Turning Uncle Ben into Chairman of the Board
by At a time when we're seeing various institutions acknowledge and apologize for their involvement with the slave trade (the state of Maryland and Brown University are two recent examples), it's sad to see one company so enthusiastically reviving a brand that was built on slave imagery.
The New York Times discusses a new campaign from Uncle Ben's Rice that is attempting to give Ben a makeover:
Uncle Ben, who first appeared in ads in 1946, is being reborn as Ben, an accomplished businessman with an opulent office, a busy schedule, an extensive travel itinerary and a penchant for sharing what the company calls his “grains of wisdom†about rice and life.
Check out the Uncle Ben's web site for a glimpse at the campaign.
Uncle Ben is a perfect example of the Tom caricature. From the excellent Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia web site:
The Tom caricature portrays Black men as faithful, happily submissive servants. The Tom caricature, as with the Mammy Caricature, was born in ante-bellum America in the defense of slavery. How could slavery be wrong, argued its proponents, if Black servants, males (Toms) and females (Mammies) were contented, loyal servants? The Tom is presented as a smiling, wide-eyed, dark skinned server: fieldworker, cook, butler, porter, or waiter. Unlike the Coon, the Tom is portrayed as a dependable worker, eager to serve. Unlike the Brute, the Tom is docile and non-threatening to Whites. The Tom is often old, physically weak, psychologically dependent on Whites for approval.
During the antebellum era, whites would often refer to elderly black slaves as "uncle" or "aunt." It was a way of bestowing some respect without going so far as to treat them as actual equals by calling them "Mr." or "Mrs." This means that the very names of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are directly descended from the culture of slavery.
Let's take a look at the history of how Uncle Ben came to be, shall we? From the Times article:
According to Ms. Kern Foxworth’s book and other reference materials, there was a Ben — no surname survives — who was a Houston rice farmer renowned for the quality of his crops. During World War II, Gordon L. Harwell, a Texas food broker, supplied to the armed forces a special kind of white rice, cooked to preserve the nutrients, under the brand name Converted Rice.
In 1946, Mr. Harwell had dinner with a friend (or business partner) in Chicago (or Houston) and decided that a portrait of the maitre d’hotel of the restaurant, Frank Brown, could represent the brand, which was renamed Uncle Ben’s Converted Rice as it was being introduced to the consumer market.
This story is really the epitome of packaging and selling and profiting from blackness. Basically, they used the likeness of some random black man to represent the real Ben, and went on to make millions and millions of dollars from this brand. And something tells me that neither the maitre d' nor the original Ben ever saw a cent of that fortune. [And by the way, the business unit that produces Uncle Ben's rice is called Masterfoods USA. No comment.]
Of course, Masterfoods USA trotted out their Official Person of Color to demonstrate how un-racist the brand is:
Vincent Howell, president for the food division of the Masterfoods USA unit of Mars, said that because consumers described Uncle Ben as having “a timeless element to him, we didn’t want to significantly change him.â€
“What’s powerful to me is to show an African-American icon in a position of prominence and authority,†Mr. Howell said. “As an African-American, he makes me feel so proud.â€
...So about 18 months ago, the company and agency decided “to reach out to our consumers†and gauge attitudes toward Uncle Ben, Mr. Howell said. There were no negative responses or references to the stereotyped aspects of the character, he said. Rather, the consumers “focused on positive images, quality, warmth, timelessness,†he added, and “the legend of Uncle Ben.â€
That encouraged the idea that “we could bring him to life,†Mr. Howell said, sensitive to “the sorts of concerns that are important to me as an African-American.â€
Barf.
This rebranding campaign is really the epitome of putting lipstick on a pig.
- Uncle Ben is still grinning and wearing a bowtie. There's nothing Chairman of the Board-esque about that image.
- Uncle Ben still has no last name. When's the last time you heard a powerful man referred to by his first name? That's Mr. Gates to you, not Bill.
- He's still Uncle Ben. No matter what fantasies you weave about him being the Chairman of the Board, his very name still comes from the culture of slavery.
Just get rid of the brand altogether. There's nothing worth salvaging here.
Contributing editor Carmen Van Kerckhove hosts the podcast Addicted to Race and blogs at Racialicious, Anti-Racist Parent, and Race Changers.
Posted In
BlogHer Conferences
Conference Special Offers
XML Feed Recent Comments
Last Laugh on post Hot Chicks in Centre Court with a side of Racism. Wimbledon, I am so Disappointed.
"Unattractive"
Williams
Sisters on post Hot Chicks in Centre Court with a side of Racism. Wimbledon, I am so Disappointed.
Williams
Sisters on post Hot Chicks in Centre Court with a side of Racism. Wimbledon, I am so Disappointed.
And Those
"Unattractive"
Williams Girls
Keep Winning on post Hot Chicks in Centre Court with a side of Racism. Wimbledon, I am so Disappointed.
"Unattractive"
Williams Girls
Keep Winning on post Hot Chicks in Centre Court with a side of Racism. Wimbledon, I am so Disappointed.
Event & Media Partners
Comments
Ben doesn't need a last name, this is about
the rice
Hi Carmen,
Often I agree heartily with things you write, but this time I respectfully disagree. I think you're going overboard. Plenty of powerful men are referred to without last names. How about "the Donald" for one. Uncle Ben is not grinning in the photo, you are imagining that. And what if he was? You can't grin and be a chairman of the board? And who says that Chairmen of the board can't wear bowties?
You're imagining that these things are disrespectful because you've already dismissed any attempt by this company to make their brand more sensitive to concerns that some may feel. They are doing this even though their focus groups said they didn't have a negative reaction to the original character. You have decided for every person who buys this product that the brand is insensitive to African Americans, and nothing is going to change your mind.
I happen to buy Uncle Ben's rice all the time. I recently picked it as a "Kalyn's Kitchen Pick" on my blog. I've been buying it for years, and I can tell you it never occurred to me that the image of Uncle Ben was anything but a brand that's been held over for a long time, a remnant of a past when people were truly racist, but certainly not representing anything but the past now.
(By the way, if anyone is interested, the reason I love this product is because it's the lowest-glycemic type of white rice there is, due to the converting process. That makes the rice more nutritious, but also slower to convert to sugar in the body, therefore better for people wanting to eat lower glycemic-index foods.)
There is plenty of true racism in our society and it's great that people like you have the time and energy to speak out against it. But what picture is on the box of Uncle Ben's Rice and whether or not we know Ben's last name are pretty insignificant.
Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen
This isn't about the rice, it's about racist
marketing.
I highly disagree with the poster above.
As an African-American female, I have given exactly 40 seconds of thought to the Uncle Ben's rice situation. The imagery isn't as overt as the images used in other products (like Darkie/Darlie toothpaste), nor does Ben represent the same type of in-your-face stereotype that Aunt Jemima represents.
However, Carmen raises some excellent points that the poster above seems to have completely glossed over.
The poster above writes:
"Plenty of powerful men are referred to without last names. How about "the Donald" for one."
The key difference here is that "The Donald" has a full name - Donald Trump. Uncle Ben is denied a last name, which is rooted in the southern tradition that Carmen makes note of above. For that reason alone, Ben needs a whole name. And why not a title, if we're at it? It's only fitting. Most CEOs ("the Donald" withstanding) are known by full name and title.
The poster also notes:
"Uncle Ben is not grinning in the photo, you are imagining that. And what if he was? You can't grin and be a chairman of the board? And who says that Chairmen of the board can't wear bowties? "
Umm...board chairmen are not normally shuffling negro stereotypes. Uncle Ben is always smiling. It is one of his trademarks - as well as the trademark and justification of a happy slave. Grinning happy domesticated negroes sell products to whites, charmed and enchanted by memories of their own kitchen mammys and uncles. The fact that we are 3 or 4 generations removed from that marketing reality doesn't mean that the history of those types of products has magically evaporated.
Besides, how many corporate moguls do you see with bow ties? Even Col. Sanders (he has a title!) has some kind of floppy neck tie thing going on.
"You're imagining that these things are disrespectful because you've already dismissed any attempt by this company to make their brand more sensitive to concerns that some may feel. They are doing this even though their focus groups said they didn't have a negative reaction to the original character. You have decided for every person who buys this product that the brand is insensitive to African Americans, and nothing is going to change your mind."
Please note, this kind of argument is used to assuage white guilt all the time. We (people of color) are always imagining things that are racist. Mikey Rooney was hilarious in Breakfast at Tiffany's - what are Asian people so upset about? That Bojangles guy is hilarious - he's just making a bayou voice. Why can't you people understand that it isn't all about you?
The condesenion in this post is pretty disgusting.
"I happen to buy Uncle Ben's rice all the time."
As do I. But I don't try to pretend like it isn't a racist statement. I just happen to like eating rice I can make in 90 seconds.
"I recently picked it as a "Kalyn's Kitchen Pick" on my blog. I've been buying it for years, and I can tell you it never occurred to me that the image of Uncle Ben was anything but a brand that's been held over for a long time, a remnant of a past when people were truly racist, but certainly not representing anything but the past now."
Do we have a financial interest in Uncle Ben?
"(By the way, if anyone is interested, the reason I love this product is because it's the lowest-glycemic type of white rice there is, due to the converting process. That makes the rice more nutritious, but also slower to convert to sugar in the body, therefore better for people wanting to eat lower glycemic-index foods.)"
Great - but that still doesn't address the half-ass attempt by this company to be less racist.
"There is plenty of true racism in our society and it's great that people like you have the time and energy to speak out against it. "
So wait - everyone doesn't have the time or energy to speak out against racism? I guess it's just us busy-body people of color who are affected by it. Score one for white privilege.
"But what picture is on the box of Uncle Ben's Rice and whether or not we know Ben's last name are pretty insignificant."
It is significant. If Massafoods (pardon me, Masterfoods) was serious about recrafting Ben's image, they would give his rebranding more serious thought.
If you want to keep eating Uncle Ben's rice, fine. But in this case, Carmen was absolutely right in calling a spade a spade. (Irony intended.)
I Respectfully Disagree
I respect your right to disagree with everything I wrote, but just to make it clear, I don't have any financial interest in Uncle Ben's rice, nor in any of the other products I choose as my "picks." (I also wouldn't even consider eating the 90 second version, which isn't low-glycemic, or even good tasting in my opinion.)
I'm sorry if you found my comment to be condescending, it certainly wasn't intended to be. I was trying to make the point that symbols don't mean the same thing to everyone, which I think your comments certainly prove.
I accept your right to decide what the Uncle Ben's brand symbolizes for you, but it does not symbolize that for me (and many other people, according to the market research.) It's true the symbol for Uncle Ben's rice is a photo of a black man with the title "uncle", and that symbol certainly originated as a racist stereotype. However I believe that significance has now been lost on most consumers who only think of it as a brand of rice.
I also believe that the company deserves some credit for attempting to address concerns such as you and Carmen have about the symbol, which is only a symbol, not a real person (which is why it doesn't matter if he has a last name.)
Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen
It's not about the rice, it's about the ad
campaign
Kalyn, the basic point of my post was that this rebranding campaign does not go far enough in distancing the Uncle Ben brand from its roots in slavery. Masterfoods USA clearly understands that the history of this brand is a racially sensitive topic, hence the orchestrated PR campaign -- there have been several high-profile stories in Ad Age too -- and carefully worded statements from black representatives of the company. And yet they have decided to keep the old image on the box -- an image that evokes a centuries-old stereotype -- and simply upgrade him in some imaginary world to the CEO of some imaginary company. It was a tonedeaf approach.
I get the impression that you took my post as some kind of personal attack on people who buy Uncle Ben's rice, hence your extensive defense of its nutritional content. I didn't express any opinions on the rice itself, or on whether or not people should buy it. My post dealt only with the inadequacy of the rebranding campaign itself.
You may not have meant for your comment to come across as patronizing or dismissive, but that's exactly how it sounded to me when I read it.
I don't know if you've ever seen the excellent post How to Suppress Discussions of Racism by coffeeandink, but it's worth a read. I definitely detected elements of it in your comment, particularly rules 2, 4 and 6:
2. Attack the person, not the argument.
4. Deflect attention away from the specific criticism.
6. Prove your opponent has mistaken some other quality for racism.
You are both missing the point
Carmen, first, I do apologize for the use of the word "imagining" in "You're imagining that these things are disrespectful..." A better choice of words would have been interpreting.
However, you and the previous commenter are still both missing my point, which is that everyone has a different perception of what things mean. We are obviously attaching different meanings to the Uncle Ben's brand. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but you will never win people over to your argument by attacking them when their perception of things is different than yours.
And yes, I do feel attacked, first by the previous commenter and now by you, and I have tried to be respectful in differing with you on this, as I do genuinely respect you as a good writer and someone who has good motives.
You are attaching meanings to my words that I never meant, and using the meanings you've attached as justification for calling me a racist (by implying that my comments are an attempt to suppress discussions of racism, rather than just a different interpretation of a symbol.)
At a minimum, I should be allowed to explain why I like the rice without being accused of trying to deflect attention from your criticism (by you) or of having a monetary stake in the product (by the previous commenter). And I should certainly be allowed to respectfully express an opinion here about how rice is packaged (my emphasis) without being called a racist, being accused of "white privilege," or having my comments called "disgusting."
Now, since it seems that neither of you are able to admit that a point of view that's different than your own could be valid, or at a minimum, not be intended the way you're interpreting it, I think I will remove myself from this discussion.
Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen
Ben There: Dumb, That...
It amazes me when companies' attempts to do right go so wrong. I have never bought Uncle Ben's rice, nor Aunt J's pancake mix or syrup. For the same reasons my father never allowed us to eat at Sambo's. (Which is also making a comeback through "rebranding", by the way.) And the same reasons why I do not support events or potential vacation spots that proudly display the Confederate flag... And the reasons why I have never been able to bring myself to feeling all warm and fuzzy about the movie "Gone With the Wind."
And on and on...
In this day and age of creative advertising, consulting firms, design teams, etc. magically "promoting" this character (who, so far, we never even actually see in his fancy office) to Chairman is the best they could come up with? Unbelievable.
Trotting out a Black executive to say how "proud" he is of the new image and falling back on some focus groups does not change the meanings of this image for me and many, many other people. Images are extremely powerful and enduring. Moreso, even, than real people. If this company cannot understand that, then they certainly do not deserve my dollars. Especially when there are dozens of other brands of rice in the grocery aisle to choose from.
Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast
Just out of curiosity
Just get rid of the brand altogether. There's nothing worth salvaging here.
There are probably hundreds or thousands of people employed in the farming, harvesting, production, shipping, packaging, selling and distributing what has become this global household-name brand. Despite the unsavory parts of what went into the brand creation many years ago, there is now a product with people's livelihoods wrapped up in it -- people of all races.
I think this isn't so simple an issue. Yes, the image of Uncle Ben is demeaning, as is the one of Aunt Jemima. I don't like either of them. But how to unravel a brand that has employees and shareholders attached to it who depend on it for income? Throw out the brand and real people lose jobs.
The company appears to be trying to find some way to salvage their brand and not be offensive at the same time. Apparently they failed. How would you suggest they should have done it differently?
In corporate America, a corporation will always move to protect its assets. Whether it is Ben and Jerry's or Uncle Ben's. What would you suggest is the BEST way to proceed when a company finds it has an asset on its hands that is core to its brand but echoes an unjust past?
Although I absolutely agree 100% that the original circumstances are different, there is a tradition among corporations of updating its name-brand icon - Betty Crocker is an example. She looks more like a Food Network host now than a 1940's housewife. So it should come as no surprise that the company followed in those footsteps. Companies spend literally millions just deciding what shape logo to use.
So I think the problem is deeper, given the breadth of the economic impact of change on so many people -- combined with the sordid history that accompanies the creation of the image in the first place. At what point is an image so problematic that we are willing to lose lots of jobs to discard its associated product?
I am asking these as open questions. I am not assuming an answer. I just think it is a bigger issue than has yet been discussed. What action by the company would you have seen as the "right" action?
~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool
Just Do Better
Mata H, you are right--And this is the whole point for me. How could this company have spent so much money only to come up with this idea?
I am not sure I understand your refocus of the responsibility for changing this image on those of us who continue to be offended. But I will give your question a shot. What would be "right" as far as I am concerned would be for the executives of the company to own up to the racist advertising history that their brand was an integral part of.
I think what you said here is key: "an asset on its hands that is core to its brand but echoes an unjust past." This asset *is* an asset largely *because* it benefitted from--and contributed to--this unjust past.
Many, many companies find ways to keep the product, while changing the imagery *and* often the name. If, as one of the other posters has said, this is a quality rice with high nutritional content, then I am sure MasterFoods can find a way to maintain and even increase its market share without continuing to use Jim Crow era imagery.
Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast
I try to avoid this kind of argument point...
Mata: I'd like to share that I try to avoid arguing for a position by pointing to the fact that people's livelihoods depend on this or that activity, product, service etc.
If the activity, product, service is illegal, unethical, immoral then it's irrelevant information. For example, lots of people's livelihoods are or have been tied up in the slave trade, or the illegal drug trade, or war profiteering, and so on. These are extreme examples, and one that may seem pretty black and white vs. those that would seem more like a gray area to many people. But the principle is the same: if something is wrong no amount of money makes it right.
Now, deciding whether a product, service or activity is illegal, unethical, immoral to begin with? More interesting and more difficult.
To answer your question about what should they have done? Well, companies re-brand, including name changes, all the time. I don't understand why they didn't consider going for an equally big, but more sweeping re-branding effort. I think they could have engendered a lot of good will had they confronted the problems around their branding head-on. And I bet they would have gotten a lot of *free* (and positive) press and publicity had they been right out front with it, to go along with the millions they would have spent on the re-branding anyway.
Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz
to clarify
Elisa -- Honestly, I wasn't arguing for a position or suggesting that the image was in any way OK suggesting stasis. Clearly something had to and has to change.
I was suggesting that to simply 100% walk away from a product was not the answer. That is what I thought I had heard suggested , but I apparently misheard. As I have already said, I do apologize. I just wanted to clarify that I was not in any way advocating the brand's decision then or now, and if I spoke clumsily or in any way taken hurtfully, I apologize.
~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool
brand vs. product
Mata: Oh, I didn't think you were saying the image/branding was OK as is...not at all. I just took the opportunity to wax pedantic about the livelihood argument because I hear it so often when I talk about my veg*nism.
Also, i do honestly think there is a difference between talking about walking away from a product and walking away from a brand...and that's where the mis-communication might lie. In other words: they can still make instant rice, but should they stick with making "Uncle Ben's instant rice?"
No offense taken from your comments, speaking for myself :)
Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz
Ideas for Uncle Ben
Mata,
To your question - I don't think there is a single "right" approach but I can think of a few that would perhaps have been more sensitive to the legacy of the image and the brand.
As you point out, Betty Crocker updated the face of Betty (as they had several times before) to reflect a melding of 75 different real women who use the product and which resulted in a more diverse, multi-ethnic "face" for the icon than previously used. The key here is that the core elements - name and a woman's face - were retained while updating it to reflect America today.
Brawny paper towels ran a contest to find a man to use as a model of a contemporary image to update the 70's mutton-chopped and porn-star mustachioed lumberjack previously used. The model search was designed to also find a man who could represent the "softer" qualities of the "improved" product.
Maytag appliances just re-cast the Maytag man. Again, the name and the essence of the image - man in a uniform - stayed the same.
So, for Uncle Ben, they could update the image to a contemporary man - losing the bow tie for instance I don't think would have really hurt their brand equity. If they wanted to install him in a corporate office why not model him (with a suit and tie) after a real life African-American chairman like Kenneth Cenault, Chair and CEO of American Express?
"The Donald" is imperial whereas "Uncle" Ben is far too diminutive for a Board Chairperson. They could have introduced a last name and phased out the Uncle. Or, give Ben a role where first name only isn't indicative of lack of authority. I'm thinking chef. Many of the most successful chefs are referred to only by their first name; Nobu Matsushita for example has one restaurant named after his last name and an empire of restaurants worldwide in his first name alone. Quite a contrast to the parade of phallic skyscrapers bearing "The Donald's" last name.
I'm generally all for brands tapping into their brand equity versus a yearly parade of changing messages because the new brand team or ad agency wants to put their stamp on the brand. But there is a way to be smart about the process which this one seems to lack. Both as a brand marketer and as a focus group moderator, I've seen that using focus groups to validate the approach you want to take is a common mistake and one that seems to have been taken here. I hope that the Uncle Ben's brand team will take steps to repair the goodwill they've lost with some of their consumers.
thank you
I am not sure I understand your refocus of the responsibility for changing this image on those of us who continue to be offended.
I fear I caused more offense by asking your opinion. If so, I am honestly sorry.
~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool
Ditto
No offense taken here, either. I took your post as asking honest questions. The target of my being offended remains with the executives of Uncle Ben's division and parent company. I hope they are reading all the negative stir their decision has sparked in the blogosphere...
Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast
Frankly Who Gives a Damn?
All I care about is whether or not they mess with the wild rice recipe!!! I just love it with wild game, and they shouldn't change a thing...on the inside of the box.
"Massafoods"...that was a good poke though wasn't it?
Author
Purple Women & Friends Blog
www.PurpleWomen.org