Corporate Pandering Means Invisibility
Power Line,
by
John Hinderaker
Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect,
6/18/2020 4:34:51 AM
Today’s dumbest news comes from corporate America. First, Quaker Oats announced that it is doing away with Aunt Jemima.
Quaker Oats is retiring the more than 130-year-old Aunt Jemima brand and logo, acknowledging its origins are based on a racial stereotype.
“As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we also must take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our consumers’ expectations,” the Pepsi-owned company said in a statement provided to CNN Business.
So, how did Aunt Jemima fail to “reflect [the] values” of Pepsico/Quaker Oats?
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Flyball Dogs 6/18/2020 5:32:59 AM (No. 448221)
Excellent. Corporate pandering laid out and exposed.
7 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
petrichor 6/18/2020 5:49:36 AM (No. 448228)
This is all becoming quite amusing. I'm still boycotting Planter's Peanuts for backing off on their dismissal of Mr. Peanut. Mr. Peanut is a terribly offensive stereotype of the upper class.
3 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Strike3 6/18/2020 6:08:36 AM (No. 448234)
Fat black women are a racial stereotype for a very good reason.
5 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
BirdsNest 6/18/2020 7:47:55 AM (No. 448289)
Black people buy the product, what's the problem?
3 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Proud Texan 6/18/2020 8:24:24 AM (No. 448337)
These corporate "leaders" are just proving to the rest of us who the true "racists" are by seeing racism in absolutely everything. The effect is that they are mocking blacks while outright rejecting anyone else.
4 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Laotzu 6/18/2020 9:08:37 AM (No. 448384)
I've never understood how a product based on a natural resource of New England got a logo based on an Antebellum character.
That said, I think they should keep her but update her with spandex, and current hair and nails, and talking on a cell phone. Maybe a tatoo.
3 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
cor-vet 6/18/2020 9:51:19 AM (No. 448423)
They're going to have to fire a lot of bLACK actors, since only bLACKS buy and use products in America, if you've seen current advertising. Without the super smart bLACKS showing the stupid White folks the way, we won't know what to buy. All the White people in advertisements have the required black couple as friends, but the bLACK couples apparently don't know any White couples to invite to their fun parties. Every White male or female seems to have a super smart black, slightly condescending bLACK friend to help them make the right decision.
3 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
HotRod 6/18/2020 10:22:05 AM (No. 448483)
Yep. Stereotypes. I always thought that the term ''soul food'' stereotyped blacks. Trying to make people believe that black women were good cooks.
In reality, ''soul food'' was simply Southern cooking, introduced to northerners by migrating blacks. However, the stereotype remains.
1 person likes this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 6/18/2020 10:36:57 AM (No. 448505)
Whose doing the thinking in these round table corporate meetings. One thing in the article struck me that maybe it's a money losing product and this is a cheap way out. In advertising a survey should be who buys the product maybe removing the image might not make another consumer appear. If the plan is to appeal to another market consumer then maybe they don't wish to sell to the current one purchasing and using the product. Example, a car manufacturer changes it commercial with rap music in the background apparently I'm not the target consumer the car manufacturer wishes to sell to so I reject their product. Corporate suits wishing to hop on the bandwagon to virtue signal is trending. What next 'fat shaming' Mrs. Butterworth?
0 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
MDConservative 6/18/2020 11:19:19 AM (No. 448562)
Corporations sell things. They constantly scan the market for opportunities and pitfalls. Getting themselves wound up in a racial controversy is not their idea of a good time. Facts don't matter. So, "Aunt Jemima" became a wealthy woman, well perhaps women playing the role of the fictional character. So, Uncle Ben was a renowned rice farmer. What does it matter? I'd bet near zero percent knew that. What corporation wants to take on the controversy? It's just not worth the fight to them or stockholders.
Call it Jemima Smith's pancake mix or Ben Jones' rice and there's no issue, like Stubb's BBQ sauce or Air Jordan shoes.
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Penny Spencer 6/18/2020 2:43:44 PM (No. 448824)
"Aunt" and "Uncle' were sometimes what black servants were called in the South, often affectionately, but also at times, condescendingly. Never mind the real story behind these two characters, to the "woke" generation they represent servility and disrespect. Any other interpretation is counter to their narrative. It's all part of their campaign to rewrite history by scrubbing it of all vestiges of past discrimination, whether real of imagined.
0 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Miss Daisy 6/18/2020 2:59:35 PM (No. 448846)
Henceforth, all consumer products shall be wrapped in clear packaging with no logos, no symbols, no spokesperson's image, and labeled with plain non-descript type. This way no one can be offended. s/o
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Pluperfect"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)