We have seen government interventions when beers take on brand characters like Santa or the Easter Bunny. People throw up their hands in a combination of libertarian outrage and laughter. But what happens when the images are more directly hurtful even if the message presented is quite dislocated from that hurt?
In her complaint, Ero noted that she was born in Nigeria, where people with albinism are often targeted for ritualistic murder. The threat of violent persecution was part of the reason she and her family fled to Canada when she was a teenager. Earls defends 'Albino' branding Mark Barry, vice-president of human resources with Earls Restaurants, issued a statement to media that said Earls created and named its house beer "Albino Rhino" 25 years ago, and in no way meant to discriminate or offend. "The name was chosen because it was fun and whimsical in sound and denoted something rare and special – we felt proud to have such a beautiful animal, the white rhino, representing our brand," Barry said.
It's a very interesting question. It does no good for you to suggest the complaint is groundless, the sign of society's fall or complain any other way about the process. It is what it is. It is not your home jurisdiction and certainly not your life. What it is, rather, is a conflict between a very interesting rhyme, perhaps a bit of slang but otherwise fairly innocuous brand. It is hardly played up on the Earls menu. It's also the name of a dry cleaning shop elsewhere in BC, too. It's also the name of a small web design firm but, then again, what isn't.
Interestingly, the use of "albino" by the same restaurant chain has been complained about before - only it was last year and in relation to its chicken wings dinner. But it was brought by folk who are involved with a charity that takes them "to Tanzania several times a year to help people with albinism who are outcast and attacked for their body parts used in folk medicine." Not small stuff. So, at what point does something that is such a small part of overall branding as "albino" is to this chain become of so diminished value that the harsh message is sends to a few should take precedence? I suppose that is the hard question that makes having a hearing worthwhile.
Comments
dave - March 27, 2012 11:23 AM
Whatever the cost it is to replace the albino branding (from the article there was a glass, but there might be more, I've never been to an Earls) is the point of when it takes precedence. If it would cost $10,000 to replace the branding, Earls would need to loose the equivalent or more in paying customers for them to act.
Alan - March 27, 2012 1:06 PM
There are other costs. Reputational risk. Damages awarded against them through a hearing. Legal costs.
dave - March 27, 2012 3:08 PM
I was lumping reputational in with lost customer, but the legal/damages would need to be factored in.
Along with replacing the branding would be the associated cost of "educating the consumer" (or whatever the marketing people call it) that the new replacement is the same as the old thing (actually marketers would probably say it is better, even if it was the same).
Is "albino" a brand of beer or just the name of one beer at Earls?
Alan - March 27, 2012 4:16 PM
Looks like just one to me.
Ben - March 28, 2012 8:58 AM
Okay, so help me understand this...I know that there are "hate speech" laws in Canada, but do they actually usurp the right of free speech? Is it really illegal to offend someone in Canada? I don't think one has to be libertarian to feel upset by this; one only has to have some sense of history. However well intentioned, it is a very dangerous thing to allow the government to regulate speech in this way.
Alan - March 28, 2012 1:51 PM
I think what we would say, Ben, is that it is a balanced and not an absolute right. In the core of our constitution we have this section 7 thing that is not in the US constitution.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
As a result, everything that is a government oversight subject matter can be brought into this sort of balancing of rights. Because freedom of speech carries no trump card anywhere no matter what people think.
So, if freedom of speech (not yet taking in to account a company can't "speak" as a human can) is a liberty, that liberty can be constrained "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
We do have hate speech laws but I think this would not be directly about that. It is more in line with perpetrating a falsehood even if not intentional. We do not have many place names with forms of racial slur in them any more and I suspect that a restaurant would not be able to use brand names that slur people of the certain cultures. Similarly, we are not prone to using words around classes of disability as adjectives used in branding.
But is it a human right to be free from this or is it good manners and not a legal issue? An interesting case and, frankly, an interesting opportunity for the business to change a small bit of its branding now that the offense has been identified.
Knut - March 29, 2012 9:09 AM
I would say it's a matter of good manners.
If they changed it to White Rhino, would it still be offensive?