Advertisement
Advertisement
Protesters chant slogans and hold signs outside the luxury gym Equinox in West Hollywood, California, during a protest against the gym and fitness company SoulCycle, US President Donald Trump and his benefactor Stephen Ross, owner of Equinox and SoulCycle. Photo: AFP
Opinion
Vincenzo La Torre
Vincenzo La Torre

Boycott this, boycott that – where do you draw the line? Progressives and posturing nationalists don’t seem to know

  • Models drop fashion brands perceived to have threatened Chinese sovereignty, while US progressives start a boycott of a Trump-supporting gym owner and developer
  • It’s never been easier to accuse brands of giving offence, but in their selective choice of targets, accusers are being inconsistent, if not hypocritical

The fear of causing offence that has been running rampant in the fashion industry with the recent rise of watchdog culture reached new heights this month when two very different, but in a way quite similar, controversies broke out in the United States and China.

On August 7 news broke that Stephen Ross, chair of the company that owns trendy gyms Equinox and SoulCycle, would be hosting a fundraising dinner for US President Donald Trump.

It didn’t take long for celebrities, including comedian Billy Eichner and model Chrissy Teigen, and fashion designers such as Prabal Gurung, to call for boycotts of those companies.

Gurung and New York-based label Rag & Bone later announced that they would change the locations of their New York Fashion Week shows, which they had planned to hold at The Shed at Hudson Yards, a new arts centre also developed by one of Ross’ company.
Chrissy Teigen's tweet calling for the boycott of Equinox

While taking a stand has become a requirement for brands trying to stay relevant with millennials and younger consumers, there are some questions worth asking.

If people want to strictly adhere to their progressive beliefs and shun brands associated with those who support conservative causes, what about Uber, a company that has received major funding from Saudi Arabia’s wealth fund? Besides the widely publicised human rights violations that Saudi Arabia is known for, its royal family has close ties with Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner.

Stephen Ross, who threw a fundraiser for US President Donald Trump this month that led to protests. Photo: AP

Uber is far from the only company taking Saudi money. Office messaging service Slack, co-working space WeWork and food delivery service DoorDash – brands that have been fully embraced by younger consumers – have all received funding, directly or indirectly, from the Saudi wealth fund.

While Uber has come under fire in the past for its sexist office culture, its connections to Saudi Arabia are not as widely known. One wonders if fashion insiders would be as quick to shun one of their favourite ride-hailing services as they did a company whose owner shares political beliefs that they simply don’t agree with.

How #woke are the Uber users how ignore the Saudi Arabian wealth fund’s investment in the company? Photo: EPA-EFE
As this was unravelling in the US, in China actress Yang Mi and model Liu Wen were among celebrities who distanced themselves from brands (Versace and Coach respectively) that suggested Hong Kong and Taiwan were separate countries on products or their websites.
The actions of Yang and Liu led to a series of apologetic statements from fashion and accessories labels including Givenchy and Swarovski, which immediately updated their websites.

This new-found attention on perceived threats to Chinese sovereignty is down to the current anti-government protests in Hong Kong. But young Chinese internet users had become extremely vocal in calling out brands and celebrities for their supposed wrongdoing long before the recent tensions in Hong Kong.

The cover of Elle Hong Kong’s December 2018 edition. Perceived threats to Chinese sovereignty have received new-found attention because of the protests in Hong Kong.
In November 2018, Dolce & Gabbana faced a backlash over a video depicting a Chinese model struggling to use chopsticks. Calls for a boycott grew after a social media message from one of its founders insulting China was leaked.

Such nationalist posturing puts luxury companies in a tough position.

Aware that China is on its way to becoming the largest luxury market in the world, brands are more than willing to kowtow to its demands, often forgetting about the many human rights issues that the Chinese government is embroiled in. One can’t help wondering if, in the very unlikely scenario that China takes military action against Hong Kong protesters, brands will still keep quiet and let money speak louder than principles.

It’s not only luxury brands that find themselves facing this dilemma. Will publishers such as Hearst, the company behind Elle, Harper’s Bazaar and Esquire, or Condé Nast, the publisher of Vogue and GQ, have to rethink their China strategy? Should Chinese celebrities boycott them because they publish Taiwan and Hong Kong editions of some of their best-known titles? (Post sister company SCMP Hearst publishes the Chinese-language editions of Esquire and the Hong Kong editions of Harper’s Bazaar and Elle.)

Given the current call-out culture and the ease with which campaigns against companies spread via social media, fashion brands, editors and influencers face the constant risk of offending someone, no matter how lightly they tread and how #woke they claim to be.

Vincenzo La Torre is the fashion editor of the Post

Post