In a recent development that has sparked widespread discussions on the interplay between digital influence and corporate responsibility, Doritos, the multinational snacking giant, announced its decision to cut ties with La Veneno, a beloved transgender influencer in Spain. This decision came in the wake of increasing boycott threats from various online user groups who had voiced objections to La Veneno’s collaboration with the brand.
La Veneno, born Cristina Ortiz Rodríguez, was a highly popular transgender figure in Spain, with a significant social media following. Her transition journey, struggles, successes, and extraordinary charisma had endeared her to many supporters. However, due to some controversies tied to her public persona, she also inadvertently attracted criticism. Doritos initially chose to engage her for an advertising partnership due to her widespread appeal and relevance to the young consumers the brand typically targets.
Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook saw a surge of pressure from conservative groups who felt that La Veneno was not an appropriate representative for a family-friendly brand like Doritos. These parties vocalized their dissent vocally with threats of boycotts, which effectively pressurized the multinational snack company to reassess its stance. It’s important to note that digital boycott threats can significantly hurt a brand’s financial growth and public image.
Doritos, a brand that had previously been praised for its progressive advertising approaches, seemed to have been caught in-between two opposing societal forces – inclusivity and conservative viewpoints. Ultimately, the brand had to make a decision that would minimize the impact on its brand performance and customer sentiment.
Following careful consideration and internal discussions, Doritos announced its decision to terminate its partnership with La Veneno. The brand stated that it respects the individual’s journey and role as an influencer, but it had no choice but to protect its brand reputation against the mounting boycott threats.
This development has highlighted the far-reaching impact of digital influence and its role in shaping corporate decisions. Brands are no longer just selling products, they are also creating narratives, values, and relationships with their consumers. This incident has led many to question whether the brand’s action can be justified as a business strategy or whether it should be seen as bowing down to discriminatory pressure.
In a time where inclusivity and representation have been the forefront of societal discussion, this incident has stirred debate about who should represent brands and how brands should navigate the rough waters of digital influence, societal beliefs, and corporate responsibility. On top of sparking widespread debate, this incident also forces us to dissect the ever-evolving relationship between brands, influencers, and the public’s opinion in the digital age.
Doritos’s bold move also serves as a reminder to influencers and brands alike, about the volatile nature of digital partnerships. While the power of digital influence can result in promising partnerships and promotion opportunities, these same ties can also lead to unexpected disputes and withdrawals, shaped by online sentiment.
