride In Primark“ Popular activist campaign against Primark’s ‘Pride’ clothing & accessories made in anti-LGBTQ+ countries. To see what sparked this, watch Primark’s promotional video above.
UK LGBTQ+ rights charity Stonewall collaborates with high street fashion retailer Primark on its 2018 ‘Pride’ range of clothing and accessories. They will be sold throughout Europe and North America and 20% of their profits will go to Stonewall. But none of the proceeds will go to the organisers of Pride celebrations, some of whom are struggling for money. And many of the countries in which this ‘Pride’ merch is being made – like Turkey, Myanmar & China – ban LGBTQ+ events and NGOs and imprison people for homosexuality. So what should Primark & Stonewall do? Where should people shopping for Pride merch go? And what’s it like to be an LGBTQ+ worker in Turkey, Myanmar or China making t-shirts and other merch that ‘celebrates what you are not allowed to be’? These are the questions asked by social media critics and the journalists who pick up their criticisms. It’s not a huge orchestrated campaign. No NGO or other organisation orchestrates it. Nevertheless, it becomes a notorious case of a high street brand ‘pink-washing’ (a form of ‘woke-washing’) their supply chain operations. In the wake of these criticisms, Primark continues to support LGBTQ+ organisations in many countries, but has it addressed the crackdowns on LGBTQ people in those countries where its rainbow merch is made? Should it withdraw its orders from these countries? Or keep working there, supporting – via Stonewall and other organisations – the LGBTQ+ organisations and workers who need it? Does it do so? And how can it convince the media, activists and consumers that it’s doing so? LGBTQ+ people represent a big market for clothing sales.
Page reference: Ian Cook et al (2024) No Pride In Primark (taster). followthethings.com/no-pride-in-primark.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Dream Crazy“ An advertising campaign for Nike by the Wieden+Kennedy agency. Video ad embedded ABOVE. Full campaign materials here.
It’s the 30th anniversary of Nike’s ‘Just Do it’ campaign. So the advertising agency hired by the brand most associated with sweatshops hires an African American football player called Colin Kaepernick to front it. He’s the quarterback who became famous in 2016 for taking the knee during the national anthem before games because, he said, ‘I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color’. After George Floyd was murdered by a police officer in 2020, taking the knee became associated with support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Condemned as unpatriotic by many, including President Trump, Nike was courting controversy by making Kaepernick the figurehead of its campaign. But he could show that by ‘dreaming crazy’, marginalised people like himself could excel. And Nike could be part of this. But strange things happened. People who did’t like Kaepernick and the Black Lives Matter movement started burning their Nike gear, criticising its production overseas by sweatshop workers and boycotting the brand. Others normally critical of Nike said they’d buy more from them because of their support for BLM. Others asked why the lives of Nike’s Black consumers and consumers of color mattered more than the lives of their Black producers and producers of color. What did Kaepernick know and think about these marginalised people and their dreams before he took Nike’s money? This kind of advertising – where, for example, civil rights are used to mask labour rights – is called woke-washing. Nike seems to be running this campaign to stir controversy, by launching it on Labor Day bang into the US’s toxic ‘culture war’ around BLM. This campaign itself isn’t trade justice activism. But the responses to it are. The debates that it can take you into are around ‘systemic racism’ and ‘racial capitalism’. Why is it that the workers trade justice activists are concerned about tend to live in the Global South and be people of colour while the consumers they address tend to live on the Global North and seem by default to be white? How did that happen? Can trade justice / follow the thing activism be decolonised? Who would do this work? What commodities would they trace from where to where? What would they make for what kinds of audiences to act upon? And you might be wondering if this controversial campaign does Nike any harm. No. Its impact was much more about the uncomfortable, progressive, ‘mind-f$@k’ conversations that it sparked. Thank you Colin…
Page reference: Louise Mason, Maddy Shackley, Izzie Jeffrey, Megan Holden, Sophia Stainer, Emily Taylor, Andrew Gamble & Monty Leaman (2018) Dream Crazy. followthethings.com/dream-crazy.shtml (last accessed <add date here>)
