It helps to assess possible backlash scenarios before challenging entrenched mindsets

I often tell my EU Business School students that there is nothing wrong with challenging set mindsets and that, in fact, I am always fascinated by brands that do so, be they corporate, retail, political, or other forms of brands. The only proviso is that they must first properly study and assess major perception influencers, particularly prevailing socio-cultural, religious, and political mindsets in the communities or markets where they plan to do their launches.

Two of the many examples that I often use to illustrate this emanate from my native South Africa, a country in which, for hundreds of years of colonialism and many decades of apartheid, the nation had been politically divided into various races: White, Indian, Black, and – one that confuses many outsiders to South Africa – Coloured, a racial pigeon hole that was created to accommodate humans who are products of parents from different racial groups. ?

While much progress has been made – but far from enough, and this is the first example – there are still brands that hesitate to produce TV commercials with mixed race families. When I challenged this at a casting session, several years ago, the casting agent responded that “it would be too much of a shock because South Africans are not ready for this.” ?When I challenged her further, suggesting that it was up to the advertising industry to propose this to their clients when developing concepts for commercials, she flatly refused, insisting that it was not up to the industry to do that, as the brand managers from their clients’ businesses were the ones to make such suggestions. It didn’t help much to continue insisting, so I let it go.

The second example I use – in the same field - is that of agencies proposing commercial concepts with same-sex couples. While a bit of progress might also have been made here – although I am struggling to recall seeing a South African TV commercial depicting same sex couple in a family situation, with children – there is much work to be done in this, particularly in a country that boasts to have been ahead of many developed countries when it enshrined the rights of LGBTQI+ people in its 1996 Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sadly, members of these communities, together with mixed-race families, continue to be head-turning spectacles in public places in 2024. This might begin to change if they get increasingly portrayed as acceptable aspects of South Africa’s rich human kaleidoscope in the mass media.

?Challenging stereotypes must be done with a plan

Now, any brand wanting to cross the perception lines underpinned by mixed-race families and same sex couples in a country as complex as South Africa, often described as largely “conservative” (South Africa is a secular state with, unlike during apartheid, no official state religion) would have to understand the socio-cultural, political, and religious perception influencers and do some scenario planning in terms how people would respond. Most South Africans are Christians, but there are practitioners of various forms of other religions, including various forms of African and Christian religious faiths, Muslim, Hindi, Jewish, etc. There are also people who do not follow any religion. I fall in the latter category.????????

Nandos – a chicken fast-food business - is a South African brand that has, over the years, mastered the art of crossing-the-line. It does so with humor, often angering some people and amusing others through the same commercial, while it artfully ensures that its core message is never lost. It has normalized crossing-the-line to the point where this practice of communicating product messaging while also sending out poignant commentary on hot topical issues others dare not touch has come to be seen as part of its corporate culture. It is safe to argue that it even owns this space.

Can Political brands cross the line?

Given the historical complexities of South Africa, especially in so far as race is concerned, any political brand aiming to “cross lines” must do even more work on scenario planning and be prepared for what might be thrown back at it. That brand must work even harder if it is called the Democratic Alliance because of the kind of epithets that get thrown at it almost all the time – deserved or not. Because it is a largely white-led political party in a country where “white” is recorded in history books as having left many festering wounds - through colonialism and apartheid – the DA cannot allow itself the largesse that parties considered to be “black” can. It is guaranteed to get into trouble every time it ventures anywhere near fault lines with racial underpinnings. ?

Although there is nothing illegal – certainly not treasonous, as many claim - about this party having recently used the imagery of a burning South African flag to depict the institutional wracking ball effects of at least two decades of ANC misgovernance and abuse – one just needs to look at the state of country in 2024 - it should have expected a backlash when it did so simply because it is the DA. It seems like it failed to do this.

While I believe that the emotional outrage that has been poured over the flag ad is outrageous, even filled with hypocrisy, I think the DA? EITHER? 1) failed to do some scenario planning of the kind "given who we are and what we often get accused of, what are the different ways in which the public could possibly respond to this ad and, for each scenario, what would be our riposte?" OR it went into this with an "no publicity is bad publicity" attitude, and got exactly what it might have hoped for, massive public and media attention, but almost none of which was complimentary.

In the end, the DA misread the public mood and underestimated the extent to which many South Africans, even those who are not known to support the ANC, would unite against its ad. Many otherwise smart analysts and commentators – as if scripted - joined the anger bandwagon by (deliberately?) ignoring the end of the ad and its message. One even accused the DA of using "apartheid tactics" to get attention. Coming from him, that was a ridiculously disappointing piece of commentary.

The truth few can honestly deny is that SA is socially pained, institutionally and economically damaged, and that it is burning (figuratively). Many communities live with untreated trauma after experiencing extreme violence at themselves or people they know, economic hardships go deep, and much of the fine institutions inherited from apartheid have been destroyed.

High levels of unemployment – particularly youth unemployment – rising violent crime, including gender-based violence, endemic poverty, eroding public trust, rapid rise of citizen reliance on the private security and other service they already pay rates and taxes for government to provide, high levels of arrogance and impunity at political level, are all contributors to the toxic national malaise.

What better way to demonstrate this but through a burning national flag that South Africans must hold hands from across all divides to save? Going by the backlash, the DA was probably wrong to think it would get away with being the one to use such imagery.