9.14.2021

 When Mr. Paterson told us that today's topic is going to be about Coca-Cola, I was a little skeptical, because not only did I drink cola a week ago, I felt indifferent about its scandals even if they had occurred. I was well aware of sponsors interfering in TV programs and the media as the spotlight can account for their revenue. For example, I remember that whenever I watched Chibimaruko (a national family-friendly anime) there would always be a Mitsu-uroko advert promoting their electricity services, so I always had a slight intuition that sponsors were manipulative. So when Mr. Paterson showcased a case of Coca-cola and beer companies struggling to promote their product offside of soccer games, it was hilarious to know that these famous soccer players aren't even willing to adapt their facade to meet the sponsor's needs. Hearing Christiano Ronaldo spitting truths about the unhealthy impacts of Coke made me reconsider the relationships between sponsors and the sponsored. I thought that sponsors were meant to seamlessly promote its products to subconsciously gain users, so if it was for me, I wouldn't purchase Coke.

 However, when researching about the Killer Coke incident, I was surprised that I had known little about its controversy. Although I knew its origin, I didn't know that its Columbia-based factory owners crossed the line to prevent unions from interfering. The sneaky tactics that they used of moving its factory back to America were shocking, and its uncanny similarities with Chevron. Looking back at the blog about it, I wondered why companies would pull the same strings that would have made it controversial based on past events. Perhaps it may be due to lack of knowledge or the fact that this ordeal was getting too public that these decisions were their last resort. Nevertheless, the uproar was influential as many universities rioted to end ties with Coca-cola. The killer coke website showed all the insights about their past history, but probing through the official Coke website, there was no information.

Speaking of no information, there was not a single Japanese news article that covered the incident, and this took me by surprise. I had thought that since Coke was an American-based company, covering a foreign issue wouldn't be harmful to Japan. Personal speculation may be the fact that Coke was popular in Japan, and during Columbia's incidents was at its economic peak. They may have seen a business opportunity and weren't willing on smearing their brand. Watching both the Italy hilltop Coke commercial and a Japanese commercial during that time, I found them quite catchy. It shows how one commercial can change a brand's image and moreover the audience's attention, veering them from reality. Thus, I found it necessary to skepticize how sponsors advertise their products. So the next time I watch Chibimaruko, I'll put on my thinking glasses and try to look at how sponsors integrate, manipulate, and advertise their services.