What exactly was FNB's rationale behind the new campaign?

This theory is not mine, it comes from a reader and regular commenter on this blog.

FNB has been known to court controversy with the government of the day since its early days. Some might recall the rabbit in the thorn tree controversy from the 80s, which is described by Arthur Goldstuck as

THE rabbit in the (FNB) thorn tree is the archetypal South African political and business urban legend. Nearly everybody of a certain age remembers how First National Bank's (FNB's) late-1980s logo, a thorn tree silhouetted against the sun, dominated front pages for weeks as South Africans debated the existence of the (then banned ) African National Congress (ANC) rabbit in its branches.

Then there was the crime ad under the Mbeki regime which FNB pulled. In February 2007, FNB were planning to publish an ad that requested Mbeki's "yes minister" government to do something about the unacceptable crime levels. Did the ANC ever get upset, so much so that FNB decided not to go ahead with the campaign.

And now we have the "You can help campaign" which has elicited a rather negative response from the dominant (goodness knows they don't rule) party and the presidency. The latter responded with the ironic

"Frivolous adverts which display hatred of government or the ruling party will not help us to achieve the country's developmental goals,"

The campaign makes no sense to me. They spent the last few years bombarding us with features and functionality and Marvin, Floyd and Steve. And then we have a number of children talking about their future. I don't see why the change in pattern.

It was then that my good friend Richard called me and made the following observation. The campaign shows a variety of children discussing their and the country's future. There is the occasional dig at Nkandla and the abysmal education system. All of which the educated people of South Africa are aware of. The ad is now going underground because FNB has pulled the more controversial aspects of it. YouTube loves it and so do the internet users. This then suggests that it's the more affluent and educated who are going to see it – and this is the target market.

Here you have a major financial institution telling the public that their government is inept and that they should be doing something about it. Perhaps FNB pitched the ad to the middle class who feel the same way is I do about this government, knowing that it would stir up controversy (something that they deny – but I don't believe that they could not have foreseen the likelihood of the ANC getting all sensitive). The campaign would provide a voice for all races that don't speak out about the government. They would then view the bank as the hero and hence someone they should bank with.

This is very plausible. I know that there is growing discontent amongst the black middle classes who view Zuma as an embarrassment. Their issue is that they cannot speak out about this because it's not the "African" way. The lunacy of this African way is perfectly articulated by Pierre de Vos

Growing up as a white Afrikaans boy in the threatening shadows of apartheid, I was often told that certain beliefs and actions and certain people were "volksvreemd" (alien to the "Afrikaner nation"). Beyers Naude, Bram Fischer and Frederick van Zyl Slabbert were volksvreemd. Listening to "Queen", "The Rolling Stones" and "The Beatles" were volksvreemd. Being an atheist or criticising National Party leaders like BJ Vorster and PW Botha were volksvreemd. Dancing on a Sunday and being a moffie were volksvreemd. Marrying an Engelse meisie or, god forbid, sleeping with somebody classified as "coloured" or "African" were beyond volksvreemd. And, of course, opposing apartheid and supporting the struggle against it was definitely volksvreemd. Some people were devastated when branded as volksvreemd. Volksvreemdes were often shunned by family and friends, ridiculed and shamed, told that they were not "true" Afrikaners. Their views could therefore be ignored, laughed at or branded as "dangerous" or "inauthentic".

The Afrikaner establishment thus attempted to police the thoughts and behaviour of white Afrikaans speakers to ensure that not too many of us would become critical of the government or ask too many questions about the injustices of the world we lived in and from which we benefited socially and economically. We were told that there was only one "right" way to think about our world and our place in it and one "right" way to live if we wanted to be viewed as authentic Afrikaners.

de Vos then brings this concept to the present day

President Jacob Zuma was reported as saying that black people should not keep dogs as pets because it is "un-African". Then Gillian Schutte, in a widely read open letter, called on "white people" to recognise that by jumping in on national debates "that do not concern them" they are usurping a platform for "authentic black voices". What these comments may have in commonis that they accept that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to be African and that those who are "real" Africans are worthy of respect and to be listened to while those who are not, can be ridiculed and dismissed as being un-African or need not be taken seriously.

Hence it is OK for me to voice my white opinions because it's not African and just a noise. But an African, whatever that may be – because there is a wide diversity of people in this country who may regard themselves as African, will be accused of being un-African for voicing their opinions. This un-Africanness was levelled at Lindiwe Mazibuko (who looks VERY AFRICAN to me) by Jackson Mthembu.

ANC spokesperson Jackson attacked Lindiwe Mazibuko for criticising President Jacob Zuma who said that one's business will multiply if one donated money to the ANC by stating that Mazibuko is "naive when it comes to African traditions" which she cannot relate to. "It is our tradition as Africans that if someone gives you something, in return you thank him/her and wish them prosperity and abundance," Mthembu said in a statement.

Volksvreemd indeed. Here we have a bank speaking out for this group in this new campaign, suddenly the un-African have now found a voice. If this is the case or even an unintended consequence of the campaign, it's brilliant. Hopefully we'll start providing opportunities for the un-African to voice their opinions without fear of labelling or ostracism.

My white sense of humour forces me to post this video even if it reminds the viewer about Angie and Jake.

PHidgeting

Search This Blog

What exactly was FNB's rationale behind the new campaign?

Comments

Post a Comment