Rowling and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, felt the wrath of cancel culture this year. Rowling was called out over comments she made about the transgender community, while DeGeneres was blamed for perpetuating a toxic workplace culture on the production of her show, The Ellen DeGeneres Show.  Social media has given consumers a voice, and individuals and brands are being held accountable for their actions like never before.  Rewriting the history books When it comes to brands, and FMCG brands in particular, some are paying for past mistakes and a failure to move their marketing with the times.   Mars and Aunt Jemima were among the most high profile brands called out for outdated marketing practices this year, with the latter admitting that its brand origins are based on a racial stereotype. In June, Mars Inc. said that it would be “evolving the visual brand identity” of its Uncle Ben’s brand after listening to consumers, particularly in the Black community. Mars Food general manager Bill Heague said the move is about staying relevant with consumers and making the right change after consultation with consumers and associates, and “not a knee jerk reaction with good intent but potentially the wrong long-term answer”. “The consumer is our boss,” Heague told Inside Retail. “And our brands only survive and thrive as long as we keep them relevant and up to date with our consumers.” Heague explained that the heritage of the Uncle Ben’s brand is one of a Texan farmer by the name of Ben who was known for his product quality and so that’s why his name appears on the pack. “We’ve got brands that in the context of the past, made sense,” he said. “In fact, that was extremely relevant at the time, but as times change around us we have to constantly listen to our consumers and our associates, and we want them to feel proud of the products that they sell as well.” Australian cheese brand Coon also backtracked on its initial stance following accusations of racial insensitivity due its brand name earlier this year. After standing firm at first, Saputo Dairy Australia decided in July to retire the Coon brand name and said it is working on a new name for the product that will still “honour the brand-affinity felt by our valued consumers while aligning with current attitudes and perspectives”. Political associations have also irked the public, with vegan milk brand Oatly criticised over the sale of a stake to Blackstone, a private equity firm led by Stephen Schwartzman, a financial supporter of US President Donald Trump. When influencers get cancelled Influencers are also under more scrutiny than ever with the public quick to call out inflated follower numbers, extreme editing of photos and irresponsible advertising. And with brands so fearful of public backlash, many have been quick to cut ties on a collaboration at the first signs of things turning sour.  Panadol recently found itself under the scrutiny of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in New Zealand following a paid post by social media influencer Simone Anderson centring around the Rethink Care campaign. The Instagram ad was removed after some social media users criticised an apparent link between the painkiller and managing stress.  In the sponsored post, Anderson addressed her own mindfulness journey as well as her tactics to deal with stress, and directed followers to the Panadol website to find out more. According to the Panadol website, the Rethink Care campaign takes a more holistic view of health and pain, encouraging consumers to embrace mindfulness and downtime. Panadol owner GlaxoSmithKline declined to comment and is currently in communication with the ASA. In August, sports brand Fitbit cut ties with Melbourne influencer Beck Lomass after Instagram posts revealed that she breached Stage 4 lockdown restrictions to exercise as part of her collaboration with Fitbit. While Lomas issued an apology and stated that she was taking the pandemic “very seriously”, Fitbit pulled the plug on their partnership.  “Regrettably, a participant breached Victorian Covid-19 restrictions by exercising outside of their home for longer than one hour,” a Fitbit spokesperson said at the time. “This was done at their own discretion and was not a directive from Fitbit. As a result, we have cancelled the challenge and terminated our working relationship with the participant.” In July, the Australian Influencer Marketing Council (AIMCO) implemented a new Code of Practice which details the legal and recommended procedures in influencer marketing campaigns including contract considerations, advertising disclosure requirements and the reporting of metrics. Aaron Brooks, co-founder of influencer marketing agency Vamp, told Inside Retail that influencer marketing contacts vary greatly but that they must be fair to both parties for the industry to thrive and have longevity. “Some platforms will ask influencers to buy products themselves and create the content before committing to any sort of payment. Then of course the brand has the power to accept or reject content, meaning the influencer can be left out of pocket. In other cases, it can be the reverse, with the brand sending out samples with no guarantee of coverage,” Brooks said. “Creators accepted on to our platform will sign general T&Cs which cover the behavioural expectations that the majority of our clients require. But should the brand want to add anything more specific, they can do this at the briefing stage.” There are some pretty obvious things that are off limits generally, Brooks said.  “Usually the no-go areas are nudity, swearing and mentioning competing brands, which I think are pretty standard.” Cancel culture: good or bad? While most would agree that accountability is a good thing, there are some concerns that cancel culture may have gone too far and many marketing managers dread the day they see their brand name trending for the wrong reasons.  Talia Datt, founder and director of digital marketing agency The Social Cliq, told Inside Retail that she believes cancel culture plays a positive and productive role in society by bringing to light deep-set inequalities, but that cancelling without just cause can be extremely harmful. “Cancel culture has the power to do more harm than good if it is used with lack of nuance and context. Proper due diligence is crucial to ensure allegations are true and/or the behaviour has not been since improved upon,” she said.  “Deplatforming and cancelling people or brands who have made efforts to right their previous wrongs are deserving of a chance to improve, which cancel culture can withhold if it is used without proper cause.” What’s a marketer to do? Datt said when consumers turn against your brand, you have no choice but to face the music.  “Embrace it. Do not avoid it or pretend it isn’t there. If your community is calling it out, it likely means there is an opportunity for you to listen, learn and improve upon your messaging and/or operations,” she said.  “Two-way communication is exactly what social media facilitates and encourages, so engage with your audience, apologise for the mistakes made and explain clearly and immediately how you are going to take the feedback on board to implement the necessary changes.” Datt recommends conducting an audit to identify whether the public backlash is justified and to communicate with your audience whatever the outcome is. Showing a more human side to the brand is also useful in helping customers relate better to the company.  “For a more practical approach, I highly recommend assessing your current social impact as a brand and looking for ways to improve it, which can be as simple as partnering with a local NFP for a campaign or getting your staff to volunteer for a day at a charity.  “I also recommend humanising your marketing efforts going forward, so your audience sees your brand as less of a faceless corporation and more of an enterprise which is made up of a diverse range of thinking, feeling human beings. This will make your brand more relatable and your audience will likely be more forgiving as a result.”