Cannes Lions and D&AD, for example, decided to ban Russian agencies, advertisers and delegates from awards shows as a way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian War.
Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in February, a number of companies have paralyzed or left the country, as a form of protest, solidarity and with the argument of not contributing indirectly to the ‘financing’ of the war, which has been leaving a trail of destruction.
In the advertising world, two major festivals have banned advertisers, brands and delegates from Russia. Cannes Lions was the first to exclude the country ruled by Vladimir Putin last week, and this Wednesday (9th), it was the turn of D&AD, which takes place on May 25th and 26th.
However, now, another phenomenon begins to gain visibility, but, unlike the first movement – supported to a large extent -, it generates some discomfort. Russian citizens began to suffer from boycotts of all kinds – postponed film shows, restrictions on Russian writers, artists and filmmakers, and even a restaurant taking stroganoff off the menu.
But the question is: does it make sense to create this “exclusion zone”?
For Luciano de Assis, professor and sociologist at Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie de Campinas (SP), the commotion is “understandable”. It represents a form of solidarity with a people who are fighting a great power that, according to him, is also driven by the narrative campaign of the western media.
As the events are recent, he believes that people over time tend to understand the invasion as an action by the government, not the Russian people. “When people get informed and realize that even the Russian people are victims of an authoritarian government, with one of the most intense forms of social control on the planet, the popular tendency to cancel may have less force”, he says.
The Putin regime is known for its strong censorship in the country, as demonstrated by recent actions that create barriers for people to have access to information about the war, with punishment of up to 15 years in prison for those who use terms such as “war” or “invasion”. ”. In addition, he also uses repression to silence opponents. According to the CIA’s estimate, more than 14,000 people were arrested for protesting the invasion of Ukraine.
In other words, these are initiatives that can weigh even more on those who are vulnerable in the war – even if on the other side – and not on the Russian oligarchies, which hold power. “Anything that points in another direction misses the mark and makes for a convenient smokescreen for the real aggressors,” he explains.
Benjamin Rosenthal, professor at FGV EAESP, says that professionals end up paying a price for the desire that institutions have to participate in the boycott. “Stylists, musicians, even dead people like Tchaikovsky are barred so that art organizers can receive the seal of ‘correct citizen’”, says the specialist in marketing and consumer culture. “But this absurdity should soon change because public opinion does not like to see injustices like these.”
Within the culture of cancellation, which normally deals with people or companies that have done something morally reprehensible, he finds it strange that an entire country is placed in this position. “Putin was the one who made a mistake. Soon Putin is and will be the great canceled one in the western world for many years to come,” he explains.
Creativity Festivals
In the case of festivals, such as Cannes Lions and D&AD, Felipe Bogéa, professor of the Executive MBA in Marketing at ESPM, sees a direct impact on professionals who were already confirmed and aimed at strengthening relationships. “If this continues any longer, it will make the Russian advertising market very isolated and closed in on itself, similar to other areas of the economy,” he says.
Marcos José Zablonsky, public relations and professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUC-PR), also does not welcome the exclusion of Russia from events around the world. “This persecuting attitude takes us back to a dark past in the post-World War II period when Americans persecuted Hollywood producers and authors who had a relationship with socialism or communism,” he points out.
An example cited by the professor is that of Charles Chaplin, who moved from the United States to England, under suspicion of being a communist. “When countries attack literature, art, culture, sport, with the aim of creating an environment of conflict and the formation of an unfavorable public opinion in relation to a people and country, we are reaching an ethical dilemma”, he says.
For ESPM’s Bogéa, these attitudes show the way people are seeking to express their support for Ukraine. “I think the essential question to ask is whether the action itself is going to impact in any way the political target of activism.”
ESPM’s Rosenthal’s understanding is that there are three main criteria that brands need to analyze before adhering to movements like the current one. First, the impact on different audiences, such as government, population and Russian oligarchs; second, in business, such as sales, contracts, and jobs; and, third, the perception of public opinion.
