Should brands embrace or avoid cancel culture?
Hundreds of arrows heading the same direction.
Cancel culture has received a lot of attention lately. It often requires the broadcasting of an act which makes the canceled a subject of attention. The objective behind canceling is often to deny attention so that the canceled subject loses cultural cachet. Should brands avoid cancel culture? Prepare for it? Or is there a way to embrace it?
It’s become apparent that people and brands we once thought were safe are no longer. Innocuous subjects such as Mr. Potato Head, The Muppets, Piers Morgan, and even Dr. Seuss have recently become subjects of criticism and some say cancel culture will be the death of any industry that it touches. But cancel culture is not absolute.
Should Brands Avoid Cancel Culture?
There are always at least two sides to a debate or discussion. While one side thinks they are "canceling," the other side becomes more focused on the controversy of the topic, possibly defending the subject being canceled. In this cultural tug of war, whichever side of the debate has the more passionate audience, ultimately controls the narrative and outcome of a cancellation.
We’ve seen this in action recently. A day after Dr. Seuss’s estate announced the discontinuation of six titles that contained “hurtful” imagery, nine of the top ten slots on Amazon’s bestsellers list were occupied by Dr. Seuss. Piers Morgan recently left Good Morning Britain after controversially declaring that he does not believe Meghan Markle actually had suicidal thoughts. He’s now been subject of a “£10m bidding war” between multiple networks. The canceled are outsmarting the attempted ostracism, taking control of the narrative and using the buzz to their advantage.
The MFactor for Cancel Culture. MFactor is a proprietary tool that measures cultural momentum through topic modeling and sentiment analysis.
Don't Avoid, Engage
Instead of waiting for cancellation, Dr. Seuss’s estate unilaterally decided to stop publishing 6 of his books. This move protected the Dr. Seuss brand, preventing future attacks while updating some of his more problematic viewpoints, framed as relics of the past.
Piers Morgan went a step further. Not only did he decide to step away from the Good Morning Britain show, he successfully shifted the public focus to cancel culture, and profited from his newfound availability. He shared on social media that he is “lucky in that although there have been repeated attempts to ‘cancel’ me … I’ve survived because I have strong-minded employers who refuse to bow to the mob.” By changing the narrative and establishing trust within a segment of the public, Piers Morgan was able to shift attention away from his controversial stance and rally support instead. To avoid cancel culture or ingore it seems foolish.
Losing To Cancel Culture
By contrast, the controversy surrounding allegations of Andrew Cuomo’s sexual misconduct indicates a failure to control the narrative. While Cuomo believes “people know the difference between playing politics, bowing to cancel culture, and the truth,” he hasn’t made it clear to the public why he deserves their trust.
To take control of the narrative and avoid cancel culture's damaging effects, he must offer a more robust explanation for these allegations and demonstrate his credibility. This could have been an opportunity to remind the public why they trust him: legalizing same-sex marraige in 2011, increasing the minimum wage, or responding early to COVID, although that too had its own set of issues. Instead, he disengaged from the controversy, he hasn’t sought support, and he’s allowed others to account for his actions and control the narrative.
All in all, cancel culture will continue to be a significant polarization force for brands. To avoid cancel culture, companies, brands, and public figures must use public fixation to rally support and take timely control of the narrative.