"It's sad to see that brands want to position themselves like that"English 

“It’s sad to see that brands want to position themselves like that”

In an interview with PROPMARK, Mynd CEO Fatima Pisarra talks about brands’ requests for influencers and artists not to take a political stance.

The climate of political-electoral polarization has created pressure in the influencer marketing universe. In recent months, content creators and artists have criticized proposals with restrictive political stance clauses coming from brands and advertising agencies.

Recently it was Luisa Sonza’s turn, managed by Mynd, which manages artists and influencers including Pabllo Vittar, Gil do Vigor, Yuri Marçal, Pequena Lo, Cleo, Ice Blue (Racionais MC’s), Majur, Rincon Sapiência and Babu. Santana:

In the post, the artist talks about brands that have even “refused” to work with professionals with a political stance. In an interview with PROPMARK, the executive director of Mynd, Fatima Pisara, confirms the situation and details what happened in the market.

“Yes, it’s a very routine process,” the executive said in an email interview. “This has been going on for a long time and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down. We think it should be reduced and that brands should encourage people to fight for their cause and take a stand and seek a more respectful and egalitarian society, and not worry about who they vote with,” adds Pisara.

Below are the main parts of the interview.

We’ve followed up with several influencers commenting that they’re getting offers with contract clauses that require them not to take a political or ideological stance. Luisa Sonza recently also posted and quoted about Mynd. How did you follow up and handle this type of situation?
Yes, that’s right. Some contracts come with this type of request. What we’re saying to the influencer is obviously not to accept it because it interferes with someone’s citizenship and right to expression. It is even unconstitutional. What we’re saying is that a brand should hire a person for who they are and what they convey to their followers, regardless of who they vote for. We believe that these types of terms and conditions are not valid and should not be enforced. We are in a country where more and more people are being encouraged to take a stand, especially on issues related to women’s empowerment, racism, homophobia and many other causes that we tell people to embrace. I think this should be another reason for people to embrace, take a stand and take to the streets to demand their rights. So what we are telling people is that they have their position, their attitude, and they are covering it up so that we can exercise the power of citizenship by asserting what they believe is not true.

What is the position of the agency regarding these episodes?
The agency does not position itself directly, as it concerns each person. Mind respects each influencer’s opinion and how they want to do their work. Mynd, as an agency, always maintains civility, respect for others, and freedom of expression from the point of view of not interfering with others. We are a company that values ​​respect and the issue of race and gender so that we can have a better world and live together in the best possible way, with respect and love for others. When it comes to politics, we also exercise our citizenship so that politicians do a better job for the country so that all people can have a better life.

When they say influencers can’t take a political stand, what exactly do brands mean?
When we get a letter saying that a brand doesn’t want people with a political position, it’s usually people who are politically positioned in favor of the Workers’ Party (PT). Why, I don’t know. But usually this does not apply to people who vote for Bolsonaro. We receive these requests as we receive other things, e.g. “I want this person, but I saw that he votes and stands for this party, so I don’t want to hire him anymore. I don’t want to be involved in politics this year.” I think there’s a perception about brands that if they support an influencer who votes for a certain party, then it looks like they’re supporting a certain party. Which, to me as a Mynd, is wrong. You hire influencers for who they are, who they talk to, and how they interact with their followers. To me, you can be an empowered woman, a singer who stands up for women’s empowerment and other important causes like race and gender, and it doesn’t matter who you vote for. But unfortunately there are these pleas for people not to express themselves politically, which is bad because we live in a country where we are increasingly asking the public to take a stand. It’s sad to see brands want to take away this kind of positioning.

Has this process already happened at other times? If so, when and how?
Yes, it’s a pretty simple process. We worked with Gleice, for example, who, right after he left the BBB and said Lula Livre, had several brands asking him not to take a political position or not wanting to hire him for it. This has been going on for a long time and doesn’t seem to go away. We believe that it should be reduced and that brands should encourage people to fight for their cause and take a stand and seek a more respectful and equal society without worrying about who they vote for.

What are the companies or sectors that most require a political-ideological exemption?
The most multinational and international companies care the least. A long time ago, Coca-Cola paid Pabllo Vittar to put him on a soda can. When he did, he received a lot of negative comments and backlash. There were also campaigns by Banco Itaú with Pabllo, Santander with Gil do Vigor and others. Typically, the brands that attract this type of more comprehensive and inclusive communication, regardless of who the influencer votes for, are the most multinational companies. Local brands with only one owner are the most likely to ask people not to engage in political and ideological positions for fear of reprisals. What we’re seeing over time, mostly because we’re working with supposedly “controversial” issues like race and gender, is that brands that take a stand have haters, but they’re on their side. also people who are much more faithful than if. it was an “on the fence” brand that had no haters. If you have a brand that’s on the fence and doesn’t have haters, chances are it doesn’t have a lot of loyal people either. If a brand has haters, its loyalty is also much stronger, with people who fight and fight for it.

When do these provisions occur? Right at the beginning of the conversations or more at the point of hammering? If so, what is the level of burnout you’ve caused with influencers and creatives?Many come from the very beginning. What we often see is that people who are already advocating for supposedly “controversial” issues like race and gender are more likely to be taken up by political defenses because they are already on the other side of people in a strong position. . When you get a type of person who doesn’t have these more activist issues, it’s harder for a brand to acknowledge that they have a political stance. The surveys are varied and at different times, whether at the beginning, middle or end of the campaign.

Some influential figures have already stated that they have had offers (with restrictive placement clauses) at values ​​that exceed what they normally receive. Has this also happened with Mynd influencers?
I never noticed the question of value and it was not mentioned that “if you accept added value, you cannot have a political position”. Usually, the brand asks the person not to take a political stance, regardless of the cost. And we never say. “In order not to have a position, we will charge more money.” I do not know. It never happened to us.

Does Mynd have a count or estimate of how many projects and partnerships it has already lost due to these demands from brands?
First of all, we consider that we won, rather than lost, the fight for a better, more equal and respectful society. So for us it’s a profit and not a loss. But yes, there are countless brands that ask not to work with influencers who have a stance. It is simply a source of income that is not realized, but a matter of freedom of expression, positioning and access, which is very important in a society where we have to fight more and more for respect and equality.

Related posts

Leave a Comment