Jay-Z's Cristal Boycott:

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

Bob Loblaw (www):

So much for boycotts as a tool of social change.
How in the world does this boycott prevent other boycotts from being tools for social change? Are all boycotts required to be tools for social change? Or is it only boycotts called for by black rappers (versus by the Christian Coalition, or Focus on Family, or by mayors of small towns who don't like that McDonalds advertises in Spanish) that must all be tools for social change?

A corporate executive of a brand that has benefitted enormously by publicity from black rappers

"implied that the blingosphere's appetite for the Cristal brand was less than desirable. He said with apparent resignation, 'we can't forbid people from buying it.'"

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.
7.11.2006 12:01am
Adam (mail):
I'm shootin' to Vegas, gamblin' green-o at the casino
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"
7.11.2006 12:23am
Shangui (mail):
Um, it's not like he's complaining that Night Train isn't respecting the urban audience for its fortified wine. Do you really think that $200+ bottles of champagne are big contributors to problems with alchohol for inter-city youth? That's like saying the finest Cuban cigars are partly to blame for teenage smoking. He's pissed off because a supplier of a luxury good that's made a lot of money thanks to hip hop stars is now implying that they're not desirable consumers. Do you think Jay-Z is in the wrong here? Or do you just think it's wrong for him to sing about expensive champagne at all? Are wine and beer off limits as topics for popular music as well because of teen alcoholism? This is not your best post.
7.11.2006 12:57am
Kim Scarborough (mail) (www):
Jonathan/Juan, you usually have good points, but you're completely off-base here. So I guess we should welcome a corporate executive saying "we don't want black people consuming our products", because that indicates they aren't "targeting" them, which is good? That's a really odd position, especially for a contributor to a libertarian blog (at least according to Playboy).
7.11.2006 1:04am
Bailey:
What "black youths' alcohol problems"? It's my understanding that African Americans tend to have less incidence of alcoholism than other ethnic groups.
7.11.2006 1:05am
Patrick McKenzie (mail):
Suprisingly (to my intuition, at any rate), the statistics I have been able to dig up bear Bailey's understanding out:

http://dianedew.com/drnkstat.htm
7.11.2006 1:20am
Lev:

Jay-Z is upset because a corporate executive apparently dissed Cristal's hip-hop clientele in a recent interview.


Poor baby.
7.11.2006 1:21am
Patrick McKenzie (mail):
Incidentally, the Economist article which featured the original "diss" is available online. The whole episode makes much more sense in context.
7.11.2006 1:25am
Left Leaning Volokh Reader:
Private individual swaying market choice; promotion of gun possession; rags to riches entrepeneurship; admiration for jewish communities and success... I would have figured this would be the type of figure that the Volokh bloggers would call one of their own.
7.11.2006 1:31am
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat (mail):
What a load of patronizing, condescending hogs wallop!

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?


This is your blog. This is your blog on booze. Any questions?


It would explain a lot.
7.11.2006 2:04am
Ship Erect (mail) (www):
Which brands of alcohol actually target young black consumers? Virtually all of them seem pretty indifferent to black drinkers of any age, probably for the reasons cited above. AFAIK, only Budweiser even has black people in their advertising.
7.11.2006 2:46am
The Divagator (mail) (www):
Ship Erect, much of the advertising on the NY Subway is directed at blacks and latinos. of those ads, I distinctly remember the Bud ads you referenced. Seems like I remember Captain Morgan as well with adverts featuring non-white mails. As well, I remember some other liquor ads, but the name escapes me. I'm something of a teetotaller, so there are probably many others I've forgotten. BTW, the most distinctive ad campaign for liquor on the subway is probably Johnnie Walker, and those don't feature people at all, though the silhouette of the Edwardian fellow and his walking stick probably doesn't resonate with a non-white audience.

For a funny parody of JW ads, go here
7.11.2006 3:12am
The Divagator (mail) (www):
rather, "non-white males". It's late.
7.11.2006 3:13am
jim fauntroy:
Jeez Louise, judging by the tenor of responses, it seemed for a moment that I'd stumbled onto a historically black blog.

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?
7.11.2006 3:16am
Bob Loblaw (www):
Adler, you've shown your true stripes with this post.
7.11.2006 3:16am
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat (mail):
Jim misses the point entirely. Adler's premise -- that a boycott, designed to limit alcohol advertising directed at young African Americans would be socially beneficial -- assumes two things: (1) that young African-Americans are more susceptible to such advertising and (2) that young African-Americans are more likely to abuse alcohol.

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?
7.11.2006 3:53am
Bob Loblaw (www):

Jeez Louise, judging by the tenor of responses, it seemed for a moment that I'd stumbled onto a historically black blog. A producer or marketer has every right to try to determine or at least influence how and to whom his product is sold.
Fauntroy, I'll type this slowly so that you can understand it. Nobody denies Cristal is allowed to try to influence who its customer base is. The point here is that Adler suggests that Jay-Z - having given huge marketing and publicity to the brand, and then being flipped the bird by said brand - is somehow wrong for boycotting the brand. That is idiotic, and particularly makes no sense among "libertarians" who presumably believe in a free market.

Was that slow enough?
7.11.2006 3:56am
Ship Erect (mail) (www):
Divagator, I too have seen Bud ads in the NYC subway that prominently feature blacks and Latinos; I was thinking of those specifically along with the Bud "True" campaign, which featured the endlessly annoying "Wassup?"
7.11.2006 4:12am
dw (mail):
Imagine you had dinner in a restaurant and, as you exited, overheard the Maitre d' making fun of your manners or clothing, and then associated those manners or clothing with some group (class, race, faith, or profession -- doesn't matter which). Would you bother to go back to that restaurant? Of course not.
7.11.2006 4:52am
Aultimer:
Adler is trying to make the point that "boycott" was formerly the very popular tool of do-gooder/lefty social change advocates (see Nestle = predatory baby formula practices in Africa; multiple S. Africa investors = apartheid; grapes = migrant worker rights; Domino pizza = pro-life owner; Nike = SE Asia sweatshops; Kathy Lee Gifford clothes = SE Asia sweatshops) not that public condemnation of the Cristal brand is somehow wrong. Now the glitterati call for "boycott" from their fanbase to punish private slights, when the target is just a few degrees away from a legitimate social concern. Sheesh.
7.11.2006 9:51am
Derrick (mail):
Adler is trying to make the point that "boycott" was formerly the very popular tool of do-gooder/lefty social change advocates

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.
7.11.2006 11:05am
Shangui (mail):
Adler is trying to make the point that "boycott" was formerly the very popular tool of do-gooder/lefty social change advocates

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.
7.11.2006 11:28am
Conor (mail):
I wait for Adler to admonish Jerry Sienfeld for not urging a boycott of liqour companies targeting Jewish youth.

What's that you say? There's no evidence that young Jews are in need of any such protection?

Precisely.
7.11.2006 12:10pm
Anita:
Despite the rhetoric here that black youth aren't at risk, I can recall quite a few local (attempted) liquor boycotts against companies that target black youth. Some of the issues are summarized here:
http://camy.org/research/afam0603/
7.11.2006 12:40pm
JohnAnnArbor:
Maybe the point here is that celebrities might be better off NOT promoting incredibly expensive items, especially to audiences that cannot reasonably afford them. Think "spinners" (those revolving hubcaps on cars; VERY expensive and promoted by some songs) and "grills" (gold or platinum custom-fit dental covers, also promoted in songs). The markets for both items are generally not the high-income zip codes.
7.11.2006 12:47pm
anon123:
To echo most of the comments: Worst. Post. Ever.
7.11.2006 1:18pm
Aultimer:

Derrick - 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.


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.
7.11.2006 1:25pm
anon123:
Also, as many have pointed out Cristal has an obligation to maximize value for its owners. I.e., that obligation is its priority, lack of social justice notwithstanding.

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.
7.11.2006 1:25pm
anon123:
What's your point Aultimer? Big, social-justice related boycotts are more important? I'm sure Jay-Z would agree with you.

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?
7.11.2006 1:29pm
Toby:

Also, as many have pointed out Cristal has an obligation to maximize value for its owners. I.e., that obligation is its priority, lack of social justice notwithstanding

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.
7.11.2006 1:39pm
Ship Erect (mail) (www):
Thanks for the link, Anita! The data seemed to yield some odd conclusions--such as how African American youths drink less than others, but they're exposed to more alcohol advertising and hip-hop invokes it more than other genres of music! Very strange and interesting. I also liked this:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has noted that, "while many factors influence an underage person's drinking decisions, including among other things parents, peers, and media, there is reason to believe that advertising plays a role."

Do any other influences even exist? Family, friends, media, advertising--is there something I'm missing here?
7.11.2006 1:45pm
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat (mail):

Maybe the point here is that celebrities might be better off NOT promoting incredibly expensive items, especially to audiences that cannot reasonably afford them.


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.
7.11.2006 1:54pm
Steve P. (mail):
Actually, this situation makes me feel sorry for JayZ. Cristal is incredibly expensive at $200-$300 a bottle, not something the majority of rap fans can afford. The company has been in business for over 100 years, I believe, and is often sold out. Basically, the owner just told JayZ that he was free to buy it, but he'd never belong 'in the club'.

Wait... who were we criticizing again?
7.11.2006 2:03pm
MikeD:
Well, I'm no hip-hop fan, but Jeez - this guy provides them with a free celebrity endorsement and they thumb their noses at him? Why, because they want their product to be purchased only by wine experts and not ordinary people who are showing off with conspicuous consumption? I'd bet that most sales of most high end products are for showing-off purposes. Bentleys, for example, are inferior products to Mercedes and are more than double the cost. No one would ever buy them except to show off. The guy from Cristal is a fool. Good for Jay-Z; I would do the same. Oh, and by the way, it is delightful to learn that black youth actually have less of an alcohol problem than white youth; based on experience, I had expected as much.
7.11.2006 2:04pm
Adam (mail):
Again, is there any evidence that Jigga has ever promoted malt liquor? I don't think so. So I have no idea what's all up in Mr. Adler's grill about this.
7.11.2006 2:12pm
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat (mail):
Actually, Jay-Z is not "promoting" Cristal, which he would be foolish to do for free anyway. He is using Cristal as a prop to create an image. He then employs that image to sell his music and other products, which he can make a buck off of.

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".
7.11.2006 2:20pm
gramm:
Your recent "update" does little to remedy the sloppy reasoning and condescending tone of your original post.

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.
7.11.2006 2:21pm
anon123:
new boycott alert: from now on I refuse to read Adler's posts. And to further show my ire I'm going to sic the RIAA on him for posting song lyrics! Those guys will threaten to sue anybody.
7.11.2006 2:40pm
Rational Actor:
Adler:

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.

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.
7.11.2006 2:51pm
Jonathan Adler (mail) (www):
Rational Actor --

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
7.11.2006 3:50pm
josh:
adler

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.
7.11.2006 4:21pm
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat (mail):

There are many possible reasons that a company might not like an association with rap music that are not race-related.


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.
7.11.2006 4:34pm
Jonathan Adler (mail) (www):
Josh --

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
7.11.2006 4:38pm
anon123:
Though Adler (and much of the news media) is saying that hova is calling for a consumer boycott, his actual statement was:


It has come to my attention that the managing director of Cristal, Frederic Rouzaud views the "hip-hop" culture as "unwelcome attention." I view his comments as racist and will no longer support any of his products through any of my various brands including The 40/40 Club nor in my personal life.


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.
7.11.2006 4:40pm
anon123:
Adler, the inferences that can reasonably made from a statement vary by context. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Carter's assessment about its racist overtones he was clearly slighted, and in a public forum. His response was reasonable, and reasonably public. It's not like he's organizing picket lines or calling for Rouzaud to step down.
7.11.2006 4:51pm
Bob Loblaw (www):
I agree about the Jeff Gordon point.

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.
7.11.2006 4:55pm
Jonathan H. Adler (mail) (www):
For the record, I did state that I felt the country music station boycott of the Dixie Chicks was unwarranted, so I don't think there is any basis for asserting a race-based double standard.

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
7.11.2006 6:26pm
anon123:
"I would find such a boycott particualrly problematic were NASCAR stars openly promoting conspicuous alcohol consumption and ignoring problems like drunken driving."

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"?
7.11.2006 8:07pm
anon123:
Here's another one: let's say a boutique European firearms maker takes a dig people in the NRA who love its guns. Kayne Robinson calls for an boycott of its guns. Would you consider that to be particularly problematic because the NRA promotes unsafe gun practices (e.g., by opposing gun locks and other safety measures)?

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.
7.11.2006 8:14pm
dweeb:
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.

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.
7.11.2006 8:14pm
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat (mail):
Adler has avoided the actual issue so many times that I can only conclude that it is a deliberate evasion.

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.
7.11.2006 8:26pm
Jonathan Adler (mail) (www):
Ming --

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
7.11.2006 11:06pm
anon123:
OK. I'm done with this blog. It's one thing to read gay-bashing comments by Clayton Cramer, but when the quality of posts falls to this there are better ways to waste my time. Gotta have those priorities in order, ya know.
7.11.2006 11:48pm
U.Va. 2L (no longer a 1L) (mail):
We can’t forbid people from buying it. I’m sure Dom Pérignon or Krug would be delighted to have their business.

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."
7.12.2006 10:37am
dweeb:
So? MAybe it's time hip hoppers heard a few insults and were told to stop worshipping degeneracy, get an education and make a meaningful contribution to the world.

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.
7.12.2006 6:44pm