The Power of Licensing #14: Farewell Aunt Jemima And Uncle Ben—Brand Symbols Are Falling

June 23, 2020: By: Michael Stone, Chairman and Co-founder of Beanstalk

Announcements by the companies that own Aunt Jemima pancake mix, Uncle Ben’s rice, Eskimo Pies ice cream bars, and many others, that they will be “retiring” brand names and visual identities that are considered offensive to many is just one more reminder of how “entangled” brands and consumers have become.  The unrelenting outcry over the death of George Floyd, and other recent deaths of African Americans, has accelerated long overdue actions by many brands that are now evaluating their own responsibility for systemic racism. It is also illustrative of the acceleration and intersection of three powerful trends, trends that were already underway, at this particular moment in time.  It’s the intersection of brand Relevance, brand Purpose and brand Symbolism.  And marketers better pay attention, because consumers are definitely paying attention.

Brands Matter and are Relevant.  First, as I have opined in my book, in articles, webinars, podcasts and in social media posts, brands matter, they remain very Relevant to consumers.  That’s a conclusion that we can see illustrated in consumer behavior all around us.  However, to be fair, there is a school of oppositional thought holding that brands are in decline because we don’t need them anymore to help us make purchase decisions.  That’s because the internet provides us with readily available product information and product reviews at the click of a button and, therefore, we don’t need brands to drive trust in product quality or to make purchasing easier, which was always their reason for being.  But to me it seems that, in a bit of a cultural paradox, we have less time to make buying decisions and we are overloaded with information and, therefore, despite how complicated brand messaging is today, brands are actually getting stronger-- smart brands that is.  Brands that know how to get their message across in the new ecosystem of marketing and communications.  And, as we search for our favorite branded products during the pandemic (finding Charmin or Bounty at the supermarket is like winning the lottery), it would seem that brands really matter to consumers.  

Brands Matter and Must Demonstrate Purpose.  Second, consumers (particularly younger consumers) are increasingly demanding that brands take not just positions but take action on issues of the day - - societal, cultural, environmental and political issues.  Consumers are requiring that brands demonstrate Purpose.  (See my article entitled “Brands Can No Longer Stay on the Sidelines: Case in Point – The Gun Debate” Forbes.com, March 5, 2018). For example, when a shooter murdered students at Marjory Stoneham High School in Florida on February 14, 2018, multiple companies withdrew their support for the NRA and retailers strengthened restrictions on gun sales.  Of course, taking a position can be a challenge for a brand - - every strong position will likely please some and offend others.  And the position that a brand takes must be consistent with its core values.  The pandemic has only served to accelerate this trend as consumers demand that brands take real action to help populations in need during the health crises.  (See my article entitled, “Will Consumers Remember Tomorrow How Brands Act Today?” on Forbes.com, May 7, 2020.) And many companies deserve praise for responding.  Companies have switched their manufacturing to PPE and other medical and health equipment and supplies, they are delivering free food to first responders and others who can’t put food on the table, donating money to food banks, helping small businesses with free services, and the list goes on.   And demanding that brands take action is not limited to consumers.  Employees of brands, who are generally the strongest advocates for a brand, are also demanding that brands live up to their core values whether it be about diversity in the workplace, sexual harassment or the way companies treat employees during the health crises.    

Brands Matter and Brand Symbols Matter.  And third, in the midst of a pandemic, which is affecting a disproportionate number of African Americans and increasing our awareness of racial inequality, George Floyd is tragically killed (preceded and followed by other recent tragic killings of African Americans at the hands of police), fueling the Black Lives Matter movement and even further raising our collective consciousness of racial inequality and racism in the United States and, indeed, around the world. In this environment, our attention is drawn to Symbols. 

There is nothing new about symbols, of course.  Our own American flag has been an important symbol since its beginning in 1777.  And flags have been used as motivating military symbols since the medieval period.  The Confederate flag has been a controversial symbol for many years as have been statues of Confederate war heroes that stand in our town squares.  But the meaning of symbols change as culture changes.  A symbol that might have been acceptable or tolerable, or misunderstood, in the past, becomes intolerable in an evolving culture and civilized society.  The Washington Redskins, the name of the NFL football team, might have been acceptable, for example, in 1933 when it adopted the name, but it has come under fire in recent years for promoting stereotypes of Native Americans.  In fact, in 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled six trademarks as offensive to the Native American community.  And, in times of crises, trends accelerate.  And, so, in recent weeks we have witnessed increasingly loud demands for the removal of the Confederate flag as a symbol (NASCAR is now prohibiting the display of the Confederate flag at its events), the removal of statues in our midst, and the removal of the names of certain military bases celebrating Confederate officers (which is even supported by the military command but, thus far, resisted by President Trump).

Brands, of course, are symbols too.  They are symbols of quality, trust and the product that they represent. But often brand symbols, including the brand name, the packaging or the mascot, run afoul of changing cultural tides.  Land O Lakes butter, for example, earlier in the year removed the image of a Native American woman with a feather in her hair from its packaging given the sensitivities of the Native American community.  Brands offending racial or ethnic populations is not something new, however.  In 1971, the Frito brand abandoned the use of Frito Bandito, an armed Mexican bandit and con artist, as the mascot for its product after complaints from the Mexican American Anti-Defamation Committee.  And the years are littered with many other examples.

Today, as the Black Lives Matter movement gains speed, brands that are offensive to the African American community as well as brands that are offensive to other minorities are reacting quickly.  They are making corrections (likely long overdue) to ensure that their brands are not inadvertently culpable for systemic racism and are more aligned with their corporate values and also to meet consumer expectations.  And so, Quaker Oats, a division of Pepsico, has announced that it will “reimagine” its Aunt Jemima brand of syrup and pancake mix.  Actually, it’s more than just “reimagining” the brand, the Aunt Jemima name will be replaced as will the depiction of Aunt Jemima on the packaging.  Aunt Jemima was originally a self-rising flour that was launched in the late 1800s.  The name came from a song performed by mistral actors and the imagery (until recently updated) used a “mammy”, a racist depiction of slaves serving white families with a smile.  Quaker Oats recognizes that the origins of Aunt Jemima are based on racial stereotypes and that past updates are simply not enough.

Similarly, also last week, Mars announced that it would be changing the brand identity of Uncle Ben’s, named in 1946, which depicts a Black domestic worker. I was struck by the statement issued by the brand:

“As we listen to the voice of consumers, especially in the Black community, and to the voices of our Associates worldwide, we recognize that now is the right time to evolve the Uncle Ben’s brand, including its visual identity, which we will do.”

What struck me is that this change at Mars is being driven not only by consumers, but by the employees of Mars.  The pressure for change is coming from both outside and inside the corporation.  Consumers clearly find the name and visual identity offensive, which could lead to a decline in sales.  Employees also find those offensive, which could lead to an erosion of the brand from within. But further, I suspect, employees find the brand imagery to be contrary to Mars’ core values.  And, apparently, Mars agrees.

Also under evaluation is the Cream of Wheat guy, the Black chef adorning B&G Foods hot cereal brand as well as ConAgra’s Mrs. Butterworth brand.  And this week Dreyer’s (a unit of Nestle), owner of Eskimo Pies, announced that they are changing the name of their famous ice cream bar because it disparages indigenous people living in the Artic regions.  Eskimo Pie was introduced in 1922 and was the first chocolate covered ice cream bar in the United States.  The brand spokesperson said, “We are committed to being a part of the solution on racial equality, and recognize the term is derogatory.”   

This evaluation of brand names and identity that has accelerated over the past several weeks is not limited to the United States.  Nestle is reviewing over 25,000 products all over the world to remove racial stereotypes such as Baso de Negra (meaning “kiss from a Black woman”), its confectionary brand in Columbia.  Colgate is reviewing Darlie (which changed its name from Darkie 30 years ago), its leading toothpaste brand in China which still says “Black Person Toothpaste” on the packaging.  And Johnson & Johnson’s Neutrogena skin lightening brand, Fine Fairness, sold in Asia and the Middle East, is under review according to J&J.

These are the reasons that brands with potentially offending symbols need to take a hard look at their brand names, mascots and brand identities - - consumer expectations, the risk of brand damage from within from disillusioned employees, and core values of the company that are not consistent with the brand identity.   Other brands continue to find themselves in the firing line but have resisted taking action thus far, such as the Cleveland Indians’ mascot Chief Waterloo (Native Americans) and Chiquita’s Miss Chiquita (the Hispanic community), among others.

Powerful Currents.  Perhaps if we look to the past hard enough, we will find that in times of highly charged cultural and societal change, marketing trends that are already underway have accelerated.  I don’t know that to be true or not.  What I do know is that at a time when brands and consumers are becoming increasingly “entangled”, the three trends identified above - - the strengthening of brand Relevance, the expectations of consumers that brands demonstrate Purpose, and the need to evaluate brand Symbols that have always been or have become offensive - - have intersected during this particular moment in time.  A moment characterized by a pandemic that knows no boundaries and a populace newly and powerfully sensitized to racial inequality and systemic racism in the United States and around the world.  How brands address these trends today will likely be remembered by consumers tomorrow.