Timothy Ethan Smith

February 29, 2019

Costume vs. Culture

Andrade, C., Golden, C., Hughes M., & Hyde, E. (2017). Bridgewater

State University. Arthur W. Page Society.

Smith pg. 1
 I. Overview

The client in this case is the Walt Disney Company following the release of a Halloween

outfit based off of the character Maui from Moana. The costume enlisted backlash on Twitter

due to the offensive nature of the costume, particularly the brown-skin sleeves and traditional

Polynesian tattoos. The campaign targeted young children in order to bolster sales for both the

movie and costume. Instead, the campaign affected the Polynesian and Pacific Island

communities. The target publics in this case included:

 Social media users

 Consumers
 The Media

II. Research

Research was used in this campaign to gain insight on the target publics and to determine

how to fix the crisis at hand. The campaign did not use any research that was directly affiliated

with the company. Instead, the campaign focused on paying attention to past and present social

trends and worked to keep the situation from trending. (Andrade, C., Golden, C., Hughes M., &

Hyde, E., 2017)

Secondary research included looking into social trends on Twitter and organizing their

campaign around not drawing attention to the issue. This would be considered formative research

as well because it helped guide the Walt Disney Company in their endeavor in avoiding major

media attention. Due to the uproar on Twitter the mainstream media attempted to use the case as

a scapegoat to push a more prevalent issue, “cultural appropriation.” The company was able to

maintain their public image thanks to the Moana hashtag being used to promote the movie itself

and not focus on the costume mishap.

Smith pg. 2
 In my opinion, I feel that the research could have been fleshed out more. The company relied

heavily on the social platform to not be overrun by angry consumers which in their case, it did

not. This could have proved to be a bigger issue if the hashtag was used to harm the movie

instead of promote it. The research that they did do however, helped to keep a low profile on the

issue like they planned to do, while they issued an apology on their store website and removed

the costume from stores. This is a tricky situation in which it would be hard to do certain

research while maintaining a low-profile, however; I believe that the company should have

conducted research before the release of the costume. A simple form of primary research that

would have been beneficial would be either a survey or a focus group for the costume, according

to Ji (2019). Allowing parents of all race and color to provide input on a culturally distinct

costume.

III. Objectives

The campaign did not have any clearly stated objectives. The only objective that they had

was to maintain public image by monitoring their social media and keeping the Maui costume

incident out of their public perception. This objective was aimed to create a filter between the

company and the costume and they issued an apology on their websites shop rather than any

media outlets. (Andrade, C., Golden, C., Hughes M., & Hyde, E., 2017)

The big problem is that they did not have a clear objective. According to Ji (2019), an

objective is “a specific and measurable statement of what you plan to achieve your goals.” I do

not believe that their objective was specific nor measurable. Simply stated the objective was to

develop a campaign strategy that aimed to keep the visibility of the issue low. (Andrade, C.,

Golden, C., Hughes M., & Hyde, E., 2017) To correct this objective I would put in a particular

Smith pg. 3
way that they aim to achieve their objective and by when. For example, to lower Moana related

news in order to reduce noticeability of the issue over the next two months.

Although their objective statement was not well fleshed out it was still consistent with the

objective findings. Luckily, the issue had not yet formed into a crisis nor dealt with consumer

safety. With the idea to respond to the issue on the organizations website rather than Twitter they

showed the use of their objective and were able to maintain their goal of keeping visibility low.

If they did post their apology on Twitter it could have become a trending topic which would have

quickly alerted a larger audience and could have affected the movie as a result. (Andrade, C.,

Golden, C., Hughes M., & Hyde, E., 2017)

The objective was relative to the target publics as well. Each of the target publics dealt with

the impact of the social media outlet and as a result the issue did not develop further.

IV. Programming

According to Andrade, Golden, Hughes & Hyde (2017), since this was a social media issue

the organization had to act fast in order to not gain unwanted attention. The main strategy put

into place was to keep the visibility of the Maui incident low in order to maintain a positive

public image and not harm movie sales. The tactics that they used in their campaign include

pulling the offending costume from the company’s stores and website, issuing an apology for the

costume, and responding on the company’s official store blog. All of which worked to the

benefit of the company and backed the strategy. (Andrade, C., Golden, C., Hughes M., & Hyde,

E., 2017)

Pulling the costume from stores was a tactic that lowered the chances that users of the

company’s website would come across the costume. Thus, they were able to cut down any more

Smith pg. 4
attention and gathered respect form the affected communities in the process. Following the

removal of the costume the company also released an apology. The apology was important

because it showed that the company acknowledged the communities that were affected and that

they were truly sorry. Since the apology was posted on their website’s store and not their Twitter

page they avoided promoting the issue to a larger audience thus keeping the lower visibility that

they aimed to achieve. Due to their fast thinking and use of tactics the Walt Disney Company

were able to handle the issue while keeping visibility of the issue low.

V. Evaluation

It seemed that there was plenty of evaluation done in order to complete the case effectively.

For instance, they used quantitate evaluation when they recognized that they should continue

with their prior posting formula on their Twitter and Facebook pages. As stated by Andrade,

Golden, Hughes & Hyde (2017), Disney posted only five tweets and four Facebook posts within

21 hour period after the release of the Maui costume. They also measured the Twitter algorithm

in order to determine steps to take on the platform. They were able to see that posting their

apology on Twitter would expose the issue to its five million followers, as well as many other

people who were unaware of the situation. Following this data it was easy to evaluate the impact

that their objectives would have.

I believe that their evaluation was appropriate within its given circumstances. Due to how

fast paced social media can be the company was put in a spot where they had to act quickly.

Considering that the issue arose from social media I believe they were right to evaluate the data

that they used in order to implement their objectives. I would have recommended them to use

focus groups before the release of the product. By simply getting inputs from adults aged 21and

Smith pg. 5
up around the Pacific Islands the Walt Disney Company would have been able to realize that

their product would cause an issue with target audiences.

VI. Stewardship

According to Kelly (2001), stewardship is used to establish the means for continued

communication that will help to preserve their interest and attention to the organization. I believe

that this case fully focused on stewardship. Every objective and tactic that the company followed

helped keep the visibility of the issue low but, in doing so they made a formal apology and

removed the outfit from their stores. I believe that this accounts for three out of four of the

alliterative elements outlined by Kelly (2001). They showed responsibility and reporting by

addressing the issue immediately. They removed the costume from stores and issued a formal

apology on their website. This leads me to believe that they truly meant their apology and that

they did not mean to offend anybody or appropriate any culture. In doing all of this they also

adhered to the aspect of relationship nurturing. They made sure to please their fans and followers

and by doing so they were forgiven.

VII. Critique

All-around I believe that the organization did a good job handling the situation. In a fast

paced environment, such as social media, the problem blew up before they even realized that

it was a problem. This led to quick acting and decisions by their PR team and management

which ultimately led them to regain the trust and approval of their fans that were outraged.

However, I do believe that they should have planned more carefully for the release of the

costume. I find it interesting that not one person within the company department responsible

for the costume seemed concerned that they were releasing a form of cultural appropriation. I

Smith pg. 6
 would have at least sent out a survey to people to determine the success rate of the costume.

On top of that it would have been beneficial for them to hold a focus group next time,

especially when the costume has strong ties towards Polynesian and Pacific Island heritage.

Overall, the execution of the case went well and the team was able to right their wrongs.

References

Andrade, C., Golden, C., Hughes M., & Hyde, E. (2017). Bridgewater State University. Arthur

W. Page Society.

Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In R. L. Heath

(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 279–289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ji, Y. (2019). Lecture Notes.

Smith pg. 7