Under the Influence with Terry O'Reilly - S6E18 - Grab Your Wallet: When Brands Go Political

Episode Date: May 5, 2017

This week, we explore how brands are becoming political for the first time in history. We’ll look at what happens when major retailers decide to “Dump Trump”, the controversial Super Bowl ad that challenged an immigration policy and crashed the Internet and how even Pepsi could drop the political ball. Years ago, most advertisers would have never dreamed of offending anyone with a pulse and a wallet. But all that is changing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hi, it's Terry O'Reilly. As you may know, we've been producing a lot of bonus episodes while under the influences on hiatus. They're called the Beatleology Interviews, where I talk to people who knew the Beatles, work with them, love them, and the authors who write about them. Well, the Beatleology Interviews have become a hit, so we are spinning it out to be a standalone podcast series. You've already heard conversations with people like actors Mark Hamill, Malcolm McDowell, and Beatles confidant Astrid Kershaw. But coming up, I talk to May Pang, who dated John Lennon in the mid-70s. I talk to double fantasy guitarist Earl Slick, Apple Records creative director John Kosh. I'll be talking to Jan Hayworth,

who designed the Sgt. Pepper album cover. Very cool. And I'll talk to singer Dion, who is one of only five people still alive who were on the Sgt. Pepper cover. And two of those people were Beatles. The stories they tell are amazing. So thank you for making this series such a success. And please, do me a favor, follow the Beatleology interviews on your podcast app. You don't even have to be a huge Beatles fan, you just have to love storytelling.

Subscribe now, and don't miss a single beat. From the Under the Influence digital box set, this episode is from Season 6, 2017. You're so king in it. You're gonna love it in an instant. Your teeth look whiter than noon, noon, noon. You're not you when you're hungry.

You're in good hands with all things. You're under the influence with Terry O'Reilly. Back in 1955, Tommy Smothers was studying advertising at San Jose University. Not long after, he and his younger brother Dick formed a trio with a singer and performed as a folk group. Eventually, the brothers decided to become a duo, but worried about how it would go over without a lead singer. So they tried mixing humor with the music. The crowds loved it. In 1967, they landed a national television show on CBS.

It's the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was hip and funny and attracted the top musical guests of the time. Just a few months later, it would nudge the mighty Bonanza out of the number one spot. Everything was going fine

until nine episodes into the first season when CBS censors decided to remove a funny sketch about censors. CBS went public with the censorship,

telling the New York Times that the Smothers Brothers showed, quote, bad taste in the censorship sketch. The article infuriated Tommy Smothers. To retaliate, the brothers ramped up their controversial material

almost immediately. The Smothers Brothers' humor became much more political. They voiced their opposition to the Vietnam War in comedy sketches. They sang about their disapproval of CBS policies. But we're still here That weakly crying is stretching out before us

Beeping sensors lurking in the wing CBS would like to give us notice. And some of you don't like the things we say. But we're still here. Every script became a battle with the network. Show writer Mason Williams later said that if CBS hadn't drawn a line in the sand over that first censored sketch,

the Smothers Brothers probably would have continued in a more traditional vein. But that decision changed the entire direction of the show. A couple of episodes later, Tommy Smothers told the viewing audience that the show was being regularly censored. It was one of the first times a show host had ever said that on national television.

Hey, Drew! times a show host had ever said that on national television. Hey Jude! In 1968, the Beatles chose the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour to televise their new videos for Hey Jude and Revolution. It was interesting that the Beatles chose the Smothers Brothers show over Ed Sullivan,

who had given them their launch in North America. But the Beatles found kindred spirits in the Smothers Brothers. They liked their humor and their politics. Meanwhile, the fights with CBS grew worse. As the comedy got more political, the Nixon White House made it clear to CBS that it wasn't happy with the humor.

At one point, George Harrison made a surprise guest appearance on the show. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. George Harrison. He was there to show support for the Smothers Brothers. Do you have something important? Something very important to say on American television. You know, we don't, we, a lot of times we can't, we don't have opportunity saying anything important because it's American television. Every time you say something, they try to say What George said next captured the heart of the brothers' struggle. The ongoing resistance from the network all came down to one thing. CBS was afraid of losing sponsors, and sponsors were afraid of alienating their customers.

Near the end of the third season, the battle between CBS and the Smothers Brothers hit its breaking point. CBS refused to air not just a sketch, but an entire episode because of its controversial content. Tommy Smothers went head-to-head against the president of CBS. The network accused the Smothers brothers of not delivering their show early enough for CBS censors to vet the material. Tommy Smothers argued that delivering episodes

earlier than originally requested wasn't part of their contract. It was a showdown, and CBS pulled the trigger. It cancelled the very successful Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. The Smothers Brothers maintained they weren't cancelled, they were fired. Interesting to note that all the Smothers Brothers episodes ran uncensored in Canada, as CTV, the network airing the show, didn't have a problem with the content. When CBS refused to air the controversial episode, Tommy Smothers came up to Toronto, rented a suite at the Park Plaza Hotel, and invited reporters to see the show the network had banned.

The press almost universally supported the Smothers brothers. The New York Times ran an editorial saying that networks professed their right to freedom of expression, but failed to exercise it in defense of their own programs. In the end, the show's political stance got it canceled, reportedly due to pressure from the Nixon administration. The Smothers Brothers had finally been smothered. The world of marketing has entered a new political era. For the first time in history, companies are starting to take a political stand. Up until now, brands never dared take a political position.

But these days, the public is demanding to know where a brand stands. Customers want to know if a company is left or right, red or blue, with government policies or against. Companies are finding themselves forced to be partisan. And for the first time, brands and politics are clashing. You're under the influence. Ernest Hemingway once described falling into bankruptcy as gradually, then suddenly.

The new order of marketing is following a similar path. Gradually, over time, more and more companies have gotten behind social causes like LGBTQ rights or equality for women or sustainability. Then suddenly, brands have started taking a political stance. They have begun to support or oppose political policies. Understand something. Brands have never done this historically. They just want everybody to be happy.

While the world has thrashed between political leaders and their policies, brands have always stood on the sidelines, silent, like quiet, efficient waiters in a very busy restaurant. The big fear, of course, was that by taking a political position, brands risk alienating 50% of their customers. Companies have always been forensically careful about offending. Commercials are always being pulled or revised if they contain even the slightest element that offends viewers. It could be a sound, a visual, or a word that sounds incorrect, even if it isn't. So paranoid are advertisers of offending that it has led to the overwhelming plethora of safe, bland advertising that goes gently into that good night.

Most advertisers would never dream of offending anyone with a pulse and a wallet. But all that is changing. The 2017 Super Bowl contained two firsts. One, the price for a 30-second commercial hit a new high of $5 million. And two, brands took a bold political stand in a way they've never done before. Take Airbnb. The commercial it ran in Super Bowl 2017 was titled, We Accept.

Showing faces of different colors, genders, and creeds, words appeared on screen that said, We believe, no matter who you are, where you're from, who you love, or who you worship, we all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept. Hashtag, we accept Airbnb. The commercial came just nine days after President Trump signed an executive order to close America's borders to many refugees and immigrants.

It was a direct response to Trump's policy and came as close as it could to renouncing it so as not to run afoul of the network and NFL guidelines that say commercial time is, quote, not for viewpoint or advocacy

of controversial issues. But in a memo to employees, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky was explicit about his opposition, saying he profoundly disagreed with Trump's policy and that it was a direct obstacle to Airbnb's mission to make people around the world feel like they could, quote, belong anywhere.

That weekend, the company began to provide free and subsidized temporary housing for people who had been affected by the immigration restrictions. The We Accept commercial was ranked number one in a Super Bowl survey done by advertising Age magazine.

Quite an achievement, considering Airbnb wasn't even going to advertise in the Super Bowl. Six days after Trump's ruling, the Airbnb founders heard there was

some advertising space available, and they wanted to make a statement. So they worked around the clock to put together the commercial, completing it in only three days. Astounding, considering it usually takes weeks or even months to create and polish a Super Bowl commercial. The ad that ranked second in that same poll was for a company I had never heard of before.

84 Lumber is a building materials supply company. It's located in a town called 84, Pennsylvania. The town was once called Smithville, but due to postal confusion with another town called Smithville, the name was changed to 84 in 1884. 84 Lumber has about 250 locations, but was somewhat unknown nationally. While audiences expect to be entertained during the big game, not lobbied, 84 Lumber decided to make a statement

with its Super Bowl commercial. The ad showed a Mexican woman and her daughter on a harrowing journey to reach the American border in search of a better life. Their journey is intercut with scenes of contractors working on a big project that we don't really see. When the mother and child finally reach the border, they find a giant, formidable wall.

They are emotionally crushed. But then, the mother finds a large door in the wall that she pushes open. That's when we realize the door was what the construction workers had been building all along. Words appear on the screen that said, The will to succeed is always welcome here, 84 Lumber. When the company submitted the commercial to the Fox network, it was rejected. The depiction of Donald Trump's proposed border wall was deemed too controversial. So 84 Lumber and its advertising agency created a prequel of sorts,

titled The Journey Begins, that showed the first half of the mother and daughter's journey to the border and ended with a website address inviting viewers to log on to see more. Part two, The Journey Ends, the controversial portion containing the wall, was shifted to the Journey84.com website. Over 300,000 Super Bowl viewers rushed to the website within minutes to see how the story ended.

And 6 million followed in the next hour, causing the 84 Lumber website to crash. 84 Lumber is an interesting company. First, it's run by a woman, Maggie Hardy Majerko. 84 Lumber was the only Super Bowl advertiser to buy more than one minute of airtime. As part one ran 90 seconds, worth somewhere between $10 and $15 million, which is notable considering the company only spent $750,000 on paid advertising in all of 2015. The stated purpose of the commercial was recruitment, as 84 Lumber is suffering a labor shortage and was looking for workers aged 20 to 29.

The other fascinating fact is that Maggie Hardy Majerko voted for Donald Trump. While Majerko maintained the commercial wasn't meant to be political, her advertising agency leader said the ad was a statement about immigration. The choice to depict Mexican characters was deliberate. The point being that the United States is a land of opportunity and 84 Lumber is a company of opportunity. While 84 Lumber got a lot of positive feedback, it generated a lot of negative feedback too. Many said the company should have spent the $15 million on paying the taxes and health

care for illegals. Others canceled their building orders. Hashtag Boycott 84 Lumber began. But this is one of the few times when negative publicity seemed to work. A big chunk of the country has now heard of 84 Lumber due to the fact its commercial drew a political line in the sand. The times, they are a-changing.

We'll be right back to our show. If you're enjoying this episode, why not dip into our archives? Available wherever you download your pods. Go to terryoreilly.ca for a master episode list. For spacious skies. episode list. starting to get political. Coca-Cola chose to rebroadcast a 2014 Super Bowl commercial just before the big game in 2017. Showing people of all colors and languages singing America the Beautiful,

Koch was making a statement about inclusiveness. Many didn't like the ad, tweeting, we don't want foreigners singing our anthems. But Koch's CEO said Trump's policy was contrary to the company's core beliefs and values. As the Financial Times stated recently, the politics of products has become a flashpoint in a polarized marketplace sparked by the election of Donald Trump. People are now using brands as a mechanism to fight each other. Political stances are becoming political lances. As a result, shoppers are demanding that brands state their purposes

so they can pick sides. The millennial generation is particularly interested in a company's moral code. Where do you source your materials? How do you treat your code. Where do you source your materials? How do you treat your employees? Where do you stand on immigration? Brands are now feeling the pressure to be part of the cultural conversation, but it's easy to take a nasty misstep. Recently, Starbucks instructed its baristas to write

hashtag race together on every coffee cup to promote racial harmony. The company has long stated its willingness to wade into contentious issues, but race together completely backfired. It was lampooned for being a superficial, empty gesture by the corporation, one

without any real initiative behind it. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said the hashtag was intended to start conversations about race. But both Starbucks haters and customers took to social media to ridicule the gesture, and hashtag RaceTogether began trending on Twitter for all the wrong reasons. Starbucks needed to wake up and smell the coffee. So when President Trump announced the recent immigration ban, Starbucks took initiative.

Like Airbnb, Starbucks conducts business all over the world. With locations in 75 countries, including Mexico, where they've sourced their coffee for over three decades, the corporation announced it would hire 10,000 refugees worldwide over five years. A huge promise. Schultz, who openly supported Hillary Clinton, said that the company would, quote, neither stand by nor stand silent as the uncertainty around the new administration's actions grows with each passing day.

But once again, Starbucks was met with a backlash. This time, hashtag boycott Starbucks began trending. One person tweeted, 100 million people out of the workforce and Starbucks wants to hire

10,000 refugees. Hashtag boycott Starbucks. Hashtag America first. That same month, the company's brand perception plummeted by two-thirds, dragging sales down with it, suggesting that the initiative wasn't well received by all of its customers. Political activism is risky business.

As I've said before, a principle isn't a principle until it costs you money. Some corporations have come out against the Trump administration's policies, not in the form of commercials, but rather with statements from company leaders and founders. Others chose to quietly disassociate themselves from the Trump name. It all began with the hashtag GrabYourWallet campaign, a grassroots movement aimed at getting corporations and retailers that carry Trump products or have Trump ties to dump Trump by urging consumers to boycott. Among the retailers on that list, Hudson's Bay, which led to the term Baycott.

Since the Grab Your Wallet website launched in October, both Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus have dropped Ivanka Trump's label, a huge blow to the clothing and accessories line. The retailers released similar statements saying they simply cut ties with their lowest-performing brands annually. They framed it as routine. It's a chicken-and-egg situation. Either shoppers boycotted Ivanka Trump's brand, causing it to underperform, or the

retailers dropped the brand out of veiled political activism. We may never know. Macy's, on the other hand, cut ties with Donald Trump's brand in direct response to the negative comments made toward Mexicans during his campaign. The department store, which has been especially focused on winning over Latino shoppers, announced they were discontinuing the Trump menswear collection, a label they've sold for almost 15 years. Donald Trump then tweeted, Boycott Macy's. Donald Trump then tweeted, Google, Twitter, Coke and Ford all voiced their disapproval of the immigration ban,

saying the policy went against their company values. And then there are the brands on the other side of the issue. L.L. Bean faced a boycott when one of its family members personally funded Trump's campaign with a $60,000 donation. When a VP for New Balance Sneakers mentioned he supported Donald Trump because of his position on TPP, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement, people responded by encouraging a boycott of New Balance. Many even posted videos of themselves burning their sneakers on social media.

Then, Nike released a statement condemning Trump's immigration ban. That, of course, prompted Trump supporters to respond saying New Balance made a much better sneaker than Nike anyway, getting behind a Boycott Nike hashtag. People today demand to know if they're buying red or blue, liberal or conservative products. Because in this day and age, all it takes is a hashtag for consumers to grab their wallets. Then there was the Kendall Jenner Pepsi commercial.

In case you didn't see the ad, it showed a crowd of protesters marching down a street. They're holding peace signs and placards saying, join the conversation. They pass Kendall Jenner, who is in the middle of a glamorous photo shoot. She sees the protesters, is intrigued, then pulls off a blonde wig, ditches the fashion shoot, and joins the marchers. Soon, they come face to face with a row of serious policemen. There is a standoff, but Kendall Jenner saves the day by offering an officer a can of Pepsi. He accepts. The protesters cheer madly. Liv Boulder flashes across the screen.

The backlash was instantaneous. Let's begin with context. People are marching for some very serious reasons and standing up for their beliefs more than ever today. Many viewers were outraged that Pepsi would co-op meaningful protests as a commercial theme. Many couldn't believe Pepsi would cast Kendall Jenner in a protest storyline, saying she had zero credibility. Nor could people actually believe Pepsi would cast its own product in a role where it saves the day

against a possible clash with police. The link between protesting and the product was non-existent. Pepsi yanked the spot within hours. Social media rained down on the soda company with a vengeance. Everything about the commercial seemed tone-deaf. Add to that the fact it was

released on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, prompting his daughter Bernice to tweet a photo of her father being pushed back by police, adding, if only daddy would have known about the power of Pepsi. Pepsi responded saying they believe in the legacy of Dr. King and meant no disrespect.

Pepsi then tweeted, Clearly we missed the mark and we apologize. We are removing the content and halting any further rollout. It was a telling scenario. Pepsi was trying to take a political stand. The protesters in the commercial were multicultural. Resistance was the theme, but the execution was ham-handed. It was a surprising choice coming from the usually savvy Pepsi.

I noticed that the commercial was produced in-house. There was no advertising agency involved. I think the commercial suffered for that. There was no objectivity. No one to say, whoa, this isn't a good idea. Pepsi was inhaling its own exhaust fumes. Saturday Night Live gleefully did a parody four days later, and it was almost impossible to find a single supporter of the

ad online. The Kendall Jenner Pepsi commercial stands as a cautionary tale. If a big brand like Pepsi can make such a breathtaking mistake, it shows how risky political marketing can be. As we enter this new era of marketing, a question burns at the heart of the matter. Is it safer for a brand to linger in the shadows, or is it smarter business to declare itself politically? The answer may be that brands no longer have a choice. The public has begun to ask where a company sits on the political spectrum. The answer may be that brands no longer have a choice. The public has begun to ask where a company sits on the political spectrum.

People are becoming increasingly insistent on spending their dollars with companies that share their values. And if a company is going to use marketing to oppose a policy, there has to be a clear link between the protest and the product. Airbnb stands for Strangers Welcoming Strangers, so its commercial didn't ring false. Kendall Jenner for Pepsi? Not so much. Then there's the other worry. Will a company risk the direct retribution of the commander-in-chief?

It happened to the Smothers Brothers, as Nixon's administration put pressure on the network to drop the show. And President Trump isn't afraid to rally his base to boycott a company. It appears more and more that politics and brands are clashing. And you are the company you keep when you're under the influence. I'm Terry O'Reilly.

Under the influence was recorded at Pirate Toronto. Series producer, Debbie O'Reilly. Sound engineer, Keith Oman. Theme music by Ari Posner and Ian Lefevre. Research, James Gangle. Digital content producer, Sidney O'Reilly. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram at Terry O'Influence. See you next week.

This episode brought to you by by Pepsi-Cola. Clean and quenching, cold and bold, straight through your thirst. And I approve this message. Hey, I like your style. I'd like your style even more if you were wearing an Under the Influence t-shirt. Just saying. You'll find them on our shop page

at terryoreilly.ca slash shop.