‘It’s sad to see brands wanting to take this kind of positioning’

In an interview with PROPMARK, Fátima Pissarra, CEO of Mynd, talks about requests from brands for influencers and artists not to take a political position

The climate of political-electoral polarization has created pressure in the influence marketing universe. In recent months, content creators and artists have criticized proposals with restrictive clauses to political positions that come from brands and advertising agencies.

More recently, it was the turn of Luísa Sonza, managed by Mynd, which manages artists and influencers, including Pabllo Vittar, Gil do Vigor, Yuri Marçal, Pequena Lo, Cleo, Ice Blue (Racionais MC’s), Majur, Rincon Sapiência and Babu Santana.

In the post, the artist talks about brands that have even ‘turned down’ jobs with professionals who take a political stand. In an interview with PROPMARK, Fátima Pissara, CEO of Mynd, confirms the situation and gives details of what has been happening in the market.

“Yes, it is a very common process”, says the executive in an interview by email. “This has been happening for a long time and it doesn’t seem to decrease. We believe that it should decrease and that brands should encourage people to fight for their purpose and take a stand and seek a society with more respect and equality, and not worry about with whom they vote”, adds Pissara.

Below are the main excerpts from the interview.

We have followed several influencers commenting that they are receiving proposals with contractual clauses requiring them not to take a political and ideological position. More recently, Luísa Sonza also posted about and quoted Mynd. How have you been following and dealing with this type of situation?
Yes it’s true. Some contracts come with this type of request. What we tell the influencer is, obviously, not to accept it, because it hampers anyone’s citizenship and right to expression. It is even unconstitutional. What we’re talking about is that the brand has to hire the person for who they are and for what they pass on to their followers, regardless of who they vote for. We believe that this type of clause and order is not valid and therefore should not be made. We are in a country where more and more people are encouraged to take a stand, especially on issues related to female empowerment, racism, homophobia and so many other causes that we tell people to embrace. I think this should be one more cause that people embrace, take a stand and go out into the street to demand their rights. So, what we tell people is that they have their position, their posture and cover it so that we can exercise the power of citizenship, claiming what they think is not correct.

What is the agency’s position on these episodes?
The agency does not position itself directly, because it concerns each person. Mynd respects the opinion of each influencer and how he wants to make his work journey. Mynd, as an agency, always preserves citizenship, respect for others and freedom of expression in terms of not interfering with others. We are a company that values ​​respect and the issue of race and gender, so that we can have a better world and live together in the best possible way, with respect and love for others. Regarding politics, we also exercise our citizenship so that politicians do an increasingly better job for the country, so that all people can have a better life.

When they say that influencers cannot take a political stand, what do brands mean specifically?
When we receive an email saying that the brand does not want people who are politically positioned, normally, it is referring to people who are politically positioned in favor of the Workers’ Party (PT). Why, I don’t know. But normally it does not refer to the people who vote for Bolsonaro. We receive these requests, as we have already received other things, such as: “I want this person, but I saw that he votes and stands for this party, so I don’t want to hire him anymore. I don’t want to get involved in politics this year.” I think there is a perception of brands that if they support an influencer who votes for a certain party, consequently, it is as if they are supporting a certain party. Which, for me, as Mynd, is wrong. You hire an influencer for who they are, who they talk to, and how they communicate with their followers. To me, you can be an empowered woman, a singer who champions female empowerment and other important causes like race and gender, and it doesn’t matter who you vote for. But, unfortunately, there are these requests for people not to express themselves politically, which is bad since we live in a country where we increasingly ask society to take a stand. It’s sad to see brands wanting to take away that kind of positioning.

Has this process already happened at other times? If yes, when and how?
Yes, it’s a pretty straightforward process. We worked with Gleice, for example, which, shortly after she left the BBB and said “Lula Livre”, had several brands asking her not to take a political position or that they didn’t want to hire her for that. This has been going on for a long time and it doesn’t seem to go away. We believe that it should decrease and that brands should encourage people to fight for their purpose and take a stand and seek a society with more respect and equality, not worrying about who they vote for.

What are the companies or segments that most demand a political-ideological exemption?
The most multinational and international companies are the ones that care the least. Long ago, Coca-Cola paid for putting Pabllo Vittar in a soda can. When she did so, she received a lot of negative comments and name-calling. There were also campaigns by Banco Itaú with Pabllo, by Santander with Gil do Vigor, among others. Typically, the brands that pull this kind of more comprehensive and inclusive communication, regardless of who the influencer votes for, are the most multinational companies. Local brands, with only one owner, are the ones that most ask people not to take a political and ideological position, because they are afraid of the reprisal they may suffer. What we see over time, mainly because we work with supposedly “controversial” issues, such as race and gender, is that the brands that take a stand do have haters, but they also have people by their side who are much more loyal than if it were a brand “on the fence” and that had no hater. If you have a brand that is on the fence and doesn’t have a hater, it most likely doesn’t have very loyal people either. If a brand has a hater, its loyalty part is also much stronger, with people who fight and fight for it.

When do these clauses arise? Right at the beginning of conversations or more at the time of hitting the hammer? If at the end, what is the level of weariness that you have generated with influencers and creators?Many come at the very beginning. What we often see is that people who are already defenders of supposedly “controversial” issues, such as race and gender, are more common to be accepted with political defenses, because they are already on the other side of the people who have a strong positioning. When you get a type of person who doesn’t have these more activist issues, it’s harder for the brand to accept that they have a political stance. Requests are diverse and at different times, whether at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of a campaign.

Some influencers have already stated that they had proposals (with restrictive clauses on placements) with values ​​above what they usually receive. Has this also happened with Mynd influencers?
I never noticed the issue of value and it was never mentioned that “if you accept an extra value, you cannot take a political stand”. Usually, the brand asks the person not to take a political position, regardless of the value. And we never say: “In order not to take a stand, we will charge more”. I do not know. With us, it never happened.

Does Mynd have a calculation or estimate of how many projects and partnerships it has already lost due to these demands from brands?
First, we do not consider that we have lost, but that we have won in the struggle for a better, more egalitarian and respectful society. So for us, it’s a gain and not a loss. But yes, there are countless brands that ask not to work with influencers who take a stand. It is a direct source of income that is not realized, but it is a matter of freedom of expression, positioning and access, which is very important in a society in which we must increasingly fight for respect and equality.