OFWs, Happiness, and Coke . [Or Why a Coca-Cola Advert is Short Circuiting My Brain]
alex felipe
Cola Where Will Happiness Strike Next: The OFW Project."
Unfortunately the video cannot be attached on to this note, to watch
the video please go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_9fQEqZCWs
Let's get the obvious over with: This is a FANTASTIC advertisement.
It has a strong emotional pull, high production values, and connects
the product to family, struggle, and how hardship can be overcome by
the simple things, like a Coca-Cola.
Well done Coke. [insert ironic soft clap here]
I hate this ad. I hate it with a passion. And it seems from a casual
viewing of the comments related to this viral video, that I am somehow
virtually alone in thinking this.
In the ad, Coke sends a handful of overseas foreign workers (OFWs)
back to the Phils to reconnect with their families. Its central
message seems to be: Coke cares about the plight of OFWs.
And there for me is the disconnect.
While I appreciate this piece of propaganda for what it is I know that
in reality, instead of helping OFWs, Coca-Cola is actually part of the
problem. Like other multinational capitalistic ventures in the
Philippines its policies are actually facilitating poverty and
migration--in other words, Coke helps create the OFW phenomenon and
therefore the ad is an insult.
Moreover, I know that most viewers also know this to be true. They
may not know the specific details, but they know that multinationals
have NOT been good for the majority of the people in the global south,
including in the Philippines--so why all the love for the ad?
I want to explore this.
Coca-Cola has had a long history in the Philippines, its primary
economic connection is tied to the Philippine sugar industry. Coke
bought Philippine sugar, and so indirectly supported the sugar
haciendas that 'employed' Filipino peasant farmers.
Philippine sugar was one of the main reasons for the American invasion
in 1899. President McKinley was backed by The Sugar Trust, the 6th
largest US corporation which controlled 98% of the sugar refining
interests. The RP economy was set up to supply American sugar needs
with 'locally' produced sugar. Before WWII sugar made up 60% of the
value of all Philippine exports.
At that time the industry supported over one million jobs (total RP
population in 1939, 16 million). Today that number is at best around
the 500,000 mark (population today over 94mil).
The industry has been in decline since "independence" and then further
in the 1960s with the development of the corn syrup (sugar still made
up about 20% of RP exports). The big crash began in the 1980s when
Coke switched from sugar to corn syrup in its US product (it went down
to 7% of RP exports), and it's getting worse: just this past summer
the RP sugar industry proposed a boycott of Coke for bypassing the
Philippine sugar market all together.
"As you may know, our province is very well-known as the sugar bowl of
the Philippines and is very dependent on sugar industry...and
recently, government agencies have found out that Coca-Cola has been
deceiving them by importing millions of kilos of sugar...
intentionally labeled as pre-mix sugar by coca-cola to escape from
sugar tariff. This has been the cause why the sugar economy has been
going down and definitely this will kill not only the planters and
sugar workers, but the whole province as well…" [29 May 2011, Batang
Negros]
The fall of the sugar industry alone (an industry created by the
Americans to serve them and then simply abandoned when it was no
longer useful) has resulted in very clear economic losses for the
Philippines and its people.
Look again at that timeline.
The sugar industry began to fall apart in the 60s and intensified in
the 80s to near collapse today. What else happened in that period?
Those were the decades that gave birth to the RP governments
unofficial Labour Export Policy, a system that went into full gear in
the 80s as a way to prop up the governments budget deficits. A
country that was set up to be an export of raw goods was financially
desperate, so they became an exporter of people. In 1984 around
350,000 OFWs left the country. By 2006 over 1 million were migrant
workers.
To me, this alone should be enough reason for the Filipino people to
have negative feelings towards Coca-Cola and American economic
policies.
But that isn't the only ill brought upon us by the cola company. Coke
has also been bottled in the country since 1912, and their presence
has done nothing to improve the lives of everyday people. The company
is renowned across the global south as notorious for poor work
conditions, and union busting to the point of using terror tactics to
quiet unruly workers trying to organize*. Just ask Ghay Portajada,
who has been without her father Armando (who was president of the Coke
worker's union) since 1987 when he was abducted and never seen
again.
*for more information on Coke's global human rights violations:
http://killercoke.org/
It is a combination of these factors that leads to today’s 4000 OFWs
leaving the Philippines everyday:
The US came to the Philippines to create a cheap supply of raw
materials (eg. sugar) and labour through the hacienda system. By
supporting and enlarging the hacienda system (which is a semi-feudal
system of landlord and serfs) the US created a economy dependent on
cheap exports. This unequal political and economic system also
requires large scale poverty. "Requires," because poverty is
necessary in order for a feudal system, and for cheap labour, to exist
(no one would choose to be a serf if there were better options).
Widespread poverty also helps to drive down the cost of labour for
factories (like Coke's). Violent union busting also helps to keep
costs low. This violence is permissible (and necessary) because both
the companies and the landowning elite who happen to also be the
political class share similar interests. Should the companies be
inconvenienced then the elites lose the source of their money and
power.
So with all this being clear, the question that remains is 'why?'
Why do people (including OFWs themselves) love this advertisement so
much? Why does the clearly negative effect of Coca-Cola not
translate, and instead they attribute a positive feeling to the ad and
the product?
For this we will have to step back and examine the nature of modern
advertising.
Think back to how ads looked in the early 20th century. Back then it
was obvious. There are companies, there are consumers, and the
companies had products that they wanted the people to purchase. So
ads advertised the virtues of the product: its price, its value, its
usefulness.
Coke began with advertising its health value (it was originally
marketed as a medicine), then it advertised its taste and price point,
and eventually this morphed into its advertising a lifestyle, a
culture. The product became detached from what was marketed.
Why?
It all began with a man named Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew.
He saw great value in his uncles studies into human psychology; he saw
its value applied to wartime propaganda, and he rightly realized that
it could be used in peacetime--for the benefit of corporations.
It was a time of great unrest. People were calling for greater
fairness and social equity. Unions were mobilizing strong opposition
to the status quo, and there was a need from the elites for a method
to control the restless lower classes resulting from the industrial
revolution.
Here is a clip from the excellent documentary "The Century Of The
Self" in it they explore Bernays immeasurable contribution to
capitalist propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs
Bernays was the man with the answer. He knew that through use of
Freud's theories you could manipulate thought, that it was possible to
switch needs with desires in the minds of the people.
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it
not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will
without their knowing it?" [Bernays, 'Propaganda']
Out of this would come the political idea of how to control the
masses: satisfying inner selfish desires made people happy and thus
docile. He called this the "engineering of consent."
That thought has been central to this, and to be honest, most Coke
commercials in the Philippines. Watch in these commercials how Coke
links its product to hope, community, and charity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ourx95ng5uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiu9PcEyQ5Y
In these ads Coke is giving and kind, just like the Filipino people.
And yet the reality is vastly different. But we watch these ads and
we feel good, we feel hope, and we attribute it (subconsciously, if
not outright) to Coca-Cola.
On the surface the Coke OFW ad is a feel good tear jerker, dig deeper
and it's an insult to reality, to the people, and the people and
organizations that actually do care about the plight of OFWs. In the
end we feel good, but we are demoralized, and we are belittled.
If we are to look at this ad and honestly hear its message it would
be: Coke cares enough about what you think of them that they mimed
concern for OFWs--because either you, or at least someone you know is
an OFW. And if we think Coke cares, then we will forgive them, or at
the very least, maybe we'll forget their complicity and just go with
it, because everyone else is. And for OFWs it's worse, because who
knows better than an OFW how horrible it is to be separated from
everyone you love?
All the while the reality of the company is bitter and dark.
So as I wrote to open this, "I hate this ad. I hate it with a
passion." It's not because the ad isn't good, I admit it is very well
done. It's because the reality of this ad, this company, and
capitalist system that it serves works against the very thing it's
advertising: decency, justice, and the dignity of people.
Modern ads make us forget our true needs and replaces it with the feel
good emptiness. So I ask you all now: what truly are your needs?
What truly are your desires? And does this ad, does this world system
in which we live, give you any hope of reaching them?
For example, the real desires of most OFWs is NOT to be reunited with
the homeland, with their families--it's that they didn't have to leave
in the first place.
We need to see that Coke and the system it represents is part of the
problem: it helped expand and solidify the hacienda system and the
powerful elite class that results from this semi-feudal system. It
supports the top down relationship with Western powers, taking away
Philippine sovereignty through semi-colonialism/imperialism.
There are people and organizations out there that truly care about the
people. You yourself may be one of those people. They took your
desires and appropriated them for themselves. See it for what it is:
as yet one more insult to add to a long list.
alex felipe
BAYAN-Toronto spokesperson
*BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) is an anti-imperialist, multi-
sectoral alliance struggling for true democracy and sovereignty in the
Philippines.
**alex is also the co-host of Radyo Migrante, every Sunday @ 9pm
(EST). Listen on the radio (105.5fm) or online at www.chry.fm -->
Radyo Migrante FB page link: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Radyo-Migrante/164991080217767?ref=ts