Where Is the Line?
In late September, a colleague in the UK sent a link to an article about the Economist Group canceling an event focused on cancer within its Economist Impact series, due to an outcry about sponsorship affiliations with big tobacco. The article points to Big T not sponsoring its health-related events and that being a long-standing policy. The issue is the unit taking any money from big tobacco. They did the right thing by pulling back, painful as it had to be. There is no such thing as hair-splitting in a scenario like this.
Somewhere, someplace, for something, people are bound to be offended. We get to vote with our dollars, or our feet, and on principle. It’s just harder and harder to get it right these days and I feel for leaders faced with decisions like this.
Two days later I read about Cheetos food coloring making the skin of mice transparent. Turns out Doritos do too.
Does this mean Frito Lay shouldn’t sponsor a conference on food? Or McDonalds, or Chipotle, shouldn’t — especially if it’s about lessons on food safety? What about red-dye #2 or #40 in M&M’s or candy companies in general sponsoring anything about childhood nutrition?
When must we run, at any cost, from any attribution to a ‘category’ that doesn’t belong somewhere in our portfolios.
Should Big Oil sponsor events on sustainability and climate change or new green energy?
There’s literature about alcohol and its carcinogenic properties or the impact it has on obesity, heart health, and so much more, lately. What about them sponsoring something on health? I get the science points directly to tobacco vis a vis cancer. But the science is pointing a lot of directions on these other topics too.
What happens if it’s herbicides or pesticides, and not cigarettes but something else in what we breathe? Do we say Monsanto can’t come to a ‘Big Ag’ conference? Are they too banned from events we produce given controversy with Roundup?
What about cars that burn fossil fuels and Big Auto pulling back from EVs because they are waning in popularity. Should we not have Ford, GM, sponsor our events when we are looking at the future of transportation? And lest we forget plastics… the scourge of our planet. Do we not invite Big Oil or Big Chem to anything having to do with say — cleaning up our oceans too?
And then there is Big Pharma and Big Cosmetics; US products have ingredients the EU won’t dream of having in those sold in their region. Do we stop inviting Estee Lauder, Loreal or Unilever to a fashion or beauty show because we don’t like the ingredients they use or fear they too are harmful? I get these aren’t Big Tobacco companies but there is a lot of big industry (fill in the sector) that one could point to as being awful for our health and wellbeing, our planet, children, or otherwise. I’m dizzy.
Where do we draw the line?
Somewhere someone is getting upset. It’s getting harder and harder to do the right thing. I spoke to a group of leaders this week who look forward to being on boards, investing in start-ups, and getting out of the stress of the day-to-day operating role they’ve been in for so long. I get it.
Many of the leaders we serve produce events. They have media-based models — consumer or b2b or b2 professional. In the U.S. we didn’t catch on to the Economist Group’s decision. It wasn’t well covered here at all. But it points to life getting more and more complicated for those in the sponsorship/lead-gen/advertising business and it’s an important model in our industry. You just never know what’s coming at you