Farewell, James Marion Sims … And Hello, Kim Jong-un

When is it appropriate for us to engage in a public commemoration? Most would consider doing so when the honoree is a person, an event, or an idea that makes a permanent impact on society.

For instance, the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC memorializes a suitable person. Local towns’ fireworks displays on Independence Day are worthy events. And the Statue of Liberty, in New York Harbor, is an exemplar of an appropriate idea.

But there are times when the progression of history modifies our perceptions about people, places, and ideas. When that occurs, permanent commemorations may become socially awkward, and may even be removed from view.

Consider, for example, last month’s decision by the City of New York to remove a statue of Dr. James Marion Sims from Central Park. The physician had been memorialized as the father of modern gynecology.

But there was a dark side to his fame. Prior to the American Civil War, Dr. Sims perfected his surgical skills by experimenting on human slaves without using anesthesia. In response to public protests, government officials in New York City decided to move the statue to his gravesite, and to present it in historical context there.

When the statue was first erected in the 1890s, Dr. Sims’ honorees could not anticipate the day when public opinion turned against his legacy. In other situations, though, the obsolescence of a commemoration is relatively foreseeable.

For instance, consider the commemorative coin that the White House of the United States recently issued in advance of a scheduled meeting between the American President Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. It portrays the two men in a head-to-head pose, and even refers to the latter as Supreme Leader.

Some commemorations, like the Sims statue, survive for more than a century. But the memorial coin immediately became a relic as soon as President Trump cancelled the meeting.

From large statues to small coins, our memorials are designed to remain in place forever. Nevertheless, their continuing presence is subject to changes in public opinion and the tides of history.

If Corporations Are People, Why Can’t Monkeys Be People?

It’s the Memorial Day weekend! As always, the holiday launches the summer vacation season in the United States.

It also marks the start of a heavy traffic period throughout America’s national park system. Throngs of citizens will drive their vehicles into forests, beaches, and other natural venues to enjoy the natural environment. And park rangers will struggle to protect the natural creatures from the massive invasive impact of tourists who come to visit them.

Earlier this year, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) explored an innovative legal strategy to protect one such creature. It sued in an American court to protect the rights of a macaque (i.e. a monkey) named Naruto to own his own image.

Why was that approach so innovative? PETA claimed that Naruto possesses rights that are normally attributable to humans. It then proposed to appoint itself to serve as the “Next Friend,” or legal guardian, of the animal.

PETA lost the legal case. But might it consider filing an appeal? After all, non-human entities have been granted various human rights in the United States.

No less a figure than Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, for instance, once created quite a stir by addressing the question of non-human rights. His declaration that “corporations are people, my friend,” was enthusiastically supported by his political allies and roundly denounced by his foes.

But if a legal business structure can be granted certain human rights, why not an intelligent animal? After all, humans and monkeys are both natural entities that are born of the Earth. We can hardly say as much about corporations!

This might be worth pondering as you enjoy the Great Outdoors during your Memorial Day travels. If you disrespect Mother Nature, its “Next Friend” may sue you!

Campbell Soup Failed To Attract Healthy Consumers. Was Its Strategy Doomed From The Start?

Denise Morrison, the Chief Executive Officer of the Campbell Soup Company, suddenly and unexpectedly resigned yesterday. Why did she do it?

Some analysts believe that she was compelled to resign because she failed to turn around a brand that is stale with age. Campbell’s was founded in 1869, and its canned products gained universal fame in a 1962 painting by pop artist Andy Warhol.

But our perception of Campbell’s hasn’t modernized in the half-century after Warhol created his signature work. Although Morrison and others made many attempts to update its product line and introduce healthier complementary products, consumers continue to associate the Campbell’s brand with sodium-packed cans of soup.

That’s why Morrison lost her position. But was she truly to blame?

On the one hand, the contemporary consumer is undoubtedly demanding healthier foods and beverages. A persuasive argument could certainly be made in favor of improving the health content of Campbell’s product line.

But on the other hand, let’s try to identify other firms that have successfully implemented this strategy. How many purveyors of unhealthy goods have transformed their product lines into healthy ones? Has McDonald’s, for instance, truly succeeded with its offerings of salads? What of its ill-fated McLean Deluxe sandwich?

Alternative examples abound of such purveyors “doubling down” on the unhealthy pleasures of their product lines. Burger King, for instance, unapologetically sells a Rodeo King sandwich that contains 82 grams of fat, 2,270 milligrams of sodium, and 1,250 total calories. Yes, you can order a large side of fries with that!

Likewise, it’s hard to imagine that many consumers would be attracted to a healthy version of a deep-fried Twinkie. Even if a small niche of customers were to demand such a product, they might not trust Hostess Brands to create it.

So let’s be fair to Denise Morrison. It’s easy to blame her for failing to execute Campbell’s transformation into a healthy foods brand. But it’s possible that this strategy, adopted by Campbell’s Board of Directors, was doomed to fail from the start.

Perhaps, in contrast, Campbell’s should have embraced the authentic and unalterable image that it has earned over many decades of canned soup production. And perhaps, like Burger King, it will only find future success by being true to its image.