Essay 3082

Two letters from Adweek.com, followed by comments from MultiCultClassics…

-----------------------------------

Letters: Debating the Merits of Reviving

The Iconic Uncle Ben

Just saw [Barbara Lippert’s] Critique of the Uncle Ben’s character icon update [“Uncle Ben’s Problem,” April 9] and had to write to applaud your insights. What we see happen frequently with clients is the temptation to contemporize a venerable brand icon by somehow making it witty, hip or trendy. We call it “putting sunglasses on or turning the baseball hat around backwards.”

There are countless examples of classic, timeless characters who have undergone similar makeovers only to end up just feeling wrong to us for all the reasons you outline in your article—the deep emotional resonance these characters have with the audience. By ignoring that, or not working within that story framework, such endeavors feel sure to miss the mark.

There is some clever conceptual thinking in this new Uncle Ben’s campaign to be sure, and perhaps the subsequent advertising will go a step further to unpack some of the heavy baggage Uncle Ben carries as well. For example, how did he get from the rice field to the boardroom? What is the story here? Clearly there is one, and with a lot of emotion surrounding it.

It’s a common reaction for clients to want to avoid the inherent conflict and emotion in some of these highly charged icons (by subtly subtracting poundage, as you say in relation to Aunt Jemima, or removing a kerchief as if we didn’t notice). What marketers often fail to understand is that, in the world of story, conflict is a source of energy. If the conflict is embraced, the story can get a big boost of energy and authenticity. Otherwise, the energy tends to leak out.

Here’s hoping that Uncle Ben gets the respect he deserves, and in a way that realizes his potential as a true, dimensional character.

Amy Hassler
Business Development Manager
Character LLC
Portland, Ore.


Barbara [Lippert] makes a slightly off-based assessment of the use of “Uncle.” Her claim is that Uncle was used because the honor of Mr. was denied. My understanding has been the opposite. Mr. was often a cold and formal term blacks used toward whites, while Uncle referred kinship and familial bonding.

Nick Peterson
Assistant Dean of Admission
Franklin & Marshall College
Lancaster, Pa

-----------------------------------

Nick Peterson makes a slightly off-based assessment of Lippert’s assessment. Peterson is not entirely wrong with this statement: “Mr. was often a cold and formal term blacks used toward whites, while Uncle referred kinship and familial bonding.” Among Blacks, for example, it’s not uncommon to refer to a close family friend as your “Auntie.” But the Uncle Ben context derives from the historical way Whites referred to Blacks.

The Museum of Public Relations in New York presented an online retrospective on Moss H. Kendrix, a public relations pioneer who influenced the ways that Blacks are portrayed through advertising. Here’s a quote from the retrospective regarding Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima:

“Many African Americans object to the term “Uncle” (or “Aunt”) when used in this context, as it was a southern form of address first used with older enslaved peoples, since they were denied use of courtesy titles.”

Here’s another quote on the subject from Wikipedia:

“In years past in the American South, whites commonly referred to elderly black men as ‘uncle,’ though they were not blood relations. The practice was considered patronizing and demeaning and largely has been discontinued.”

Sorry, but you appear to be incorrect, Mr. Peterson.

[Click on the essay title above to view the Moss H. Kendrix retrospective.]