A Tale of Two [Controversial] Brands

The politicization of companies has become a new phenomenon in recent years. CEOs would be probed by websites and blogs about who they donated to, what their political affiliations are, things they said that were considered controversial, controversial brands, etc. In my experience, people became divided over this matter. Almost every industry experienced this phenomenon, and still does today. If you are reading this right now, more likely than not the Washington Redskins comes to mind. Earlier in the year the football organization came under intense scrutiny around the time of the Donald Sterling racism scandal (the Redskins name was criticized for a number of years prior). Many felt the name was racist and derogatory toward Native Americans. Politicians spoke out against the name. Religious leaders vowed to boycott Redskins games. But what about the fans, more importantly the consumers who have the choice to buy Redskins tickets and merchandise? What are they to do? To provide context for my solution that I will propose later on, we need to go back in time to 2012 when Chick-Fil-A was under fire by equal rights groups due to their CEO, Dan Cathy, donating to anti-gay marriage groups.

In the summer of 2012, some public city officials expressed their displeasure of Dan Cathy looking to open restaurants in their cities. While many people protested outside Chick-Fil-A establishments, Mayor Menino of Boston and Rahm Emanuel of Chicago both threatened to block any Chick-Fil-A restaurant from being built. To the protesters’ credit, they decided to vote with their wallets and boycott Chick-Fil-A in light of what they felt were transgressions against equality for homosexuals. No city or state government action was taken and no federal laws were passed; just the consumer, their wallet, and an establishment that would not see any of their money. In my opinion, this is what consumers ought to do (if they choose so) if they have an issue with the Redskins name. I would argue that the wrong course of action is for a gaggle of politicians pontificating on the matter and for federal courts to take away the trademark rights of the Redskins. The core of this problem from a business standpoint is an issue of branding. Without a brand that is respected by the consumer, it suffers unto itself. Whether or not the Redskins brand will meet its demise in the future, I am not sure. 

Regardless, I say let the free-market “fix” whatever problems there are by allowing consumers to not spend their money at an establishment they feel does not resonate with their beliefs. If this is what happens with the Washington Redskins, the owners may either change the name or close up shop. As Eddie Murphy so candidly stated in the film Trading Places, “You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people.”