Skip to content
Menu
Hello, and welcome to this month’s Reputation Digest from Fire on the Hill, where we deliver a rundown of the latest stories making waves in the communications sector. This month, Starbucks Korea backtracks on its latest campaign, Elon Musk loses a high-profile lawsuit, and a dark side to a popular reality show comes to light.
South Korea’s president calls for Starbucks boycott
As I’m sure anyone who’s worked in marketing or communications knows very well, cultural context is everything when designing regional campaigns. In May, Starbucks Korea learnt this the hard way.
The coffee company has faced an immense wave of outrage for promoting a line of cups with a campaign linked to an infamous crackdown on a 1980 pro-democracy uprising. So-called ‘Tank Tumblers’ were launched on May 18th, the anniversary of the Gwangju uprising against a military coup, which had a total death toll of over 400. Compounding the controversy, the campaign adopted the slogan “Thwack it on the table,” a phrase evoking a 1987 police claim around the death of student activist Park Jong-Chol.
Public calls for boycotts have been supported by government officials – with even the president weighing in against what he called “profiteers who deny the values of the South Korean community, fundamental human rights and democracy”. Starbucks Korea’s chief executive has been sacked over the campaign and the company headquarters in the US also issued an apology.
But how was such a disastrous campaign allowed to run in the first place? The company’s internal investigation points to a possible answer – an overreliance on artificial intelligence. The employees involved said they had “asked AI for suggestions and that the May 18 anniversary had never even crossed their minds”.
The investigation also found that some of the seven officials who approved the campaign had signed off on it, as a matter of routine, without even opening the attached design file contained in the email.
This is perhaps the clearest demonstration so far of the dangers of using AI without proper review processes and human discretion. AI clearly has the potential for catastrophic effects on a company’s reputation, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this controversy is the first of many.
Musk vs Altman: The ultimate face-off?
A legal case between two of the world’s richest men has unfolded across the headlines this month.
Elon Musk initiated the lawsuit after alleging that Sam Altman violated the terms of a non-profit agreement by moving the ChatGPT developer toward a for-profit structure after Musk contributed $38 million (£28.5 million) in the early days of OpenAI. He claimed that Altman misled him into providing funding, only to later abandon OpenAI’s original non-profit mission of developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.
OpenAI argued that Musk was well aware of the company’s plans to pursue a for-profit structure as early as 2017 and therefore, his case was filed outside the three-year limit for this kind of legal dispute.
Jurors deliberated for just two hours before delivering the verdict that Musk had waited too long to file the lawsuit and dismissing his claims.
The legal case may have been relatively clear-cut (Although Musk seemingly disagrees, having filed an appeal), but the message sent by the lawsuit persists. For many, the entire thing seems to be an attempt from Musk to slow down a competitor and reassert his role in OpenAI’s success.
For me, the case seems strikingly similar to one of those major boxing matches favoured by a certain set of YouTube Stars. A chance for both fighters to flex their muscles, face off against a rival, and above all, a moment to revel in the spotlight.
It’s unlikely that either Altman or Musk will see any long-term reputational damage from the case, as the verdict wasn’t damning on either side. But what it does showcase is a growing trend of technology CEOs becoming public figures in their own right. And once in the limelight, they’ll clearly do anything to stay there.
Why Married at First Sight is facing backlash
Reality TV has always pushed boundaries when it comes to what’s acceptable to show on screen. But it’s what happens when the cameras aren’t rolling that’s dominated the conversation recently.
A new BBC Panorama documentary has investigated the popular show Married at First Sight. The premise of the show is that participants are matched with a potential partner by dating experts, tie the knot, and then find out if they are truly compatible by living in the same home as husband and wife. Three former female contestants were featured in the documentary, with two saying they were raped by their on-screen partners, and a third alleging a non-consensual sex act. All three argued that they felt unsupported on set and that staff failed to respond appropriately and keep them safe.
Channel 4 quickly put out a statement saying it had commissioned an external review of welfare on the show “after being presented with serious allegations of wrongdoing”. However, they failed to remove episodes of the show from streaming platforms until after the allegations went public.
Since the Panorama episode was released, there have been further allegations concerning the welfare provisions on set. Former workers have claimed that senior staff on the show had an “unhealthy” focus on whether cast members were having sex, and even made bets on which couples were most likely to sleep together.
Married at First Sight has been one of Channel 4’s best-performing shows since its launch in 2015, driving significant commercial value through advertising and streaming platform engagement.
UK holiday company Tui has already withdrawn its sponsorship of the show following the controversy. However, it’s clear that the effects will be more than just an economic hit, and have already led to questions about the quality of Channel 4’s vetting processes and wider culture.
