Letting Primark engage the debate
24th June 2008, 11:08 am by Matt RhodesI watched the Panorama documentary on the BBC last night about Primark. For those not in the UK, Ireland or Spain, Primark specialises in fast and cheap fashion. They make cheaply priced versions of high-street and cat walk fashion and aim to get it to their stores within weeks of the original outfit first being seen. They claim their cheap prices are due to cost effective production, fast stock turnaround, the fact that they do no marketing and the volumes that they sell. The BBC tonight claimed otherwise.
The documentary followed Primark’s supply chain back to it’s origins, in India. Here, rather than being ethically produced as the company claims, some of Primark’s suppliers are outsourcing production to forced and child labour.
The veracity of the BBC’s claims don’t matter. Programmes like this can be damaging for a brand. The story was leaked to the press beforehand, and tomorrow I’d expect that most newspapers in the country cover the story for people to read on their way into work.
In this kind of scenario, it’s critical how a brand responds. The way Primark were allowed by the BBC to respond, was typical for this kind of TV investigation. They didn’t get right of reply, couldn’t appear on camera to discuss the issues, answer questions or give their perspective. Rather parts of their response to the allegations were shown at the end of the show, although I gather from Geoff Lancaster, Primark’s Head of External Affairs that they were not given any meaningful right of reply to the show. This is disappointing.
This approach to engendering a debate is very traditional. The brand is not really allowed to engage with the programme, with the issues it raises or with the people that watch it. They just get to tell us what they’ve done. After tonight’s show I, like many people, logged on to forums on the BBC site and across the web. The programme had raised lots of really interesting and complex issues. Was Primark really to blame, how did we react to their response to the programme, had we ever really thought before how clothes that are this cheap were made, should we boycott Primark or campaign for them to change their practices.
In none of these discussions was Primark’s point of view presented. The programme prompted a fascinating discussion. I think there is a real debate to be had. We need to understand how our clothes are made and the processes and checks that the brands make. If, as Primark claimed, it is true that only 0.04% of their produce was potentially outsourced to child or forced labour I’d love to hear more.
I have lots of questions for the brand and would love to hear their perspective. Sadly they weren’t given the opportunity to hear mine or tell me theirs. This is a real shame. Information is critical and when you are wanting to influence and change people’s minds you really need to be the one contributing to and even controlling the information they hear. An honest and open conversation would make a real difference.
At the end of tonight’s show, a range of Primark customers were talked to and shown the footage of the factories and production of the garments. Asked how they would respond they all rejected a boycott. Saying this would achieve nothing. Rather they wanted to engage with the brand and discuss the issues with them, influencing them to be more ethical.
Customers have changed; they want to engage. Programmes like this often don’t allow brands to truly start to engage. It would be great if they did, and if the brands continued this engagement afterwards.
For social media agency support get in touch or follow us on Twitter.
luke hardisty:
Excellent comments here. I mean 0.04% is really hardly anything at all is it? I mean how many children is that? Hardly any really. And it is outrageous that Primark, an impressive multi billion pound fast fashion empire wasn’t given more right to reply. It would have been so interesting to hear thier point of view. Reallly fresh perspective etc. Apparently – according to Primark – they’d had ‘suspicions’ about the three factories used for a while. It does slightly make me wonder why they didn’t do anything until the old press got hold of the story, but you can’t expect a company that big to have a grip on their supply line. This certainly doesn’t give us proof that this is how a very clever store like Primark gets such low prices and big profits. It is all done through volume and clever negotiating, not markups that necessitate kiddy labour. Even though Arthur (head of Primark) is famous for negotiating tough markups i the retail world. no really everyone should get a grip. All this emotion about kids stooped over losing their childhood and being hit and stuff, and pregnant women chained to sewing machines and locked fire escapes, habitual beatings and factory fires, miss the point; successful brands bring home the bacon.
24 June 2008, 6:40 pmCharlie:
Luke, that’s a valid point. But I agree with Matt that the lack of debate/information is the key issue here. You’re right, 0.04% is not just a statistic, it’s real people’s lives. But I for one have no idea how that compares to other global firms. It may be expemplary, it may be rubbish. Again, more enagement in the debate is required.
I heard an excellent podcast from Peter Day on Radio4 last week. You can find it here . It told a very interesting story about Zara who had contracted with CompanyA to make their clothes. Zara had screened CompanyA with care and made checks to the factories. The guy who owned CompanyA also owned CompanyB which Zara did not know about and whose factoires Zara had not visited. It transpired that the unscrupulous owner of the two companies moved production (apparently) without Zara knowing it from good practice CompanyA to bad CompanyB.
As soon as Zara found out (notably thanks only to the Beeb) they took action. It was pretty much the right initial response.
There is a lovely utopian solution to all this – don’t allow companies selling items in the UK to contract with any firms that breach our cultural norms on working practices in any way shape or form. The flaw in such an argument is that millions, perhaps even billions, of people accross the world are being lifted out of poverty becuase we’re so keen to trade with developing nations, even if they have not yet reached our expectations of suitable working practices. I don’t want to get too utilitarian about it as clearly that 0.04% are real people, but it does bring me to the same concolusion as the viewers of the programme – it’s better to first push for information and engagement and only once all the facts are in, then discuss other action.
But I recognise that this is not black and white. It’s a debate that’s going to run and run.
24 June 2008, 8:38 pmKate Pryde:
If 0.04% is merely a single child, it is one child too many. And consumerism is morphing into conscience – if the big brands do not accept and respond to that, they will no longer be bringing home the bacon.
Leading fashion magazine Marie Claire now prides itself on its ethical approach to fashion, even to the point of running articles on second hand clothing revamps and clothes swapping parties. Perhaps I am naive, but why can we not expect a company of Primark’s size to have ‘a grip on its supply line’? The impression I am left with is not that Primark did not have the opportunity to engage in debate, but that they declined it.
I dress my children in second hand clothes (our local community has an excellent clothing pass-on tradition and a popular charity shop) and would never shop in Primark or any of its peer outlets. And I am one of a growing number of people coming to the realisation that cheap is not necessarily cheerful. As is so often said, many people making tiny changes in the way that they live will cause, ultimately, a massive change in the way we *all* live, and brands like Primark need to be more respectful of that. If they don’t talk to us about their management of their supply chain; if they don’t demonstrate their commitment to ethical sourcing, they will find themselves, eventually, a big brand no longer.
25 June 2008, 9:38 am