Stop Funding Hate: Corporates Need to Walk the Talk

In a recent discussion in class* it was noted that the objective of the Stop Funding Hate campaign was to change the headlines and tone down the anti-migrant and xenophobic rhetoric in the Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Sun.

I would question whether this is the aim of the campaign, even if this is the change they want to see.

For anyone not familiar with the campaign it started with a video that ‘brandjams’ the big retailers’ Christmas adverts highlighting how the stories that are used in these ads, looking out for others even if strangers or enemies, are inconsistent with the divisive hate messages in the newspapers in which these brands advertise.

It has been successful in terms of numbers of people who have watched the video, signed the petition, and sent messages to CEOs. The campaign benefited from an early announcement from LEGO (in a vulnerable position followed a sustained campaign by Greenpeace in 2014) that it would not continue its commercial partnership with the Daily Mail.

I believe the aim of the campaign, and why it is effective, is to target the lack of alignment between corporate words and actions. It seeks to highlight  inconsistency between the values that highly visible, high street brands – such as Waitrose, John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and M&S – are selling through their Christmas adverts and the messages in the newspapers where they are spending their marketing budgets. All these companies have corporate commitments to do business differently and better, yet this campaign asks serious questions about how companies’ corporate responsibility and ethics inform decisions on advertising. It is a good example of an ‘isomorphic pressure’ or watchdog campaign (Yaziji & Doh, 2009).

Targeting commercial relationships between companies is not a new strategy. It evolves the concept of NGOs using indirect pressure to influence behaviour via ‘critical players’, that is organisations that have a direct influence over the company’s behaviour (Yaziji & Doh, 2009).

This is happening on two levels. Stop Funding Hate aims to “mobilise consumer power to bring positive change”. It is asking customers of John Lewis, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and M&S to let them know their advertising actions fail to align with the organisational norms and standards expected by its customers (Yaziji & Doh, 2009). It sends a message to business that social responsibility extends not only to how you advertise (where there are accepted norms and standards), but where you you advertise.

At a second level, the business-to-business customer relationship, the expectation is that those companies will signal through withdrawing of advertising the lack of alignment between the their own interests and institutional norms and the editorial approach of the newspapers  (Yaziji & Doh, 2009). Some companies are already showing this type of leadership in the US and Europe by withdrawing advertising from the far right news site Breitbart.

Some of the criticisms of the campaign focus on corporate influence on editorial, and free speech. However the campaign is not about press censorship. In fact campaign founder, Richard Wilson, states that free speech is a core value of the campaign and believes that the target newspapers are can print what they wish, going so as far to say: “If the Daily Mail editor wants to stand in Hyde Park with a megaphone and a sandwich board, expressing his views on immigration, we will defend his right to do so” (Wilson, 2016). But then going on to make the crucial point: “Please don’t make us pay for the megaphone” (Wilson, 2016).

This approach makes sense given the media context in Britain. As Professor Steven Barnett described  in the panel discussion at the 4th Annual Leveson Lecture, “The UK is one of the only countries where politicians have been subservient to media conglomerates for over 30 years”. Instead of taking on the press barons directly and getting into issues around censorship and free speech, hit them where it hurts, and for a sector with a broken business model, that is its commercial partnerships and advertising revenues.

However, in an era where companies are increasingly expected to be responsible for their social and environmental impacts – every company should be held to account for what it emits, whether that is through its brainprint or footprint. Making sure that emissions are not toxic, whether that is carbon or news, should be a condition of doing business in the 21st Century. So it is good to also see organisations such as Hacked Off taking on the press barons more directly.

*This blog is part of a series for my Media, Campaigning and Social Change MA at the University of Westminster.


References

Yaziji, M. and Doh, J.P. (2009) NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, R. (2016) ‘Stop Funding Hate: Free speech is for everyone, not just for newspaper editors’, Huffington Post, 6 December. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-wilson1/stop-funding-hate-free-sp_b_13452846.html (Accessed: 7 December 2016).

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Stop Funding Hate: Corporates Need to Walk the Talk

Add yours

  1. While the aim of this campaign may be as you said,”I believe the aim of the campaign, and why it is effective, is to target the lack of alignment between corporate words and actions,” I think that the overall desired goal is to stop the hateful rhetoric. The organizers of the campaign probably just realized they were going to achieve that with just an emotional plea, so they are attacking the newspapers’ profits and retail companies’ profits to do this.

    It seems like the burden to achieve this desired social change rests heavily on the companies who advertise in this magazine, even though the campaigners may need the general public’s help to make the companies take this responsibility.The main theory of change I see here is an emphasis on Corporate Responsibility. I think in this case, it’s an effective strategy.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I agree with RedVelvet Cake89, that the campaign aims of Stop Funding Hate is to influence and ultimately stop the nasty rhetoric regarding migrants and immigration, but think the deeper analysis you have offered presents the core strategies and tactics the group have used along the way to achieve this. I agree the campaign has been effective so far which I believe, only further emphasises their strong strategy and proven worthiness of targeting newspapers through their financial and advertising channels.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I really enjoyed reading your analysis of this campaign as someone who is interested in corporate responsibility. I one agree with you that this campaign really brings to light how corporations, especially large corporations try to display one image to the public, but oftentimes don’t adhere to that image in their day to day business practices. I am glad that Stop Funding Hate is bringing these issues to light and keeping corporations accountable. I hope that this campaign has a lasting effect in this regard and isn’t just a flash in the pan.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: