Fantastic, Entertaining, And Dangerous
Of Coca-Cola's one minute Super Bowl ad (video, below), there are three primary reactions: from cultural conservatives, from cultural progressives, and the right one.
Former Representative Allan West during the game itself blogged "the words went from English to languages I didn’t recognize" and remarked
I am quite sure there may be some who appreciated the commercial, but Coca Cola missed the mark in my opinion. If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing “American the Beautiful” in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come — doggone we are on the road to perdition. This was a truly disturbing commercial for me...
In a nod to Bill O'Reilly, West concluded "what say you?" Also on Sunday, Breitbart's Michael Patrick Leahy commented
As far as the executives at Coca Cola are concerned, however, the United States of America is no longer a nation ruled by the Constitution and American traditions in which English is the language of government. It is not a nation governed in the Anglo-American tradition of liberty. It is instead a nation governed by some all inclusive multi-cultural synthesis of the various forms of government in the world, as expressed by the multiple languages used in the Super Bowl ad to sing a uniquely American hymn that celebrates our heritage.
Fox News' commentator Todd Starnes the following day tweeted "couldn't make out that song they were singing. I only speak English." (Actually, that would be "I speak only English." Be careful when claiming others can't speak English, Todd.) He continued with "so was Coca-Cola saying America is beautiful because new immigrants don't learn to speak English?' and, (thankfully) finally "Coca-Cola is the official soft drink of illegals crossing the border."
And Glenn Beck, apparently no fan of the mosaic metaphor, on Tuesday wrote "Every leader of the European union that tried multiculturalism is now warning America and the rest of the world that tried multiculturalism doesn’t work, you have to assimilate,"
But Stephen Colbert sarcastically referred to the commercial as a "truly nutty ad" and remarked "they were singing America the Beautiful in foreign talk." Similarly, posting on Daily Kos, Michele Wen argued
So you are offended by Coke doing a commercial using America the Beautiful sung in different languages? Because they didn't sing it all in English? Think about that. English. A language imported from England. So if it was sung only in English it would be sung in a foreign language.
They might have added: the ad was poignant, moving, and thoroughly tasteful. The Guardian's Jill Filipovic (who called it "my favorite Super Bowl commercial last night"), notwithstanding an unfortunate generalization about "a racist fly their flag," nailed it on Monday with
Coca-Cola's diversity ad wasn't purposed just to celebrate the reality of a multi-ethnic America. It was to sell soda to rapidly-expanding but vulnerable populations, even if that means contributing to serious health problems, exploiting divides in class and education, and exacerbating racial inequality.
The genius of the Coca-Cola company is that they made the racial aspect of soda marketing work in their favor with this ad. Conservative indignation came immediately, and Twitter exploded with objections to the spot. "We speak ENGLISH here, IDIOTS" pretty much sums up the complaints.
Twitter, of course, is a great democratizer, and it's easy to find some idiot saying just about anything. But right wing politicians and media got on board, too. Former GOP Congressman Allen West called the commercial "truly disturbing", and opined:
If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing American the Beautiful in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come – doggone we are on the road to perdition.
One writer on the conservative website Breitbart.com said Coke used an iconic song to "push multiculturalism down our throats", promoting a scenario in which "the United States of America is no longer a nation ruled by the Constitution and American traditions in which English is the language of government."
It's easy to laugh at conservative bigotry and historical ignorance. The United States has always been a multi-lingual country. English itself was an import from colonizers. Spanish has long been the predominant language in many parts of the United States, and many Spanish-speaking folks became Americans because the borders moved, not because they did. Most Americans today are the descendants of immigrants who certainly did not speak the languages native to the piece of land on which we now reside. And when you see someone get mad at multi-lingualism, it's obvious you're watching a racist fly their flag.
Coca-Cola knew exactly what it was doing with this commercial. It knew it would inflame white conservatives, but, more importantly, it knew the commercial would align Coke with Latinos and other quickly-growing groups in the United States. So Coke expands its market share and promotes its product while endorsing a vision of a diverse, multi-cultural America. What's the harm?
Unfortunately, the harm lands squarely on the bodies of kids and families with few resources. Educated, affluent white Americans are drinking less soda than they were a few years ago, and soft drink makers now rely largely on "heavy users" – those who drink several sodas every day – to keep their businesses booming. Heavy users tend to be in lower-income areas – places New Orleans, Louisiana and Rome, Georgia. Coke is trying to expand that model. Long dominant in Latin America – that region is Coke's second-largest market – the company has been trying to capture the Latino market in the United States through target marketing.
That is, of course, how businesses operate. But Coca-Cola's model depends on consumers who drink significantly more soda than average – a habit that comes with a series of serious health consequences – and on targeting children, who will (ideally) be life-long Coke drinkers.
Expanding populations mean new consumers. American soda companies expanded abroad decades ago, and Coke has been especially aggressive at marketing its products to lower-income consumers who have enough extra cash to spend on a sugary indulgence. A crisis of conscience at his role in expanding Coke into impoverished Brazilian favelas caused one Coca-Cola executive to try and reign in the company's practices; he was fired for his efforts. Coke has long been successful in Mexico, where it operates its largest independent bottling plant. That country is not only the second-highest soda consumer in the world, right behind the United States, but now has the world's highest obesity rates (sinking the US to number two). In response to serious public health issues driven by soda consumption, Mexico recently implemented a plan to tax soda. Soda companies have launched a large-scale offensive against both the tax and any criticisms of soda.
In the United States, efforts at securing more "heavy users" are especially pernicious when directed at Latino communities. One in four Latino households in the US is food insecure, compared to one in 10 white households. Of the top 10 US counties with the highest rates of food insecurity, nine are predominantly Latino. Malnutrition rates aretwice as high among Hispanic children as non-Hispanic children in the United States.
Hispanic children are also more likely to be overweight or obese. Nearly 12% of Hispanic adults have diagnosed diabetes – by comparison, only 7% of non-Hispanic white Americans have diagnosed diabetes. Within Mexican-American and Puerto Rican populations, diabetes rates climb above 13%. African Americans, also target "heavy user" consumers for soda companies, have diabetes rates that hover around 12%. Perhaps most disturbingly, younger Latinos face higher rates of developing diabetes than any other group: Latina girls born in 2000 have a more than 50% chance of developing the disease in their lifetime.
Marketing to low-income and of-color populations works. In one studyfocused on New York City, researchers found that the proportion of African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who drank more than one soda every day was more than twice the proportion of whites. People living in households with income 200% of the poverty line or below were more likely to be regular soda drinkers than people in wealthier households. African-American New Yorkers were more than three times as likely as whites to drink soda frequently; Mexican-Americans were 2.9 times as likely, and Puerto Ricans were 2.4.
It makes sense: Soda is a cheap treat that also provides energy and calories. It's accessible just about anywhere. You can drink it just about anywhere. A low-wage worker needing to fill their belly or a kid looking for something tasty or a mom looking to treat her kids and feed herself on the run don't have to go further than the drive-thru or corner bodega, and doesn't have to invest much, in picking up a soft drink.
But that doesn't mean we should be applauding soda companies, even if their ads tug at our heartstrings and our liberal values. It means consumers should have more affordable options, corporate advertisingof unhealthy food should be regulated more tightly and Americans should be collectively enraged at our obscenely low wages and lack of a comprehensive social safety net – the things that create unhealthy, perverse incentives for consumers. It means we should cast a critical eye when soda companies fly the flag of diversity, when, in fact, their product contributes to stark racial inequalities.
Coke's targeting of Latino and other immigrant populations is about as progressive as RJ Reynolds marketing menthol cigarettes to African-Americans or Phillip Morris hawking Virginia Slims to women – that is, not very. Before we applaud Coke's advertising diversity, we should ask: do we really want Coke to diversify?
Great commercial, overwrought reaction from (many on) the right. But let's not lose sight of the larger issue, and the realization that the Coca-Cola Company is helping no one but itself.