Throughout time there are cultural shifts that brands have to take into consideration for the sake of their strategy and image. What might've been okay 20 years ago may not be deemed okay today. There are countless examples of this from body positivity to "healthy" fast food. Today however, there is bigger issue at hand than just a trend. Over the past few months as BLM protests spread across the country certain brands have found themselves under scrutiny for their symbols, logos and names.
Land O' Lakes
Earlier this year, Land O' Lakes announced that they will be removing their iconic Native American from their packaging. The announcement came in February, before BLM protests erupted throughout the country. The brand claimed that they wanted to have a packaging that focused on the "farmer owned" aspect of their brand. By doing so they would be highlighting their values as well as honoring their farmers.
To make this change voluntarily is a big move. Essentially, Land O' Lakes was voluntarily sacrificing their most identifiable brand asset in order to stand true to its farmer owned heritage. They risked not being identifiable on the shelf, a risk that could have greatly affected sales.
However, the brand received copious amounts of praise from Native American activists who have been trying to influence companies to phase out the use of Native Americans as mascots or logos. Although not Land O' Lakes's primary intention, the support of Native American activist groups have shed a positive light on the company thereby minimizing risk. Despite the praise, Land O' Lakes has not spoken up about Native American imagery or about the misguided use of such imagery. This is a missed opportunity for the brand. If they had taken a stand against the use of Native American imagery they would have reaped further benefits as consumers perceived them as an activist brand.
Aunt Jemima
Aunt Jemima changing their packaging and their name is a direct effect from the recent protests. The brand was put under fire for upholding a logo and name rooted in racism and slavery for all these years. Consumers went to social media to voice their anger and demand a change. Eventually, PepsiCo took action and announced they will be terminating the Aunt Jemima brand.
PepsiCo must rebrand Aunt Jemima entirely, a task that requires detailed planning. On that note, PepsiCo announced that the new vision of the brand is to represent mothers of all background who want the best for their kids. Essentially, PepsiCo will be starting from scratch on its century old syrup brand as they go back to the drawing board.
Washington Redskins
Similarly to Aunt Jemima, the Washington Redskins were also put under fire for their name and mascot. Founded in 1932, the Redskins are one of the oldest NFL franchises. Native American activist groups have been pushing for the Redskin name change as far back as the early 1970's as the term 'redskin' is a racial slur. It was only this year, during the protests that the Redskins agreed to review their name.
This consideration came about as a result of social pressure. It wasn't just football fans and activists that demanded a change, it was the team's investors as well. When Nike, FedEx and PepsiCo threatened to end their relationships unless a name change occurred, the Redskins had almost no choice but to review their name. Currently, PepsiCo provides the Redskin's FedEx stadium with snacks and beverages while Nike provides the team with uniforms. If the Redskins did not review their name they would likely be without a vendor, a uniform manufacturer, and no stadium name. This would destroy the teams identity and public image, something they might never be able to recover from.
From these three examples it is clear that brands must stay up to date with social and cultural changes. If they don't, they risk being portrayed in a negative light. As seen through Aunt Jemima and the Redskins, it is possible and likely that society can force change upon a company. Brands must do their very best to keep up with changes in attitude, values and wants of consumers so they are not put in a position where they are coerced into change rather, they change because they are one step ahead of the game.
Comments