Coopers brewery’s PR disaster on marriage equality isn’t a PR win for those fighting for the right, either.
In what looked like a hostage video (or the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard Pistol and Boo video), solemn and stilted Tim and Melanie Cooper read from an autocue about how they have seen the error of their ways and then committed their support to marriage equality. The special Bible Society beers produced would be cancelled. Just three days of public pressure, threats of boycotts and several bars in inner-city areas in Australia taking Coopers off tap had forced them into damage control.
Let’s go back to the beginning …
The Bible Society puts out a video of Liberal MPs Andrew Hastie and Tim Wilson debating marriage equality as part of its 200th anniversary celebrations. Crikey then reports on the video, questioning why MPs would appear in what looked like an ad for Coopers’ light beer brand. The story blows up, with calls to boycott Coopers not because federal MPs appeared to be shilling for light beer on the premises of Parliament House, but because it was a debate on marriage equality. Bars like Sircuit in Melbourne say they will no longer stock Coopers. Coopers puts out an initial release defending the “keeping it light” debate video, but then puts out a second release saying it had no involvement in the video. The release is worded very carefully and doesn’t mention marriage equality at all. The Bible Society says no money changed hands.
And then the second video is released.
The reaction since the video has been either laudatory, condemning Coopers for backflipping, or condemning Coopers for not backflipping quickly enough. And then there are those who say they will still continue to boycott the brand because of its long history of donating to the Liberal Party.
It was a poor PR move by Coopers. Everyone knows that in this day and age it is better for a company to be on the record endorsing marriage equality than being opposed. Attempting to enter the debate as a neutral party was always going to look a little weird, even if you accept that Coopers didn’t have anything to do with the video. Given the company’s previous support for the Adelaide Feast Festival (an LGBTI event) it is bizarre the brand didn’t just point this out in the first place.
But I don’t think Coopers’ support for the Bible Society should be judged too harshly. Personally, I’m not buying what the Bible Society is selling, but I don’t begrudge their existence, and they are not the Australian Christian Lobby. People who don’t want to buy a beer associated with the Bible Society are free to do so, but some of the argument around the boycott appeared to be that just having the debate on marriage equality is enough to boycott a company. Surely it is apparent by now that even though the plebiscite died, the debate is still going to happen.
Those advocating for the change are still going to be pitted against opponents in the weeks and months and — please God no — years ahead. Rodney Croome debated Lyle Shelton on Sky News just a few weeks ago. Australian Marriage Equality’s Tiernan Brady has debated Lyle Shelton multiple times. These are two of the biggest advocates for the change in Australia and they are not afraid of a “civil debate” on the matter.
All the kerfuffle did was give the likes of Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and Rowan Dean ammunition. They have all this week called the LGBTI community “totalitarians” (seemingly misunderstanding the meaning of the word) for it, and brought up that Bill Leak cartoon comparing gay people to Nazis. They might have done this in some other form anyway, but no doubt the campaign didn’t help.
The truth is that debate will continue until the legislation is passed. Yes, it is not fair that it hasn’t happened yet, and yes, it’s yet another sign of the government’s failure to do its job and just pass the damn law change already, but the reality can’t be denied that those opposed to the change aren’t going to go away any time soon. When the legislation is finally introduced there will be yet another inquiry and more speeches in Parliament all saying the things that got people so arced up this week. Surely it is a better use of time to fight for the change rather than to get lost in arguing over the process?
We can all agree that Coopers are more skilled at making beer than at PR.
Now this has been put to rest can Crikey subscribers be permitted to enjoy a well-earned respite from articles on same sex marriage? It is not amongst the more urgent issues facing our nation.
The boycott is ridiculous. Also ridiculous is the sight of three guys who are the most unlikely looking beer drinkers pretending to have chat over a beer, mate.
Weird on so many levels.
Why the …. did Wilson and Porter even sign up for it? They looked about as comfortable as canaries in a cat show.
A bit too Hastie?
This is all so strange… Why did Coopers do it? Why did those calling for a boycott allow themselves to set up? Where did this notion that debate and discussion (about anything!) should be shut down come from? From the Left? Not the one that I thought I belonged to… Actually, it worries me a lot. And it’s not Devine-Bolt-like hyperbole to be nervous, I don’t care what they think – but this intolerance of differing viewpoints and the increasingly shrill authoritarianism of all those Twitter warriors calling for bans and boycotts is leading us somewhere I don’t want to go.
Consumer boycotts are a valid form of protest, whether you like the cause, or not.
For those of us who don’t have taxpayer funded jobs in parliament, who don’t own breweries, or newspapers, cable TV or other means of exercising their ‘right’ to free speech, voting with our dollars is one of the few options available.
Is free speech only for some?
And why is parliament an appropriate place to set an advertise ment for beer?
And wouldn’t a real debate include a gay woman? Or a lefty? Or would that be too much diversity?
This is going to make me sound like the stereotypical dictator that the Bolts, Leaks, Devines, etc. like to pretend everyone to the left of themselves wants to be, but to me this is one of those case where there really is no need or point in having a debate in the first place. I see this as akin to slavery. Not in terms of suffering of course but just purely in terms of doing what is right. There is simply no debate to be had about whether slavery is right or wrong. Likewise there is no point in a same-sex marriage debate that only antagonises people before we finally do what is right.
Open debate is one of those things that has sadly gone missing in recent years in favour of just shouting louder over the top of each other. But there are some things where there simply is no benefit to be gained in a debate and where a debate only creates harm instead.
Agreed 150%, it is offensive to want to debate something that is simply beyond debate….. And there is absolutely no doubt that people opposing equality are bigots, or fools, or both.
I dont oppose marriage equality, but woah! I remember a time (the 70s) when no one wanted to get married, not even straight people, and those who were chained up in those bourgeoisie property rights arrangements were separating in droves! Different times, ok, I know we are all so much more conservative now… And marriage is a “right” which is so, so sacred, debate about it is not even permitted.
You do scare me, Saugoof and Leon. And no doubt most of the old lefties (who can remember the 70s), too…
What I want to talk about is how come MPs can use Parliament House as a setting for an advertisement.
Hear bloody hear.
I’m fine with letting SSM get up if it ever went to a public vote, but this is a conservative issue. My lack of opposition stems from not caring either way what happens to marriage in the short term. In the long term, it’s a dead institution, and good riddance.
Frankly, I just want it to be over so the social-progressives can stop talking about it. The SSM lobby had majority public support, threw away a public vote on the issue, and still cry like they’re under siege. With allies like these, who needs enemies?
There is nothing wrong with debate as such. The problem is that we’ve been having this bloody debate for years and years without anything happening. By now “debate” in this case is used purely as a tactic to delay the inevitable. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing that can be achieved or gained by having this debate dragging on and on.
But what annoys me most about this is that the debate is practically never held by people who are actually affected by it. Tim Wilson is a rare exception here. Mostly it is by people who proclaim to love and defend freedom and yet want to have a say in how others can live their lives.
Count me as one of those, Teddy. Back in the 1960s/1970s some strident know-alls lambasted anyone who engaged in the bourgeois institution of marriage. Now strident know-alls want anyone who disagrees with them about the meaning of Equality to stop talking. It’s politics by fashion, the conformism of the mob. Free debate exposes their idiocy which is presumably why they find it so threatening.
I see. It’s offensive to debate anything that Leon considers “beyond debate”.
When Leon’s ‘Big Book of True Facts That Need Not Ever Be Debated” is published I shall be the first to get it, because I still get confused occasionally. For instance, is it OK to debate if Leon is ever wrong? I’m guessing.. probably not?
You need to bear in mind who was the intended audience: people who are interested in the Bible Society WILL have a higher rate of aversion to SSM. Those people currently control the Liberal Party Parliamentary Party.
There is no value in saying, in a self-righteous fashion, effectively, “You shouldn’t have to have a debate. The issue is decided.” Clearly, for some people, there is an issue and they need to be able to have a civil discussion. If that could result in a toning down of the hysterical level of debate, perhaps it might even bring about a change of the law – an outcome that I take it would be celebrated by SSM advocates, even those who say the debate is over.
I’m so torn by this. I hate the fact that it has given the RW crazy commentators so much (predictable) content, but I also don’t think, as a gay man, that I should have to tolerate those who oppose me simply because of who I am — despite the fact that being who I am does not harm them. Being gay is the colour of my skin. I can’t accept that it is okay for religious or social conservatives to oppose me, and deny me equal rights, because of the colour of my skin. Why should I be expected to respect that people have different views on this issue, when some of those views essentially reject my very existence and right to an equal life?