Rap megastar Jay-Z has decided to boycott Cristal champagne. After years of touting the brand in songs and videos, Jay-Z has had a change of heart. Is it because Cristal marketing disproportionately targets African-Americans? Nope. Rather, Jay-Z is upset because a corporate executive apparently dissed Cristal's hip-hop clientele in a recent interview. [Writes Washington Post columnist Jabari Asim in response:]
So that does it. No more bottles of this high-priced bubbly for me. The next time I'm at Plumm, the swank Manhattan nightspot, I'll tell the waiter to fill my flute with Dom P. Rose, a variety Jay-Z is experimenting with these days.
Seriously, though, I'm not mad at Jay-Z for expressing his displeasure. Just as with women and others who have taken offense at his sexist, misogynist lyrics, he has a right to be peeved by what he sees as disrespectful treatment. But there are far bigger alcohol-related problems among the urban population that helps keep his tunes at the top of the charts, and he would probably be quick to agree.
Perhaps, but Jay-Z's actions would seem to suggest otherwise. The rapper once known as Shawn Carter is focusing his ire on those alcohol producers who eschew the black [fail to enthusiastically embrace the hip-hop] market, rather than those who target young black consumers. So much for boycotts as a tool of social change.
UPDATE: I agree that the above post was inartfully worded, so I've revised the post. My point is that Jay-Z seems more concerned about a minor slight than he is at broader social change. That's his right, but it hardly places him above criticism. If, as reported, it was simply the comments to The Economist reproduced below that got Jay-Z's "rhymes in a twist" (in Asim's words), I think it's fair to suggest that Jay-Z has some misplaced priorities.
Just who these ultra-fancy champagnes are aimed at is a slightly sensitive issue. Cristal was originally created exclusively for the Russian tsars. Jean-Claude Rouzaud, who managed the Louis Roederer winery until his retirement earlier this year, once said: “We make our champagne for that 3-5% of consumers who really know wine, and who take the time to taste it correctly.”Rousaud's not embracing Cristal's high hip-hop profile, but it is not as if he said (as one commenter suggested) "we don't want black people consuming our products." Had Rousaud made such explicitly racist comments, it would be a different matter entirely.The reality is rather different, at least in the United States. Today, the most high-profile consumers of Cristal are rap artists, whose taste for swigging bubbly in clubs is less a sign of a refined palate than a passion for a “bling-bling” lifestyle that includes ten-carat diamond studs, chunky gold jewellery, pimped up Caddies and sensuous women. In his number one hit “Hard Knock Life”, Jay-Z raps, “Let’s sip the Cris and get pissy-pissy”. Cristal has been so visible at Mr Combs’s concerts that onlookers have wondered whether the venerable champagne house was sponsoring the event.
In fact, the attitude of the house of Roederer to the unexpected popularity of Cristal among rappers is considerably more circumspect. Frédéric Rouzaud, who took over from his father as managing-director of the winery in January, says that Roederer has observed its association with rap with “curiosity and serenity”. But he does not seem entirely serene. Asked if an association between Cristal and the bling lifestyle could actually hurt the brand, he replies: “That’s a good question, but what can we do? We can’t forbid people from buying it. I’m sure Dom Pérignon or Krug would be delighted to have their business.”
Of course Jay-Z is free to boycott whomever he wishes, but my belief in the use of boycotts to alter marketplace behavior hardly precludes me from criticizing those boycotts that I doubt are warranted. My point, and that of the Jabari Asim column that prompted my post, is that Jay-Z seems to have his priorities out of whack (as do many groups on both left and right that have embraced boycotts in recent years). Asim cites data showing that alcohol advertising is disproportionately targeted at African-American youth and that there are more alcohol references in rap music than in other genres. Further, he reports that the "age-adjusted death rate from alcohol-induced causes for blacks is 10 percent higher than that for the general population." It is not paternalistic to believe that there might be some connection here, and to hope that those with the ability to influence others take note of unwelcome social trends. While I like Jay-Z's music, I would have more respect for his social consciousness were his calls for a boycott motivated by something more substantial than a perceived slight.
A corporate executive of a brand that has benefitted enormously by publicity from black rappers
Jay-Z has a completely legitimate gripe. This is extremely expensive champagne that is most definitely not at the root of black youths' alcohol problems; this is much more analagous to Bentley publicly stating they found the attention of rappers to be less than desirable.
It is absurd of you to imply Jay-Z is wrong here just because there is a (completely separate) issue that he is not addressing here.
Schoolin' the dice like Vinny Babarino
Welcome back, the '94 version of The Mack
As soon as these ladies see me, they don't know how to act
Cause like that, n***a, never twist the cap of malt liquor
Only pop and droppin' Cristal's down my throat, take a swigga
Jay-Z, "In My Lifetime"
http://dianedew.com/drnkstat.htm
Poor baby.
First -- as commenters above have already pointed out -- you completely miss the point of Jay-Z's boycot (to the extent that one person's decision to change his brand preference can accurately be described as a boycott).
Assume you blog on a Dell computer and have made favorable references to Dell products in your posts. If a Dell esecutive, asked about the popularity of Dell products among bloggers, replied sneeringly "well we can't actually stop them from buying them," wouldn't you be inclined to publicly switch allegiences?
Personally, I'd do precisely what the rapper is doing, and tell Crystal to stuff its product up its corporate rectum.
Second -- why should Jay-Z, or anyone else, be excercized about alcohol producers targeting advertizing at the African Americans? Alcohol is a legal product and can be legally advertized. Plenty of alcohol producers' target advertizing at white consumers (check out a Sam Adams or Heiniken advert). Is it because them poor darkies lack impulse control and need protected from themselves? Or that blackie is a bit simple and thus easily swayed by Madison Avenue?
Furthermore, you cite no evidence that alcohol abuse is a particular black youth issue. Yet your post nevertheless assumes that it is. What is the basis for that assumption? That young blacks must have higher rates of alcohol abuse because, well, you know how 'those people' are?
The fact is that, according to a study by the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, African-American youth drink less than whites. 19.8% of African Americans between 12 and 20 consumed alcohol within 30 days of the survey, compared to 31.6% of whites. 10.5% of African-American youth reported "binge" drinking in the preceeding month, compared to 21.7% of whites
So, if Jay-Z should, as you suggest, seek to effectuate meaningful social change, perhaps he should announce a boycott of alcohol producers who advertise their product to white youth. Or perhaps he can do a public service announcement -- how about "friends don't let friends go to lacrosse parties drunk."
Indeed Alder, is it possible that you were in your cups when you wrote this post?
It would explain a lot.
For a funny parody of JW ads, go here
A producer or marketer has every right to try to determine or at least influence how and to whom his product is sold: this is called being fully cognizant of his fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders.
Standing idly by while a notoriously fickle group, possibly unpopular with one's long-time customer base, momentarily embraces one's product is the height of irresponsibility, and may well be actionable.
What did Yogi Berra say about an exclusive restaurant: "It's so popular that nobody goes there anymore."
Remember Chemise Lacoste?
These assumptions are paternalistic, racist and reinforce stereotypes of black inferiority and the need for special protection.
These assumptions are also flat wrong.
The facts are that, despite being exposed to significantly more advertising for alcoholic products, young African-Americans drink less than young whites and are less likely to abuse alcohol than young whites.
It would seem to be more socially beneficial to boycott advertisers who target young white. Yet such a racially specific boycott would be widely greeted with guffaws.
So how does one explain the erronous assumptions and the readiness to approve of paternalistic protections directed towards blacks?
Was that slow enough?
Well then Adler made a terrible point. African-Americans and other groups have used boycott's for all types of reasons and not just the do-gooder/lefty which is simply a silly, small-minded stereotype. Blacks boycotted Tommy Hilfiger and Timberland when there was word of their dislike for the consumption of their products. Blacks have recently in large numbers boycotted Cracker Barrell in the south due to discriminatory treatment.
And this wasn't a private slight, it appears to be very public of a large block of consumers. No, its not the African-American community overall, but personally I feel that Catholics had every legitimate reason to boycott the "Davinci Code" if they felt targeted by the content of the movie.
Then perhaps he should have given one of the innumerable recent examples of right-wing groups boycotting companies for friendly policies towards gays (Disney), ambiguous depictions of Christianity (The Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma, etc.), "witchcraft" (the Harry Potter books), etc., etc. Let's face it, the post is basically just sneering at hip hop and making condescending inferences about Black youth. I don't even really like most hip hop (including Jay-Z) but it was just a stupid post. And I doubt there will be a follow-up condemning the Smiths for encouraging depression and suicide among self-loathing white teenagers.
What's that you say? There's no evidence that young Jews are in need of any such protection?
Precisely.
http://camy.org/research/afam0603/
Your examples pale (sorry) in comparison to those I offered in duration, scale and/or result. I wouldn't put them in the same category and I can imagine why a non-silly, broad-minded guy like you would. Or maybe my silly, small-minded self doesn't read or watch the right news to see how the Tommy Hilfiger and Davinci Code boycotts lead to real political change rather than just nudging commercial actors to maybe behave a bit differently.
Jay-Z, in addition to being a successful musician, is also a business man who owns, in part, a string of clubs and a brand of Vodka. He has an obligation to maximize their value. In terms of building and maintaining a brand around his clubs, avoiding companies that thumb their noses at hip hoppers makes a lot of sense.
You may not have heard: I'm boycotting Abercrombie &Fitch because the CEO is a creep and I'd look silly in their clothes. Do you think that deserves criticism because its not as worthwhile as trying to stop the genocide in Darfur?
1) If I understand properly,it is closely held, and he is the major owner
2) Irrespective of that, it is wise to get off a fashion bandwagon (in this case, rap) a few minutes before everyone else does. If not, you are left with failed attempts to regain luster (remember "Not your father's Oldmobile"?) after it is iretrievably lost. This could be the sort of critical "more than one quarter out" thinking that is in short supply in much of the corporate world.
Do any other influences even exist? Family, friends, media, advertising--is there something I'm missing here?
Excellent point.
Don't you people realize that the lower orders are sheep who need protected?
Hip hop artists extol expensive champaign and, as night follows day, we have Cristal hos, selling their bodies for a mere sip of the stuff and inner city hospitals inundated with Cristal babies suffering hideous withdrawls.
It's important that Libertarianism be limited to educated white folks, who can be trusted with it.
Wait... who were we criticizing again?
In that respect, he is piggy-backing on Cristal's brand and the folks at Cristal have every right to attempt to shoo him away if they deem it adventageous to do so.
My objection is to the racist and paternalistic assumption that African Americans, despite hard evidence to the contrary, need special protection from booze adverts and that such protection is not only not pernicious, but constitutes a "social benefit".
While the entire post is ill-conceived, perhaps the most offensive element is your racist, and unsupported assumption that black youth are more likely than others to abuse alcohol -- an assumption you implicitly adopt by quoting with approval the Asim passage regarding the "far bigger alcohol-related problems among the urban population."
Perhaps intellectual diversions such as this are why you so enthusiastically embraced your anonymous identity at the start of your association with this blog.
Poor work, Jonathan Adler.
So it is much better that he made them implicitly. If you really are that tone deaf, you better stay in academia and away from juries.
And when did Jay-Z claim to be doing this out of his social conscience? I think that he was simply agreeing with Rouzaud, that Dom would be happy to have the business.
There are many possible reasons that a company might not like an association with rap music that are not race-related. I doubt Rouzaud would be equally ambivalent were Cristal promoted in the music and videos of Limp Bizkit or Korn. The comments in the Economist article are a weak basis upon which to base a charge of racism.
As far as I am aware, Jay-Z did not say he was doing this out of social conscience, but he did take the trouble to call for a consumer boycott, implying he thinks that others should feel as he does, so this is not simply a matter of Jay-Z taking his personal business to those companies he personally prefers.
JHA
a novel interpretation of the text "Asked if an association between Cristal and the bling lifestyle could actually hurt the brand, he replies: 'That’s a good question, but what can we do? We can’t forbid people from buying it. I’m sure Dom Pérignon or Krug would be delighted to have their business.'"
He may not have literally said he doesn't want the "bling lifestyle" (whatever that means) to buy Cristal, but I think racism can be inferred.
True. I don't the Cristal executives would be much happier were they to wake up and find their brand closely associated with NASCAR.
However, under that scenerio, were Jeff Gordon to call for a boycott of Cristal, would Adler criticize him on the grounds that a boycott of those advertise liqour to whites would be more "socially beneficial"?
Cristal has explanations other than racism for its statements. Adler, however, has yet to come up with a defensible alternative explanation for his.
I disagree with your assumption that opposition to an association with the "bling liefstyle" is inherently racist. There are quite a few African-American organizations that are extremely critical of the "bling lifestyle" and the portrayals of blacks (and black women especially) in much contemporary rap music. Are they racists too? Again, I do not think the quote supports the charge.
JHA
Maybe that's not the complete quote and he called for a general boycott elsewhere, but it sounds like he really is just altering his personal behavior (though doing so in a public way).
Nice point about Jeff Gordon, Ming.
Adler - If the Cristal exec had made precisely the same statement about Nascar, and then Jeff Gordon said "screw Cristal, we're all drinking Dom now", would we have seen a similar post by you?
If not, why not?
If so, then why didn't we see such a post when Country Music stations called for a boycott of the Dixie Chicks?
There is really no way you can justify this post (pre-edit or post-edit) and I can't believe you're still trying. Admit it, this was a big error in judgment.
As for the Jeff Gordon scenario, I would certianly find such a boycott to be silly. I would find such a boycott particualrly problematic were NASCAR stars openly promoting conspicuous alcohol consumption and ignoring problems like drunken driving. (This may well be occurring, but I don't pay enough attention to NASCAR to know.)
As for Jay-Z's public statement (as reproduced by anon123),
if all Jay-Z did was say he would stop buying or promoiting Cristal, and he has not called on others to do the same, then I agree with Asim that "he has a right to be peeved by what he sees as disrespectful treatment," and it is all no big deal. My post was premised upon the assumption that he was calling for a public boycott.
JHA
What would that qualify as, in the Nascar world? Spraying champaign after a victory? Endorsing a brand of beer? Based on this post and your comments, I bet you'd give them a lot more leeway?
More importantly, you still haven't explained why that makes this situation "more problematic," for Jay-Z or Jeff Gordon. There is nothing hypocritical about celebrating alcoholic excess and refusing to drink a certain brand of alcohol. They are completely unrelated.
How about this hypothetical situation: let's say the CEO of Riedel made a rude comment (potentially motivated by latent racism) about hip hop stars drinking high-end champaign from Riedel glasses. Would a proposed boycott of Riedel glasses be simiarly problematic? If not, please explain the distinction because I don't see it. If so, please explain how closely related to alcohol something has to for your criticism to apply. Why does it have to be related to alcohol at all for it to be "particularly problematic"?
With Jay-Z or the NRA, it's reasonable to criticize either for promoting dangerous behavior. It's just not reasonable to relate that back to the boycott.
Why? If such a statement were to stimulate a positive buying response in their target market, that's just working the free market. You decry the disproportionate harm alcohol does to a given demographic. The elitism in the actual statements, and that in the hypothetical one you propose, might actually help illustrate the bankruptcy of the culture that leads to that disproportionate harm. The 'bling' lifestyle is all about viewing those who are better off because of things like education and deferred gratification in terms of the products they consume, and the misguided belief that to buy what they buy makes one as they are. For the management of Roederer to essentially say, "you can buy all the Cristal you please, but it won't make you one of the elites we make our product for" might make someone stop and think about what WILL make them one.
If one substitues Jeff Gordon for Jay-Z and NASCAR for hip-hop, would Adler have suggested that Gordon devote his energies to the more "socially beneficial" activity of boycotting alcohol producers whose advertisements are directed at the Caucasian market?
I am certain he would not.
The facts are: (1) Alcohol consumption is higher among whites than it is among blacks; (2) NASCAR's fan base is more disproprotionately white than hip-hop's is black, indeed most purchasers of rap music are white; (3) NASCAR drivers are more disproportionately white than rappers are black; and (4) alcohol consumption is almost certainly higher per NASCAR fan than per rap listener (as anyone who has ever waded through the in-field at Talledega can attest).
Given the preceding, the only explanations I can come up with are one or more of the following, Adler: (A) incorrectly assumed blacks are more likely to abuser alcohol than are whites; (B) believes blacks are more susceptible to adverstising than whites and need special protection; (C) believes Jay-Z owes a some extra 'duty to his race' not shared by Jeff Gordon; and/or (D) believes Jay-Z is only capable of addressing blacks and/or black issues.
None of these explanations reflect very well on Adler.
If there is another less pernicious explanation, I am still waiting to hear it. I expect it will be delivered by winged pigs flying over the frozen landscape of hell.
I don't believe A, B, C, or D. I did, however, note evidence that blacks suffer from higher age-adjusted death rates from alcohol-induced causes, and that some alcohol producers disproportionately target black consumers. I also approvingly quoted Asim's comment that there are bigger alcohol-related problems than whether producers of ultra-pricey champagne like being associated with certain aspects of hip hop culture.
I didn't introduce the "socially beneficial" criterion, you did. You'll never find that phrase in my initial post or follow ups. I did, however, note that boycotts were once used as tools of social change, whereas Jay-Z (an artist whose music I like) does not seem motivated by the same impulses. Jay-Z is under no obligation to devote his time and energy to the betterment of a given race or society at large, but if he calls for a consumer boycott -- and I realize there is some question as to whether this was really his intent -- I see nothing wrong with evaluating the relative worth of his efforts.
When Jeff Gordon or some other NASCAR star to claim an anti-NASCAR comment is anti-white racism, and then calls for a boycott as a result, I'll be ready to criticize that as well.
JHA
I think characterizing that as a "perceived slight" is awfully generous to Roederer. It looks a lot more like, "The hell with you guys, take your business somewhere else."
What I find interesting is the grouping of DP with Krug in that statement though. Krug has frequently been reviewed better than Roederer, whereas most respected reviewers regard DP as overpriced bling wine.