Cancel Culture has become a familiar phrase in American society. The term cancel culture means the practice of withdrawing support for public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. When corporations are involved, canceling takes the form of boycotting products or businesses. On social media, canceling a person or product is shown by losing followers, blocking, harassment, or being removed entirely by the platform.
Who are the winners and losers when it comes to cancel culture? Lets take a closer look at some familiar cases.
1) Land O Lakes – Feb 2020
Land O Lakes was the first of several corporations to rebrand and update their product. However, Land O Lakes was the only recent rebranding to happen prior to the George Floyd protests and resulting public pressure on outdated and derogatory branding. Land O’Lakes president and CEO Beth Ford described this change as reflecting “the foundation and heart of our company culture—and nothing does that better than our farmer-owners whose milk is used to produce Land O’Lakes’ dairy products.”
Indeed, Land O Lakes was formed in 1921 by a group of Minnesota dairy farmers and remains a co-op of dairy farmers today. While it’s unfair to say the Land O Lakes ‘Butter Maiden’ (named Mia) was never under scrutiny (the American Psychological Association found that racially based mascots on prominent advertising may have “a negative impact on the self-esteem of American Indian children”) it seems the rebranding was rather based around the 100th anniversary of Land O Lakes. The dairy industry was facing milk prices being far lower than average and needed a consumer punch in the arm.
Who won? Land O’ Lakes – trading at 16.61 the day of the rebranding announcement, the company is now trading at 28.01 (after hitting a high in Feb 2021.) Native Americans – Minnesota Lt. Governor and White Earth Band of Ojibwe member Peggy Flanagan tweeted – “Thank you to Land O’Lakes for making this important and needed change. Native people are not mascots or logos. We are very much still here.” Minnesota Dairy Farmers – not only have they enjoyed a boost in the company’s sales, there is also talk of some of them being featured on Land O Lakes marketing in the same way Wheaties features athletes on their cereal boxes.
2) Aunt Jemima – June 2020
Aunt Jemima (owned by PepsiCo) announced that they would remove an image” based on a racial stereotype” from their popular pancake mix and syrup bottles. They will be rebranding under the name of Pearl Milling Company, the small mill located in St Joseph, MO that originally formulated the pancake mix in 1889.
Was Aunt Jemima an actual person? Yes and no. Nancy Green, a former slave, was hired by Aunt Jemima as a performance actress to make pancakes at the 1893 Worlds Fair (Chicago). Nancy Green would portray Aunt Jemima until her death at age 83. We don’t have a lot of information on Nancy Green (which is not unusual for a black woman at that time) but we do know she was one of the first black corporate models. We also know she made the company a lot of money. Her exhibition at the Worlds Fair was so popular that crowd control was needed. She received 50,000 orders for the pancake mix she represented and she won an award for showmanship. How much did Nancy Green profit for representing the Aunt Jemima brand? Nobody knows for sure. She has lain all these years in an unmarked paupers grave in Chicago, which suggests she did not become wealthy from her time as Aunt Jemima. Six other actresses followed her portraying Aunt Jemima and they seemed fare better financially but perhaps their compensation still wasn’t equitable. The grandchildren of Anna Short Harrington brought a lawsuit against Quaker Oats (owned by PepsiCo) asking for $2B in damages for the company’s use of their grandmothers likeness. The lawsuit was dismissed after a 5 year court battle. Quaker Oats maintained that Aunt Jemima was a fictional character, not based on Anna Harrington or any other actress that worked for the company.
Who won? PepsiCo – trading at 132.63 at the time of this announcement is now trading at 142.57. The brand got a punch of support from those against the brand change. The brand also received a punch of support from those who supported it. Nancy Green – this long-forgotten woman enjoyed some popularity and in the last year has received a proper marker for her grave. Pearl Milling Company – this modest company, the formulators of the popular pancake mix, profited selling the formula to Quaker Oats in 1923 and will again become a recognized brand.
Who lost? Also Nancy Green – who was likely never adequately compensated for the brand she helped build.
3) Uncle Bens – June 2020
Uncle Bens, owned by Mars, Inc, announced in June of 2020 that they would be doing a full review of their brand in light of global protests over police brutality and racism. The Uncle Bens brand appeared in the 1940’s, the development of a Texas farmer known for his high-quality rice and the new processing technique of parboiling. The likeness on the box is the image of Frank Brown, maitre d of a high-end Chicago restaurant. Mr Brown was approached by Uncle Bens to be the face of the brand. Frank Brown received a single stipend in exchange for his image. There is no evidence that Frank Brown profited further even though Uncle Ben’s became the top-selling brand of rice for the next several decades. (The terms “uncle” and “aunt” were commonly used in place of “Mr” and Mrs” when referring to black men and women.)
Who Won? By April 24, 2020, Mars Inc had reached a 5-year low at 300 per stock share. Since this rebranding announcement, Mars Inc has enjoyed a steady stock climb, gaining revenues from both those wanting to show support to a company they see as “attacked” for the change and those wanting to show support to the company for making necessary changes to outdated branding. Currently, Mars Inc is trading at 475.
Who lost? Frank Brown, the face of Uncle Bens who never received equitable compensation for his part in the success of the company.
4) Mrs. Butterworth – June 2020
Mrs. Butterworth, owned by ConAgra, quickly followed PepsiCo with a rebranding announcement in the wake of the George Floyd protests. This recognizable bottle shape was created by Unilever in 1961. The brand always has received some criticism, having been introduced in the Civil Rights Era. The company stated that the Mrs Butterworth likeness was meant to evoke “the images of a loving grandmother” but recognizes how it could be perceived differently. Critics of the brand claim that Mrs. Butterworth, along with Aunt Jemima, are based on a “mammy” stereotype (a slavery-era black woman working in white homes and taking care of children.) Was Mrs. Butterworth based on a real person? There is some evidence the character was modeled after Thelma “Butterfly” McQueen (the actress who played ‘Prissy’ in Gone With The Wind.) The voice of Mrs Butterworth was white actress Mary Kay Bergman
Who won? ConAgra – ConAgra hit a 5 year low stock low in 2019, trading at 22.15. The company has seen nothing but increase since their rebranding announcement, currently trading at 37.29. As they say in the business, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. ConAgra wins on both sides, those against the change wanting to show show support to the obsolete branding – and those wanting to show their support to ConAgra for what they see as a positive change.
5) Cream Of Wheat – June 2020
Not to be outdone, Cream Of Wheat (owned by B&G Foods) announced their rebranding within days of Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Butterworth and Uncle Ben’s. While there is some evidence that the chef on the Cream Of Wheat packaging might be based on Frank White, a Chicago chef, the branding originated using a caricature named Rastus. This original branding was replaced in the 1920s and has evolved several times since then. Cream of Wheat was never fully able to rid itself of it’s original branding and has drawn fire through the years. (A quick image search brings up the original Rastus marketing.) In this way the change was likely overdue.
Who won? B&G Foods (are you noticing a pattern here in the winners?) The later part of Feb 2020 would find B&G foods at a 5 year stock low of 13.62. Since their rebranding announcement stock has shown a steady climb to it’s current 29.53.
Who lost? Any actual person that the Cream of Wheat likeness was made after.
6) Washington Redskins
This football team has a different story than the other corporations here because it has been under fire for its mascot practically since its beginning. In 2013 owner Daniel Snyder made a statement that the team would never change it’s name. “NEVER” Snyder said, “you can use caps.” The football team, however, found itself under increasing corporate pressure from the outside, including FedEx, who owns shares and is a major sponsor of the teams stadium. Nike and PepsiCo (which holds the Aunt Jemima brand) joined FedEx in the pressuring effort to rebrand the team. (The term “redskin” has been a long-held and outdated derogatory term for Native Americans.) The Cleaveland Indians followed suit here, abandoning their branding but keeping their team name.
Who Won? Washington won, of course. As we are seeing here, corporations are winning the cancel wars in every case. They won with their old merchandising having a surge before it was discontinued. They won with their new merchandising. They won by people supporting them for being bullied into submission. They won by those supporting the rebranding.
Who lost? Daniel Snyder, who had his hand forced against his wishes. The fans who saw the rebranding as an act of force.
7) Mr. Potato Head – February 2021
Second verse, same as the first. Mr. Potato Head has been around for 70 years and is mainstay childhood toy of several generations. This is not the first time Mr. Potato Head has faced the changing times. In 1987 Mr. Potato Head relinquished his pipe over tobacco usage concerns. In 1992 he was moved into a more active backstory, not wanting to be confused with a a “couch potato.” Mrs. Potato head came about in 1953. The Potato Heads achieved super stardom appearing in Pixar’s Toy Story movies. March 20, 2020 saw Hasbro at it’s 5 year stock low of 46.11/share. Stocks climbed from that point and continuously climbed through the Potato Head announcement, currently trading at 95.24.
Who won? Hasbro won. Of course. They won from the surge of sales following their rebranding announcement. They won from the younger generation, having children of their own and much more accepting of non-binary (neither male nor female) persons. They won from those of us who had a stab of nostalgia, they won from those of us who remembered and didn’t want the brand to change. They won from an enormous amount of free publicity for a toy that would have been outdated long ago had Pixar not included it to appeal to our nostalgia as we sat and watched the movies with our children. The CEO of Hasbro has predicted double digit growth in the coming year.
Who lost? Anyone who wanted to buy two toys instead of one. All the pieces of Potato Head will now come with the single potato shaped base.
8) Dr. Seuss – March 2021
In March, 2021, Dr. Seuss Industries, owned by the descendants of Theodor Seuss Geisel, announced that they would be discontinuing six Dr. Seuss books from publication. Dr. Seuss published 60 books in his lifetime and has sold over 700 million books globally, making him one of the worlds most popular children’s author. Seuss Industries made the following statement:
Today, on Dr. Seuss’s Birthday, Dr. Seuss Enterprises celebrates reading and also our mission of supporting all children and families with messages of hope, inspiration, inclusion, and friendship.
We are committed to action. To that end, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of experts, including educators, reviewed our catalog of titles and made the decision last year to cease publication and licensing of the following titles: And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer. These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.
Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families.
It seemed to be a proactive move from Dr. Seuss Industries to preserve the legacy of Dr. Seuss and cease publication of images that Dr Seuss himself might have grown uncomfortable with. During World War II, Theodor Seuss Geisel published anti-Japanese cartoons and was vocal in his support of Japanese interment camps. He later would apologize for his actions s. Horton Hears A Who was written to reflect his changing views.
This case varies from the others in that these six books were not widely known and it’s likely they could have been discontinued silently without anyone ever knowing. What did Seuss Industries have to gain by taking this action? What did they have to lose?
Who won? After this announcement Dr. Seuss sales soared, rocketing to the top of Amazons book list. Copies of the discontinued books were being sold for up to $11,500 as those who happened to have a copy of the discontinued books took advantage of the opportunity. People outraged about the beloved childrens author being “cancelled” produced a purchasing surge. People in support of Dr. Seuss Industries joined in on the purchasing surge in support of the company. How much moneywas made – nobody knows because Dr. Seuss Industries is not publicly owned and does not have to report their earnings.
Who loses in the cancel culture wars? It’s not the companies involved, there is concrete evidence to support that fact.
Boycotting is an American past-time and is a long-standing way to bring about social change. Each one of us boycotts in our own ways, although as individuals we are unlikely to bring about change on our own. We stop watching shows when an actor or actress makes a political statement we don’t agree with. We stop supporting businesses that make political statements we don’t agree with. We stop watching NFL games due to political statements made there. “Cancel culture” is a new term for a very old game. Granted, in our new world of technology we are able to make a greater impact in our shunning, outrage or support than we previously were. We are able to band together more easily and make more of an impact.
Who truly loses the cancel culture wars? Americans do, becoming ever more divided over these issues. Are everyday people being used as pawns in these corporate strategies? It’s a good question to consider.
