The controversies over Trayvon Martin's death (Feb. 26th, 2012) continues to be a hot-topic in the New York Times, this time not just on the faulty manslaughter charges being examined by prosecutors but because of the recent increase in revenues by Skittles candies. The 17-year old African American teenager was shot by neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, while walking through a gated housing community in Sanford, FL. Martin had just come from a nearby convenience store (where he purchased a bag of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea) while on his way to his father's girlfriend's home. Mr. Zimmerman was in his S.U.V. on neighborhood watch when he claims he was forced to shoot Martin out of self-defense and therefore was not charged (until after the trial took place). While the sweeping self-defense law in Florida was once held as the center of debate in this case, the most recent outrages have come from opinions surrounding the increase in Skittles candies and whether or not the increased profits should be going towards a case-related cause. Like the hooded sweatshirt he was wearing, the candy has been transformed into a cultural icon, symbolizing the 'racial injustices' of Martin's youth and innocence and the 'underscores' surrounding his sudden and tragic death.
Several people on social media sites including Facebook, Twitter, etc; feel that Wrigley (distributor of Skittles) should donate money to Trayvon's family or to causes that would "help with racial reconciliation or underprivileged communities" because of the huge increase in sales, according to the NY Times article. Some even feel that people should stop buying Skittles until the company gets move involved in the case & gives in to donating at least some portion of its profits.
Skittles spokeswoman, Jennifer Jackson Luth, would not comment on the impact of Skittles sudden popularity on profits. However crisis management and public relations experts who are watching the Skittles situation unfold say that the company has taken the correct initial stance, since any moves they make could cause backfire. For example, if it does donate money people will criticize them for it not being enough. If it speaks publicly, people will say they are capitalizing on it... Either way it's a very complex and dangerous position for them to be in.
After examining both sides, I feel that Skittles was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and that they should stay out of it/ refuse to comment until they absolutely have to. This social media & icon trend will pass soon, if they can just wait it out long enough for profits to return to their stable and initial revenue levels from before the murder took place. When I saw this article I felt this related to some of the discussions and articles we read about particular trends & surges that have taken place due to racial outbursts. For example in the stories we acted out during the LGBT guest speaker group exercises, many of the crimes committed by government/ prison staff members were committed on racial grounds or motives. In Trayvon's killing, the neighborhood watch patroller thought he "was up to no good" largely because he was an african american male in a high-class neighborhood. There were very few causes indicating this was not the primary motivation behind the initial confrontation- which eventually lead to the shooting by Zimmerman. However the rippling effect on a company like Skittles is what is most interesting in this particular case, since there are so many events & subjects involved here- Ultimately linking a candy company's increase in profits with a racially- motivated manslaughter case.
No comments:
Post a Comment