brand partisan

“I hate the indifferent. I believe that to live is to be a partisan.

 Those who truly live cannot but be citizens and partisans.

 Indifference is abulia, it is parasitism, it is cowardice, it is not life. 

That is why I hate the indifferent.”

— La Città Futura, Antonio Gramsci

Having to do with an observatory, doesn’t necessarily mean that the lack of the observed matter - in our case, of human branding - cannot be newsworthy per se.

As all historical moments in history, the invasion of Ukraine represents a narrative capital of biblical proportions, in which the bigger plot has an infinite amount of angles to be observed. But never, dare I consider, could brands play a bigger role in such moments, as they could today. Why? Simply because, before the present day, nobody expected them to. But now, hell if they do! 

During the first 48 hours of the invasion, on February 24th, I dedicated my full attention to the first moves of brands worldwide, observing both solidarity content and announcement of drastic action to condemn the vile act. Balenciaga was the number one brand to communicate its support to the Ukrainian people, by canceling its Instagram feed and posting a single white square, accompanied by a dove in the caption. On Thursday 3rd they replaced it with a blue and yellow flag and the following statement:

“We stand for peace and donated to WFP to support first humanitarian help for Ukrainian refugees. We will open our platforms in the next days to report and relay the information around the situation in Ukraine.”

The same day, the British Fashion Council urged brands in its network to take a stand against the Russian government’s actions; which, despite the praiseworthy gesture, Kering-owned Balenciaga has not yet done, still operating in the region via local franchise partners. And it’s not by chance that we are focusing our attention on the fashion industry, since analysts estimate that the Russian market accounts for somewhere between 3 and 5 percent of global luxury sales. On Friday, Hermès was the first major luxury brand to announce that it would close its three Russian stores and pause commercial activities in the region, while Burberry and Net-a-Porter are among the companies that have paused shipments to Russia as a result of operational challenges, Business Of Fashion reports. And here the distinction becomes tricky: while many brands have meanwhile shown solidarity towards the Ukrainian people, few have taken a stand openly condemning the Russian government — furthermore, whether or not brands keep doing business in Russia is largely being driven by logistical challenges rather than moral commitments.

Audiences have caught on to this, in recent years especially, by observing how easily brands were willing to ride a trend, though negligent in following up on the purpose with concrete action. Think of the Black Lives Matter social media trend and how many brands had their reputation ruined for hastily posting that black square before doing their homework.  

After two years you might argue that brands should have learned this the hard way and are now ready to promptly sacrifice part of their economical revenue in favour of truthful commitment. But are they really? Are they yet? And look, we’re not saying that Balenciaga’s initiative is not well meant - on the contrary. Though is it enough, is what we are asking.

***

Last November, a handful of dissidents against the Thai regime led by army general Prayut Chan-o-cha, received the following message on their devices:

ALERT: State-sponsored attackers may be targeting your iPhone

Apple believes you are being targeted by state-sponsored attackers who are trying to remotely compromise the iPhone associated with your Apple ID [mail]. These attackers are likely targeting you individually because of who you are or what you do. If your device is compromised by a state-sponsored attacker, they may be able to remotely access your sensitive data, communications, or even the camera and microphone. While it’s possible this is a false alarm, please take this warning seriously.

And while the Bangkok regime refused to comment on the matter, Apple didn’t make any statements either, not even disclosing how they learned about the cyber attack. This is all the more surprising because one might have expected some kind of boasting to take advantage of the gesture. But no, it would indeed seem to be a commitment of generosity based only on an internal moral compass.

How many times has something similar happened in the past: brands fighting dictatorships by supporting the Resistance. Didn't the secret services once do that? Today it’s Tim Cook. How do they classify it in Cupertino? As brand awareness?

In fact: what does Apple have to lose by exposing itself against the dictator of Thailand? How tiny Chan-o-cha is compared to Jobs' colossus. So, what if the future of global pacifism lay in the generosity of these Herculean brands? And more importantly: where have the brands been before now? Where were they during apartheid, during the civil war in Congo, during the crisis in Yugoslavia? Was it not convenient then? one might ask. But without looking over our shoulders, if Facebook instead of helping regimes to persecute minorities and instead of ignoring the effects of its own global impact worked for universal peace, taking the side of the weakest; if Tesla instead of shooting its managers into the Milky Way made an effort to make life here, today, on this planet, a little bit better; if Amazon instead of making its employees piss into bottles to keep up with crazy working hours, also did something to improve the mindless way we consume. If these few giants of the planet, this handful of knuckleheads started to do a little, just a tiny bit, for the common good, beyond financial gain, they would have so little to lose and so much to gain.

Because they are so much bigger, and have such a greater influence, than the tiny tyrants who afflict millions of oppressed people. And their consumers would be grateful to them, of course: they would, we would, show them that kind of loyalty billions of euros in sponsorship and marketing could never buy.

***

As of now - ten days since the invasion - you can find a detailed list of brands that have taken concrete action against the invasion of Ukraine, on platforms such as The Drum, or collected by individuals, such as Russian photo reporter Varlamov.

Apple

The tech giant has ended all product sales in Russia. “Last week, we stopped all exports into our sales channel in the country,” Apple said in a statement. “Apple Pay and other services have been limited. RT News and Sputnik News are no longer available for download from the App Store outside Russia. And we have disabled both traffic and live incidents in Apple Maps in Ukraine as a safety and precautionary measure for Ukrainian citizens.”

Spotify

After removing all Russian state-affiliated content, including blocking RT and Sputnik, Spotify has shuttered its offices in Russia “indefinitely.”

“We are deeply shocked and saddened by the unprovoked attack on Ukraine,” Spotify said. “Our first priority over the past week has been the safety of our employees and to ensure that Spotify continues to serve as an important source of global and regional news at a time when access to information is more important than ever.”

The company is matching employee donations two-to-one to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine.

Ikea

Ikea has shuttered its stores in Russia and Belarus, impacting 14 stores and 15,000 workers.

“The devastating war in Ukraine is a human tragedy, and our deepest empathy and concerns are with the millions of people impacted,” the company said in a statement. “The immediate actions of Inter Ikea Group and Ingka Group have been to support the personal safety and security of Ikea co-workers and their families, and we will continue to do so.”

But also EA Sports, Visa and Mastercard, Oracle, H&M, Asos, Airbnb, Disney, Warner Bros and Sony, Netflix, O2, EE, Vodafone, Three, GiffGaff and BT, Etsy, Depositphotos, LVMH and Nike, Volkswagen, Google Pay and Google Maps, Harley Davidson, Play Station, Scania, YouTube.

Among others. 

These brands, too, have - temporarily or definitely - crossed the line between storytelling and action, choosing a path that we all hope might reward them, but as of now just represents a huge economical risk. 

We really do like to think that this might be just the beginning.

During the outbreak of the pandemic, the 21st of March 2020, creative Paco Conde wrote a historical piece for renowned online magazine Campaign, called: “We're at war, and your brand can help win this battle”. It begins like this:

In 1941, America entered World War II and the country was turned on its head. 

Right away, the Ford Motor Company constructed Willow Run, where they went on to build a B-24 Liberator airplane every 63 minutes.

M&M’s didn’t exist before then. They were invented by Mars exclusively for US soldiers because M&M’s are durable in warm climates. 

The Coca-Cola President at the time announced that "every man in uniform gets a bottle of Coca-Cola for five cents, wherever he is and whatever it costs the company”.

Over 90 percent of Disney employees were devoted to the production of training and propaganda films, mostly made "at cost" for the government and armed forces.

Of course, this was brands running in aid to their own government, but partially they contributed to helping the US win the war, didn’t they? And in a similar way during the first months of the pandemic, how many brands turned their assembly line upside down, overnight, in order to actively contribute to the fight against the virus? Turning vodka into hand sanitiser, luxury dresses into coats for emergency rooms, upholstery into face masks and even car motors into ventilators. 

The pandemic has undeniably marked a historic moment in which economical gain has truly dropped positions in the list of corporate priorities. Those who then were working for a brand, any kind of brand, cannot possibly have forgotten those confusing and terrifying days. 

I mean, what if this really was the beginning of a new era? That of the Brand Partisan. We are talking about brands that use their extraordinary influence for the good of the planet, fighting for peace, the environment, against totalitarianism and social injustice, without ever putting profit first. 

For God's sake, don't think of me as naïve - I know Apple isn’t flawless in its corporate history, nor does it represents a model for sustainability. 

Truth is that Brand Partisans don't exist yet, but I don't think they are a utopia, on the contrary, they seem to be closer than ever. 

Wouldn't it be nice if the next world war was prevented by Adidas?

The next tyranny curbed by Twitter, the next genocide avoided by Louis Vuitton? 

Maybe I’m just babbling, but I think the signs are all in plain sight. 

This really might be the end of the storytelling era and the beginning of those brands Kotler calls “activists”. But the next step really could be around the corner. Then maybe, hopefully, we will never look at brands the same way again. Because they will have turned into something completely new. You might say I’m a dreamer. But apparently, I’m not the only one.

first appeared on Human Brands Observatory on March 16th 2022

all rights reserved no panic srl ©