An Italian Brand (you know the name) came under fire for a horrifically racist balaclava sweater that features dark black wool with oversized deep red lips on a collar designed to cover the lower face. It immediately drew comparisons to blackface and other nakedly racist tropes from America's (supposed) past. Calls for boycotts emerged instantly. But not everyone was on board. To wit, one of the most conspicuous consumers EVER, Floyd Mayweather pushed back in a major way AND spent hundreds of thousands on items at the offender's store. Rapper T.I. came out with a blistering diss record that prompted a second (ghostwritten) reply. In it he references some of the other brands in the corporate group that owns the Italian brand. Further, the reply critiques the boycott for its length and lack of "planning."
I don't see how mentioning the corporate group has anything to do with this. Are we to understand that because they are in a corporate group (with "competing" brands) that all the design teams are sharing all their designs with each other? Are we suggesting that the brands don't have internal autonomy? Or that leadership has to sign off on everything that comes from each division? That would be surprising to me.
Next, the announcement of a boycott makes headlines and drives social media engagement. WIthin 48 hours of the "scandal", Dapper Dan announced that the head of Gucci was flying the New York to meet with him. Maybe we'll see the fruits of that interaction.
Frankly, if the only thing a "boycott" accomplishes is that SOME Black people stop sending their dollars to the Italian brand, that's GREAT!
If SOME (or ALL) hip hop influencers, including (GASP) the Kardashians, stopped wearing or representing the Italian brand, with a resultant decline in the passive marketing by our artists, GREAT!
Even if WE are not the core purchasers, our influencers DO impact the perception of "cool" brands. Discussing the Italian brand impacts the COUNTLESS MILLIONS of white kids who think out artists are "awesome," and THAT could make a difference in that brand's bottom line.
A 3-month boycott is flawed. Sure. But that's an easy fix. Make it a permanent ban and turn those dollars to Black brands and make THEM hot in these streets. It's happened before. If WIlli Smith were still alive, I'd wager his brand would still be fire.
We don't have to have any "plan" other than to remove our dollars from that brand's coffers... because they produced and promoted a particularly disrespectful and racist garment. Full Stop. Instead, Mayweather stunted like a pure coon and spent a ridiculous sum on clothes that he may wear only once. That's asinine.
I don't see how mentioning the corporate group has anything to do with this. Are we to understand that because they are in a corporate group (with "competing" brands) that all the design teams are sharing all their designs with each other? Are we suggesting that the brands don't have internal autonomy? Or that leadership has to sign off on everything that comes from each division? That would be surprising to me.
Next, the announcement of a boycott makes headlines and drives social media engagement. WIthin 48 hours of the "scandal", Dapper Dan announced that the head of Gucci was flying the New York to meet with him. Maybe we'll see the fruits of that interaction.
Frankly, if the only thing a "boycott" accomplishes is that SOME Black people stop sending their dollars to the Italian brand, that's GREAT!
If SOME (or ALL) hip hop influencers, including (GASP) the Kardashians, stopped wearing or representing the Italian brand, with a resultant decline in the passive marketing by our artists, GREAT!
Even if WE are not the core purchasers, our influencers DO impact the perception of "cool" brands. Discussing the Italian brand impacts the COUNTLESS MILLIONS of white kids who think out artists are "awesome," and THAT could make a difference in that brand's bottom line.
A 3-month boycott is flawed. Sure. But that's an easy fix. Make it a permanent ban and turn those dollars to Black brands and make THEM hot in these streets. It's happened before. If WIlli Smith were still alive, I'd wager his brand would still be fire.
We don't have to have any "plan" other than to remove our dollars from that brand's coffers... because they produced and promoted a particularly disrespectful and racist garment. Full Stop. Instead, Mayweather stunted like a pure coon and spent a ridiculous sum on clothes that he may wear only once. That's asinine.
Comments