When loyal consumers shun favourite brand

On Monday SheaMoisture, founded in 1991/92 by a trio of Liberians, released advertisements on their hair products. Businesses do so. Especially if valued at $700 million and boasts of hundreds of products, 80 per cent which meet the needs of 2,3 and 4 a,b, c curls.

SheaMoisture is wildly popular, distributed globally including Kenyan stores, online, on social media to Nakumatt Supermarkets. SheaMoisture falls under the Sundial umbrella company, also founded by the trio, making it the largest black-owned beauty company in America. They have a solid reputation.

Till their ads fell flat prompting a backlash on Twitter and Facebook from loyal consumers who swore to boycott what they saw as “whitewashing.” The ads have since been retracted. They featured Caucasian and African-American women.

The idea had been to release ads in batches. The fanbase roared in protest at the sight of the first ad. Accusations of forgetting their core market, customers who were averse to sharing their “black owned business and products” with Caucasians already responsible for so much cultural appropriation to being excluded and pushed out were raised.

The natural hair community was aflame for days vowing to shut down the company by taking their business elsewhere, voting with their feet and money and making strong statements like “We made SheaMoisture. They would not be here without us.” SheaMoisture was spurred into action, over explaining their mistake.

POLITICS OF EXCLUSION

My first instinct was, what a sense of entitlement! Consumers are vocal and savvy, affecting not just the production and manufacturing process by dipping into the subject on ingredients. Their strong brand association and community that identifies with the product is now also a Damocles Sword for businesses.

With so much personality, conscious buyers earn influence with potential to lash out with such fervour it can destroy a company’s bottom line.  At the heart of their reaction the (former?) SheaMoisture community is very specific. Their problem was not that Caucasians were included. It was that they, African Americans, were excluded.

As a collective they are familiar with their power. They know the hair industry is worth over $1 trillion, that women of colour spend the most on hair products, that they have helped plummet relaxer profits by a well-documented 26 per cent that they have grown a collection of niche black-owned hair products not simply in appreciation for having their needs met, but because they felt heard and seen. They can, with an hour’s worth of social media justice, sharpen the contrast between the hair businesses and the needs of their community. They are a fearsome lot.

SheaMoisture’s apology fumbled like a principal terrified of her own students. Brands are allowed to diversify their client base and pivot. It has certainly happened enough times in business, even when done poorly. It is also an unfair presumption by the core demographic to imagine Caucasian women do not, in fact, also love and use SheaMoisture products.

After all, there is a 20 per cent chance their needs are being met. Or is it better to assume their hair does not have issues that need love too? This reaction showed an innate need for approval for kinky/4C hair which begs resolution on a far more personal level.

SheaMoisture may be proof of a business unaware of the intensity of brand ownership it’s consumers have. But the same base quickly fell on the side of distrusting a brand they had known and loved for years.

One that in the past campaigned aggressively for this very same community. Now, can we all take a deep breath?