What does it take for a business to go from #BrandLove to #Boycott?

Both of the soda giants, along with McDonald’s, Starbucks and others, had announced the suspension of their businesses in Russia. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 15 March 2022
Follow

What does it take for a business to go from #BrandLove to #Boycott?

  • The online perception of a brand can change in a heartbeat but whether this means consumers will actively boycott it is another matter

DUBAI: Last weekend, users took to social media to call out big brands that continued to operate in Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, causing hashtags such as #BoycottCocaCola and #BoycottPepsi, among others, to trend on Twitter.

Within a few days, both of the soda giants, along with McDonald’s, Starbucks and others, had announced the suspension of their businesses in Russia.

This is not the first time that consumers have called out brands over their actions, or lack of action. Last year, ice cream maker Ben and Jerry’s announced it would stop selling its products in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In an opinion piece for The New York Times, founders Bennett Cohen and Jerry Greenfield said they are “proud Jews” and that “it’s possible to support Israel and oppose some of its policies.”

The decision prompted both praise and hate online, with some consumers accusing the business of antisemitism — either way, Ben and Jerry’s was very much in the public eye.

 

 

 

 

“Ben and Jerry’s has a very long history of political positioning and commitment to a variety of progressive causes,” Robert Haigh, strategy and insights director at Brand Finance, told Arab News. He added that Unilever acquired the company in 2000 and so the dynamic might eventually change.

“For the sake of continuity of the Ben and Jerry’s brand, they continue to be relatively outspoken and committed to (causes), whereas Unilever is a bit more measured in what they seek to do,” which raises questions about brand’s independence and authenticity, he said.

Authenticity is paramount for brands in their conversations with customers and in the causes they choose to support, and how politically active an organization should be is a “very contentious subject,” according to Seth Hand, the managing director of communications marketing firm Edelman Middle East.

“However, one thing to keep in mind is that your actions need to be authentic to who you are as an organization and in line with your values,” he added.

This sentiment was echoed by Alisa D’Souza, founder and PR consultant of Alisa PR.

“Brands need to establish their core values; they need to know who they are, define their identity, be strong in their core values and know what their company stands for,” she said.

Consumers increasingly expect brands to join in the conversation and stand for something. According to a study carried out by Edelman in 2021, for which researchers surveyed consumers from 14 countries, including the UAE and Saudi Arabia, 86 percent of people said that they expect brands to take actions that go beyond their product lines and business.

On Twitter, almost half (48 percent) of those surveyed agreed that it is “more important now for brands to support economic, social, political or cultural issues, even when the issue doesn’t directly impact them, (than it was) a year ago.”

For the brands, it really comes down to a question of ethics and morality versus profit, even though the perceived morality of a business is increasingly linked to its profits.

There are some who argue that the sole priority of a business is to serve the interests of its owners or shareholders, said Haigh.

“Other people often say, and I think this is increasingly prevalent, that businesses have a broader set of stakeholders that they do, and should, cater to,” he added.

Hand pointed out that in the past, many organizations prioritized profit over purpose.

“Even today, not every organization views purpose as a key business priority,” he added: “However, the digital world has changed the paradigm of communications, and consumers now have significant power to hold organizations to account and expect them to use their power and influence to advocate for positive change in society.”

Many consumers, and employees, want brands to play a larger role in addressing issues such as climate change, economic inequality, workforce reskilling and racial injustice. Nearly 60 percent of consumers choose brands based on their values and beliefs, according to the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer.

However, Haigh cautioned brands to be wary of embarking on “mission-driven brand building.”

“No one relishes this but there are limits on the extent to which you can build your brand on that basis,” he said. “As beneficial as it can be, there is a limit to how much the average consumer cares.”

Consumers might express outrage on social media about the actions of a brand, or lack thereof, but does this necessarily mean that they will actually stop buying its products in protest?

“What people do online and offline can differ dramatically,” said Alex Malouf, a communications professional and board member of the Public Relations and Communications Association MENA.

“They may tweet a negative take on a brand but they often don’t follow through.”

For the brands themselves, the decision to publicly align with a cause — political or otherwise — can result in a backlash.

In 2019, Procter and Gamble’s male-grooming brand Gillette updated its 30-year old advertising slogan from “The Best A Man Can Get” to “The Best Men Can Be” in an effort to address the issue of toxic masculinity. The change sparked fury from some online, with several commentators calling for the company to post an apology and threatening a boycott.

Nike faced a similar situation as a result of an advertising campaign featuring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, whose decision to take a knee during the playing of the national anthem before games as a protest against racism and police brutality was a polarizing issue in US society.

“Nike made a very overt domestic political statement by aligning themselves to him,” said Haigh.

The campaign generated a lot of controversy, including some people who filmed themselves burning their Nike shoes and posted the videos on social media.

On the other hand, said Haigh, “there is a very large constituency of people for whom the Nike brand was re-energized” as it aligned itself with a younger, more progressive audience.

In 2015, UAE-based telecoms company Etisalat came under fire for its star-studded #EtisalatChallenge campaign. The premise was simple enough: It challenged users to find a better price than Etisalat offered, and promised to match or better it.

What could possibly be the problem with that? Well, for one thing there are only two telecoms companies in the UAE, Etisalat and du, both of which are partly government-owned.

Etisalat’s campaign hashtag was swiftly hijacked by social-media audiences who instead used it to complain about the brand and “challenge” it to fix issues and problems customers were experiencing.

“Despite the obvious backfiring of the campaign, Etisalat has persevered with the #EtisalatChallenge,” Malouf wrote on his blog at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“In today’s unpredictable world, reputations can be made — or lost — in a heartbeat,” according to Hand.

Although brands should invest in crisis communications planning, this should be part of a broader reputation-building strategy, he said.

“Organizations that truly value their reputations proactively work to create trust with their stakeholders, embody strong values, communicate transparently and address key societal issues,” he added.


China court jails journalist for seven years on spy charges, family says

Updated 29 November 2024
Follow

China court jails journalist for seven years on spy charges, family says

  • Police in the Chinese capital detained veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu in February 2022
  • ‘Sentencing Yuyu to seven years in prison on no evidence declares to the world the bankruptcy of the justice system in China’

BEIJING/HONG KONG: A Beijing court sentenced veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu on Friday to seven years in prison for espionage, his family said in a statement, calling the verdict a grave injustice.
Police in the Chinese capital detained the 62-year-old former Guangming Daily editor and journalist in February 2022 while he was lunching with a Japanese diplomat, the US National Press Club said in a statement. He was later charged with espionage.
“Sentencing Yuyu to seven years in prison on no evidence declares to the world the bankruptcy of the justice system in China,” Dong’s family said in a statement provided to Reuters.
“Today’s verdict is a grave injustice not only to Yuyu and his family but also to every freethinking Chinese journalist and every ordinary Chinese committed to friendly engagement with the world.”
The family added that in the court judgment, Japanese diplomats whom Dong met were “specifically named as agents of an ‘espionage organization,’ which is the Japanese embassy in Beijing.”
Dong’s conviction implied every Chinese citizen would be “expected to know that the Chinese government may consider those embassies to be ‘espionage organizations’,” it said, causing a chilling effect.
Police guarded the court on Friday, with seven police cars parked nearby, and journalists were asked to leave the area. A US diplomat said they had been barred from attending the hearing.
Dong has been detained in a Beijing prison since a closed-court hearing in July 2023, the press club said in September.
“Chinese authorities must reverse this unjust verdict, and protect the right of journalists to work freely and safely in China,” said Beh Lih Yi, Asia program manager at the Committee to Protect Journalists.
“Dong Yuyu should be reunited with his family immediately.”
Dong regularly had in-person exchanges with diplomats from various embassies and journalists.
The Japanese diplomat he met, one of two he had regularly met in the past, was also detained for several hours, spurring a complaint from Japan’s foreign ministry.
At the time, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said the diplomat was engaged in activities “inconsistent with their capacity” in China. The diplomat was later released.
A Nieman Fellow at Harvard University in 2007, Dong was a visiting scholar and visiting professor at Keio University and Hokkaido University in Japan, his family said in a statement in April 2023.
He joined the Guangming Daily, affiliated to the ruling Communist Party, in 1987, after graduating from Peking University law school, and was the deputy editor of its commentary section.
He wrote opinion articles in Chinese media and liberal academic journals on topics from legal reforms to social issues, and co-edited a book promoting the rule of law in China.
His articles advocated moderate reforms while avoiding direct criticism of President Xi Jinping.
His family had initially kept news of his detention private in the hope that charges could be reduced or dropped, but were told in March 2023 that he would stand trial, they said in their statement.
Non-government bodies (NGOs) advocating press freedom have called for his release, with more than 700 journalists, academics and NGO workers signing an online petition for him to be freed.
“Dong Yuyu is a talented reporter and author whose work has long been respected by colleagues,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard.
“We stand with many in hoping for his release and return to his family.”
In February, a Beijing court handed a suspended death sentence to Australian writer and pro-democracy blogger, Yang Hengjun, on espionage charges.


Social media companies, UNICEF slam Australia’s under-16 ban

Updated 29 November 2024
Follow

Social media companies, UNICEF slam Australia’s under-16 ban

  • Tech companies say the measure is littered with “many unanswered questions” ut they are willing to engage with the government on shaping its implementation
  • UNICEF Australia also warned that the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online

MELBOURNE: Social media giants on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law banning them from signing up under-16s, describing it as a rush job littered with “many unanswered questions.”
The UN children’s charity UNICEF Australia joined the fray, warning the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the legislation may not be implemented perfectly — much like existing age restrictions on alcohol — but it was “the right thing to do.”
The crackdown on sites like Facebook, Instagram and X, approved by parliament late Thursday, will lead to “better outcomes and less harm for young Australians,” he told reporters.
Platforms have a “social responsibility” to make children’s safety a priority, the prime minister said.
“We’ve got your back, is our message to Australian parents.”
Social media firms that fail to comply with the law face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million).
TikTok said Friday it was “disappointed” in the law, accusing the government of ignoring mental health, online safety and youth experts who had opposed the ban.
“It’s entirely likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the Internet where no community guidelines, safety tools, or protections exist,” a TikTok spokesperson said.

Tech companies said that despite the law’s perceived shortcomings, they would engage with the government on shaping how it could be implemented in the next 12 months.
The legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic, unenforceable piece of legislation.
Meta — owner of Facebook and Instagram — called for consultation on the rules to ensure a “technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens.”
But the company added it was concerned “about the process, which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people.”
A Snapchat spokesperson said the company had raised “serious concerns” about the law and that “many unanswered questions” remained about how it would work.
But the company said it would engage closely with government to develop an approach balancing “privacy, safety and practicality.”
“As always, Snap will comply with any applicable laws and regulations in Australia,” it said.
UNICEF Australia policy chief Katie Maskiell said young people need to be protected online but also need to be included in the digital world.
“This ban risks pushing children into increasingly covert and unregulated online spaces as well as preventing them from accessing aspects of the online world essential to their wellbeing,” she said.

One of the biggest issues will be privacy — what age-verification information is used, how it is collected and by whom.
Social media companies remain adamant that age-verification should be the job of app stores, but the government believes tech platforms should be responsible.
Exemptions will likely be granted to some companies, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.


Canada sues Google over alleged anticompetitive practices in online ads

Updated 29 November 2024
Follow

Canada sues Google over alleged anticompetitive practices in online ads

  • The Competition Bureau is asking a tribunal to order Google to sell its ad tech tools, which it uses "unlawfully" to maintain its dominant market position
  • Google maintains the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector and that it intends to defend itself against the allegation

TORONTO: Canada’s antitrust watchdog said Thursday it is suing Google over alleged anticompetitive conduct in the tech giant’s online advertising business and wants the company to sell off two of its ad tech services and pay a penalty.
The Competition Bureau said that such action is necessary because an investigation into Google found that the company “unlawfully” tied together its ad tech tools to maintain its dominant market position.
The matter is now headed for the Competition Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that hears cases brought forward by the competition commissioner about non-compliance with the Competition Act.
The bureau is asking the tribunal to order Google to sell its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers, and its ad exchange, AdX. It estimates Google holds a market share of 90 percent in publisher ad servers, 70 percent in advertiser networks, 60 percent in demand-side platforms and 50 percent in ad exchanges.
This dominance, the bureau said, has discouraged competition from rivals, inhibited innovation, inflated advertising costs and reduced publisher revenues.
“Google has abused its dominant position in online advertising in Canada by engaging in conduct that locks market participants into using its own ad tech tools, excluding competitors, and distorting the competitive process,” Matthew Boswell, Commissioner of Competition, said in a statement.
Google, however, maintains the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector.
Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, said in a statement that the bureau’s complaint “ignores the intense competition where ad buyers and sellers have plenty of choice.”
The statement added that Google intends to defend itself against the allegation.
US regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade.
The proposed breakup, floated in a 23-page document filed this month by the US Department of Justice, calls for sweeping punishments that would include a sale of Google’s industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.


Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s

Updated 29 November 2024
Follow

Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s

  • Aussie premier Anthony Albanese chapioned the bill in an effort to take young Australians “off their phones”
  • Critics say the ban would not “make social media safer for young people,” lacks details about its enforcement

MELBOURNE: Australian lawmakers passed landmark rules to ban under 16s from social media on Thursday, approving one of the world’s toughest crackdowns on popular sites like Facebook, Instagram and X.
The legislation ordering social media firms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent young teens from having accounts was passed in the Senate with 34 votes in favor and 19 against.
The firms — who face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million) for failing to comply — have described the laws as “vague,” “problematic” and “rushed.”
The new rules will now return to the lower house — where lawmakers already backed the bill on Wednesday — for one final approval before it is all but certain to become law.
Speaking during the Senate debate, Greens politician Sarah Hanson-Young said the ban would not “make social media safer for young people.”
She said it was “devastating” that young people were “finding themselves addicted to these dangerous algorithms.”
Center-left Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, eyeing an election early next year, has enthusiastically championed the new rules and rallied Aussie parents to get behind it.
In the run up to the vote, he painted social media as “a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers and, worst of all, a tool for online predators.”
He wanted young Australians “off their phones and onto the footy and cricket field, the tennis and netball courts, in the swimming pool.”
But young social media users, like 12-year-old Angus Lydom, are not impressed.
“I’d like to keep using it. And it’ll be a weird feeling to not have it, and be able to talk to all my friends at home,” he told AFP.
Many are likely to try to find ways around it.
“I’ll find a way. And so will all my other friends” Lydom said.
Similarly, 11-year-old Elsie Arkinstall said there was still a place for social media, particularly for children wanting to watch tutorials about baking or art.
“Kids and teens should be able to explore those techniques because you can’t learn all those things from books,” she added.

On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world.
But the current legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic piece of legislation that is unenforceable.
It will be at least 12 months before the details are worked out by regulators and the ban comes into effect.
Some companies will likely be granted exemptions, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
Late amendments were introduced to ensure government-issued digital ID cannot be used as a means of age verification.
Social media expert Susan Grantham told AFP that digital literacy programs that teach children to think “critically” about what they see online should be adopted — similar to a model used in Finland.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.


Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe

Updated 28 November 2024
Follow

Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe

  • Competitors complain Microsoft locks customers into its cloud service
  • FTC earlier set the stage for probe into Microsoft’s role in AI market

The US Federal Trade Commission has opened a broad antitrust investigation into Microsoft, including of its software licensing and cloud computing businesses, a source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The probe was approved by FTC Chair Lina Khan ahead of her likely departure in January. The election of Donald Trump as US president, and the expectation he will appoint a fellow Republican with a softer approach toward business, leaves the outcome of the investigation up in the air.
The FTC is examining allegations the software giant is potentially abusing its market power in productivity software by imposing punitive licensing terms to prevent customers from moving their data from its Azure cloud service to other competitive platforms, sources confirmed earlier this month.
The FTC is also looking at practices related to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence products, the source said on Wednesday.
Microsoft declined to comment on Wednesday.
Competitors have criticized Microsoft’s practices they say keep customers locked into its cloud offering, Azure. The FTC fielded such complaints last year as it examined the cloud computing market.
NetChoice, a lobbying group that represents online companies including Amazon and Google, which compete with Microsoft in cloud computing, criticized Microsoft’s licensing policies, and its integration of AI tools into its Office and Outlook.
“Given that Microsoft is the world’s largest software company, dominating in productivity and operating systems software, the scale and consequences of its licensing decisions are extraordinary,” the group said.
Google in September complained to the European Commission about Microsoft’s practices, saying it made customers pay a 400 percent mark-up to keep running Windows Server on rival cloud computing operators, and gave them later and more limited security updates.
The FTC has demanded a broad range of detailed information from Microsoft, Bloomberg reported earlier on Wednesday.
The agency had already claimed jurisdiction over probes into Microsoft and OpenAI over competition in artificial intelligence, and started looking into Microsoft’s $650 million deal with AI startup Inflection AI.
Microsoft has been somewhat of an exception to US antitrust regulators’ recent campaign against allegedly anticompetitive practices at Big Tech companies.
Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Apple, and Amazon.com Inc. have all been accused by the US of unlawfully maintaining monopolies.
Alphabet’s Google is facing two lawsuits, including one where a judge found it unlawfully thwarted competition among online search engines.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified at Google’s trial, saying the search giant was using exclusive deals with publishers to lock up content used to train artificial intelligence.
It is unclear whether Trump will ease up on Big Tech, whose first administration launched several Big Tech probes. JD Vance, the incoming vice president, has expressed concern about the power the companies wield over public discourse.
Still, Microsoft has benefited from Trump policies in the past.
In 2019, the Pentagon awarded it a $10 billion cloud computing contract that Amazon had widely been expected to win. Amazon later alleged that Trump exerted improper pressure on military officials to steer the contract away from its Amazon Web Services unit.