“Whilst we must try very hard not to offend, we must try harder to not be offended.”
Call Out Culture
Cancel culture or call-out culture, as I will refer to it in this copy, is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles — whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been “cancelled”. Many believe that call-out culture allows you to hold people accountable for their actions. Consumers play a major role in shaping the public perception of brands, influencing their actions and holding them accountable — and it’s a double-edged sword for brands. On the one hand, a vocal audience can help brands shape their offerings and content. On the other hand, a brand misstep can be costly.
For many, it can be seen as unfair, often levelling a degree of debate at an individual without giving them the fair chance to defend themselves, or provide a reasonable and balanced defence. A version of call-out culture has been functioning for centuries as a tool for the marginalized and their allies to reveal injustice and the need for reform. The practise of directly addressing inequality underpins countless social justice movements, from civil rights to Suffragettes. In it’s most basic form, I think it helpful to make a binary assumption early on. I believe, as I am sure many of you do too, that those who have previously tightly gripped + silenced individuals and communities, should pay for their wrongdoing. Often, as a result of oppression, social media has offered a democratised way of communicating this dialogue. Movement’s such as #metoo are good examples of this. However, not all examples are so extreme.
Consider these examples and what your feelings are about them;
1.) Chrissy Tiegan, famous for her sharp tongue and ‘realistic’ chatter online, was called out following accusations of cyber bullying. Granted, the hateful words she spat at another young women were completely unacceptable and incredibly damaging. What followed, was trial by public opinion, and Chrissy seemingly lost her ability to be a human, a mother, a woman, a person, rather, she felt the full force of the rabble right back at her. It was deafening. Did she deserve this? Do you think the response was proportionate to the alleged crime that she committed?
2.) Gordon Beattie founded UK PR Agency, Beattie Communications 40 years ago. Clients include Tesco + Vue Cinema. In 2020, Gordon was forced to resign from his own company, after posting a ‘tone deaf’ post on LinkedIn, saying that his firm did not hire “blacks, gays or Catholics”.
The post continued by explaining that his company took on talented people regardless of their race, sexual orientation or religion. Whilst the post is clearly misguided, foolish, potentially offensive + tone deaf, is the proportional response that a 40 year career should end in shame and disgrace? Does sentiment count for anything? Whilst ignorance or being out of touch isn’t a defence, should there be more flexibility for people clearly trying to take part in progressive dialogues, even if they get it wrong? Or should he be hung drawn and quartered for his foolish mistake? For a man so clearly experienced in communications, he weaponised the pen, and then misfired spectacularly.
3.) Molly Mae, the Love Island star sparked controversy with the comment "we all have the same 24 hours in the day" on The Diary of a CEO podcast.
Cynics would say the quote was cleverly taken out of context weeks after the Podcast aired, to coincide with Steven Bartlett’s appearance on Dragon’s Den…
Bartlett commented; "Gender issues aside, the standard we hold Molly Mae to as a 22 year-old that's figuring out the world is absolutely outrageous.
"She once said she didn't like Italian food, it trended No.1 all day, was written about in every newspaper and she had to issue a public apology. "
Molly Mae faced serious backlash for her ‘tone deaf’ comments on the Podcast, with many suggesting that she didn’t work hard, that in fact she went on a hugely popular reality television show (Love Island), and walked straight into branding deals.
Does the access Molly had to these deals negate her showing up and doing the work? Does the fact that she joining a huge reality television show mean that she can’t work hard because things were handed to her? Do you think she has created opportunities and capitalised on them? The fame trade off is a significant sacrifice. Why are we so ready to take away success from people because we don’t believe they are deserving of it? Why are we judge and jury? Whether you respect her choice of career or not, it’s difficult to argue that she isn’t doing the best she can with what she has. Does Molly deserved to be dragged through the mud and publicly apologise for making comments about her own work ethic and her own life? Or, should she have piecemeal, watered down opinions so that those who aren’t in the position she is, feel safer about their own set up. Do we want her to have splinters for sitting on the fence for so long?
There were 37 contestants on the Series Molly was on. She didn’t win the series. Nearly three years on from her appearance on the series, Molly has seen her career as an influencer reach new heights, launched her own fake-tan brand and has also become the creative director of PrettyLittleThing.
The self described businesswoman is thought to be worth around £2million, with the PLT deal being worth seven figures.
This was her full quote; “So I understand that we all have different backgrounds and we’re all raised in different ways and we do have different financial situations, but I do think if you want something enough, you can achieve it. It just depends to what lengths you want to go to get where you want to be in the future. And I’ll go to any lengths. I’ve worked my absolute a**e off to get where I am now," she concluded.
In addition to conversations surrounding sustainability, it is increasingly challenging for businesses to know which issues they should have an opinion on. When silence is right, when saying something is mis-judged, and what the right thing to say actually is. Should brands have a political agenda and position? Or does this infringe on employee and customer impartiality? It can be incredibly divisive when working out a business manifesto, particularly when the research suggests that consumers are drawn to cause led brands. Does the business need to reflect the Founders personal position, or should it be separate? It is also very challenging when so many founders start businesses due to their passion for change. This leaves one question: how can we benefit from the social good call-out culture can help achieve, without succumbing to the toxicity and futility that has come to be associated with it?
The New York Times (famously inflammatory on the left), argues that the opposition to call out culture is a tyrannical ruling of the white majority. This leads to a Utilitarian state. There is tension within Utilitarianism — should the majority be proportionally more heard? Is everyone really equal? We don’t see huge amount of evidence in that when we look at the disparity between the way people live, still, oppressed, poor, silenced, abused, marginalised, forgotten. If your chosen gender, out of the 75 recognised options, represents less than 0.5% of the global population, should you have equal output on share of voice?
With this in mind, here are some practical suggestions of how to avoid, or manage, call out culture;
1.) Don’t do anything stupid
2.) Be sensible and clear about statements the business makes that are inflammatory, cultural, political or social
3.) Speak to your team and advisors about your opinions before posting them on social media
4.) Avoid combative situations internally + encourage healthy dialogue
5.) Think very carefully about what you write down permenantly on the internet
6.) Trawl your social media. They are many companies now, many positioned for students + collage applications, who can look through your social profile and tell you about any issues lurking from your past.
7.) Have a good crisis communications strategy in place, in case accusations are made against you.
8.) Be proactive + humble
9.) Creates systems and processes internally that can provide routes for self expression, if your team doesn’t feel comfortable raising their views with you directly.
10.) Consider how subjective many of these issues are. Whilst we must try very hard not to offend, we must try harder to not be offended.
