So what's the alternative? Support black owned is more to rally us, ideally we wouldn't need the notion. Without it, I feel like we further lose ourselves. We shouldn't be relying on them to make it for us, ... That's been our lull since forever. Do you think there are investors outside of this country that we can solicit? I feel like there is an untapped resource there.
While I comprehend the logic behind your reasoning, the nuance of Black economics is missing. It reads like identity led marketing was only ever intended to produce results that mirrored the dominant white economic strategy, or to achieve validity within that same financial ecosystem. And that's not true. At least not for the original intended purpose - which was always intention towards building black economics. The "Black Owned" label wasn't for PR and funders lol. It was for the consumer, the customer. And using it was an indicator that the business owner would also be intentional about how they spent their profit, who they hired, how they advertised, etc. Leaving that part out kind of feels like we're back to valuing and prioritizing proximity to whiteness and white systems of success. Which is an unequivocal no for me, as far as the rationale goes.
I agree that "Black-owned" isn't a business strategy, obviously the product comes first but you can't ignore the structural barriers that prevent black-owned businesses from growing to the next level. Big business requires massive amounts of funding which black founders only get a small cut of if they've been successful enough to make it to that stage. I think people do want to know who they're buying from and what the founders values are regardless of race. If the product is good, we should be sticking out our necks to support black founders to propel them to the point where there is high enough demand for them to get funded because it will never be an even playing field.
Actually they don’t get any. Then when the business closes down they blame it on lack of capital and economic disparity.
They know they don’t give black owned ZERO dollars. And they explicitly state it. No matter how much support we give black owned the need for huge amounts of capital will prevail.
For example, Hanifa — I really don’t want to mention her, but she’s a great example.
She deserves capital and proven a successful business but they will not fund her. Why? She’s black. Black ppl are poor, they can’t spend luxury dollars. That’s the narrative.
If you read the comments where Auros James left hers, you’ll see she explicitly admits her sponsors do not want black owned and more “small business” aka non black.
Division is the root of control. Having black owned beg for a seat then deny them and then out out news that’s theirs “economic disparity” is how they control us.
This was an interesting read on something that is formulated with a so called “dignity of belonging” pride and resilience. That just happened to became a modern form of segregation and oppression. While it is created to protect and as a direct response to historical racism and discrimination it is the same movement of liberation that limits you to your ownership of yourself and self worth that will then be high listed by others and other people understanding of you, your race and identity. It is an American phenomenal of categorisation and subcategory which outside the US does not really exist. If you limited yourself to a race, as this is the real roots of racism - and all in believe to shine out this will and has ever since backlash in unwanted ways.
Rather be you, do you, yourself and be inclined in your roots, race because this is who you are, no one could tear this apart, stop being a labour for goodwill by identifying support rules of racial profiling and racial identity.
We as dark skinned people never ask if a business that is white owned producing for darker skinned people or ask for their insight of laboratory work.
I believe in speaking truth to say :
The work is within, not on the outlet.
Do you, yourself, do you - your colour of skin will truly not be missed. It’s not a label of pride it is a reinforcement of things that have been taken from African American people through racial oppression and inequality of human dignity and kind.
From a European perspective on American labelling.
Ps this labelling helps them, they needed not you !
What I appreciate about this article is that it forces us to reexamine some of the implications of corporate America “going Black” after the killing of George Floyd. As a designer and business owner of 16 years, what I can say is that we didn’t receive our biggest opportunities until after Floyd was killed, and it wasn’t because of a lack of effort or creativity on our end. That being said, I’m probably still dealing with a bit of PTSD from how we were handled in those partnerships, which, for me, begs the question: how much was the juice worth the squeeze in order to have the “look”?
That “look,” for me, came with being told that companies like “mine” should be grateful that companies like “theirs” are even doing business with us. This came in response to me raising concerns about unmet timeframes on their marketing support and, eventually, them being over 90 days late in paying us for delivered goods.
What was clear to me was that because we were a Black-owned business that got distribution during a time of corporate white guilt, we were merely seen as “lucky” and not “worthy” of their partnership. And because we were seen as “not worthy,” even the Black people who worked for those companies saw us as a “charity case,” even with favorable sell-through rates. I wasn’t prepared for that, and I’m pretty sure that’s where the PTSD comes from.
All of that is to say that I agree the tag of “Black-owned” as a reason for support, at any level, can come with tradeoffs that may not be worth the business we stand to gain.
This is flawed logic. The businesses you've highlighted here didn't fail because they positioned themselves as Black-owned. They failed for some business reason, just like white-owned businesses fail for businesses reasons.
You cannot draw a parallel between between “pigeonholing” your business with that labeling and not address the reasons why founders are doing it — without asking why would labeling my business as Black-owned make someone NOT support?
No other community does this or thinks this way.
You wouldn't dare post this about the LGBTQ community, telling them not to label their businesses, and they do.
You wouldn't dare post this about women-owned businesses in March, telling them not to label their businesses for fear of losing 50% of the population. And, you all do label your businesses that way — as you should.
You don't hear either of those labels and think, “panhandling.” So, maybe the question to ask is, why do I think that about myself and my people? Who conditioned me to think that way about myself and my people?
We're the only people screaming from the top of our lungs that we don't have to support one another just because you're Black.
Meanwhile, the Texas comptroller restructured the HUB program removing 15,000 women-, and minority-owned businesses.
People kill me getting up here on Marcus Garvey's innanet with a closet full of Shein and a living room full of Temu talkin about Black businesses should focus on building quality products. You furnished your whole house with $72 and now you quality assurance.
Capitalism and the racism it produced is a team sport. And, ethnocentricity is the price of admission. One day, it'll all make cents.
I love what you wrote here. Back in the George Floyd era my consulting agency worked with Nordstrom to build their inclusive beauty campaign. The amount of work and time that it took to get some of those black brands, even into the store and the lack of care that many people work in their hat was eye-opening. It made me realize that the entire 15% Pledge would not be a realistic goal. We tried on several occasions to reach out to them to talk with them about building the infrastructure to decentralized blackness for the brands and instead emphasize visibility in general, as well as helping the brands build their marketing case for their desired targeted customers. All of those things fell on deaf ears, and we never were able to see the full realization of the initiative. Plus after the era was over people quickly dismissed everything that had to do with Black Brand so positioning them for Charity was a disastrous idea for which my agency was against. I’m so glad to see someone writing about this and being honest about it because it is ridiculous.
wai? you reached out to the 15% pledge telling them should decenter it and they ignored you??
I’m glad you love it. You’ve experienced it firsthand the pitfalls of it. It was propaganda to calm us down and also another a reposition to pity us again. smh
They sure did, they were interested in the surface performative part of the PR portion. We had experience actually implementing and knew what it would take and what needed to be done including, making it less about black brands and more about problem solving for the customer. I find these black women organizations are often full of older black women who want to position themselves similarly to white men and haze the younger black women and it’s just a waste.
I’ve been feeling like this for years. Thanks for starting the convo.
Black consumers feel obligated to shop identity based black brands and running a business on obligation and charity is a bad strategy. When they feel obligated and something goes wrong (as it always does in biz), you get the vitriol and anti-blackness all over social media (eg: Hanifa). Hate to see it but somewhere along the lines black founders lost the plot.
Interesting! I was thinking this after the Hanifa debacle but for slightly different reasons.
Comparing calls to support Black businesses to panhandling don’t sit quite right with me though. Nobody calls “support local” panhandling. It’s a reminder not a plea. I find it important to support Black businesses so I try not to inflate my standards based on polish and optics that favor more established businesses. As long as the product meets my expectations most times that’s enough for me. I think it’s ok for people to get a reminder.
So what's the alternative? Support black owned is more to rally us, ideally we wouldn't need the notion. Without it, I feel like we further lose ourselves. We shouldn't be relying on them to make it for us, ... That's been our lull since forever. Do you think there are investors outside of this country that we can solicit? I feel like there is an untapped resource there.
While I comprehend the logic behind your reasoning, the nuance of Black economics is missing. It reads like identity led marketing was only ever intended to produce results that mirrored the dominant white economic strategy, or to achieve validity within that same financial ecosystem. And that's not true. At least not for the original intended purpose - which was always intention towards building black economics. The "Black Owned" label wasn't for PR and funders lol. It was for the consumer, the customer. And using it was an indicator that the business owner would also be intentional about how they spent their profit, who they hired, how they advertised, etc. Leaving that part out kind of feels like we're back to valuing and prioritizing proximity to whiteness and white systems of success. Which is an unequivocal no for me, as far as the rationale goes.
Holy shit. Finally... the words I've always felt that you are articulating so well.
This was all predictable
Great piece✊🏽
I agree that "Black-owned" isn't a business strategy, obviously the product comes first but you can't ignore the structural barriers that prevent black-owned businesses from growing to the next level. Big business requires massive amounts of funding which black founders only get a small cut of if they've been successful enough to make it to that stage. I think people do want to know who they're buying from and what the founders values are regardless of race. If the product is good, we should be sticking out our necks to support black founders to propel them to the point where there is high enough demand for them to get funded because it will never be an even playing field.
Actually they don’t get any. Then when the business closes down they blame it on lack of capital and economic disparity.
They know they don’t give black owned ZERO dollars. And they explicitly state it. No matter how much support we give black owned the need for huge amounts of capital will prevail.
For example, Hanifa — I really don’t want to mention her, but she’s a great example.
She deserves capital and proven a successful business but they will not fund her. Why? She’s black. Black ppl are poor, they can’t spend luxury dollars. That’s the narrative.
If you read the comments where Auros James left hers, you’ll see she explicitly admits her sponsors do not want black owned and more “small business” aka non black.
Division is the root of control. Having black owned beg for a seat then deny them and then out out news that’s theirs “economic disparity” is how they control us.
Similar to the way identity politics has left us more divided
Omg you get it! Exactly, that’s the point. It’s to divide so we don’t gang up on them.
I’ve long thought this! Took the words right out of my head ♥️
haven’t even read it yet and i touch and agree!
Phew! Facts only, that wave is well and truly over!!
This was an interesting read on something that is formulated with a so called “dignity of belonging” pride and resilience. That just happened to became a modern form of segregation and oppression. While it is created to protect and as a direct response to historical racism and discrimination it is the same movement of liberation that limits you to your ownership of yourself and self worth that will then be high listed by others and other people understanding of you, your race and identity. It is an American phenomenal of categorisation and subcategory which outside the US does not really exist. If you limited yourself to a race, as this is the real roots of racism - and all in believe to shine out this will and has ever since backlash in unwanted ways.
Rather be you, do you, yourself and be inclined in your roots, race because this is who you are, no one could tear this apart, stop being a labour for goodwill by identifying support rules of racial profiling and racial identity.
We as dark skinned people never ask if a business that is white owned producing for darker skinned people or ask for their insight of laboratory work.
I believe in speaking truth to say :
The work is within, not on the outlet.
Do you, yourself, do you - your colour of skin will truly not be missed. It’s not a label of pride it is a reinforcement of things that have been taken from African American people through racial oppression and inequality of human dignity and kind.
From a European perspective on American labelling.
Ps this labelling helps them, they needed not you !
Yeah, this definitely struck a nerve with me.
What I appreciate about this article is that it forces us to reexamine some of the implications of corporate America “going Black” after the killing of George Floyd. As a designer and business owner of 16 years, what I can say is that we didn’t receive our biggest opportunities until after Floyd was killed, and it wasn’t because of a lack of effort or creativity on our end. That being said, I’m probably still dealing with a bit of PTSD from how we were handled in those partnerships, which, for me, begs the question: how much was the juice worth the squeeze in order to have the “look”?
That “look,” for me, came with being told that companies like “mine” should be grateful that companies like “theirs” are even doing business with us. This came in response to me raising concerns about unmet timeframes on their marketing support and, eventually, them being over 90 days late in paying us for delivered goods.
What was clear to me was that because we were a Black-owned business that got distribution during a time of corporate white guilt, we were merely seen as “lucky” and not “worthy” of their partnership. And because we were seen as “not worthy,” even the Black people who worked for those companies saw us as a “charity case,” even with favorable sell-through rates. I wasn’t prepared for that, and I’m pretty sure that’s where the PTSD comes from.
All of that is to say that I agree the tag of “Black-owned” as a reason for support, at any level, can come with tradeoffs that may not be worth the business we stand to gain.
This is flawed logic. The businesses you've highlighted here didn't fail because they positioned themselves as Black-owned. They failed for some business reason, just like white-owned businesses fail for businesses reasons.
You cannot draw a parallel between between “pigeonholing” your business with that labeling and not address the reasons why founders are doing it — without asking why would labeling my business as Black-owned make someone NOT support?
No other community does this or thinks this way.
You wouldn't dare post this about the LGBTQ community, telling them not to label their businesses, and they do.
You wouldn't dare post this about women-owned businesses in March, telling them not to label their businesses for fear of losing 50% of the population. And, you all do label your businesses that way — as you should.
You don't hear either of those labels and think, “panhandling.” So, maybe the question to ask is, why do I think that about myself and my people? Who conditioned me to think that way about myself and my people?
We're the only people screaming from the top of our lungs that we don't have to support one another just because you're Black.
Meanwhile, the Texas comptroller restructured the HUB program removing 15,000 women-, and minority-owned businesses.
People kill me getting up here on Marcus Garvey's innanet with a closet full of Shein and a living room full of Temu talkin about Black businesses should focus on building quality products. You furnished your whole house with $72 and now you quality assurance.
Capitalism and the racism it produced is a team sport. And, ethnocentricity is the price of admission. One day, it'll all make cents.
I love what you wrote here. Back in the George Floyd era my consulting agency worked with Nordstrom to build their inclusive beauty campaign. The amount of work and time that it took to get some of those black brands, even into the store and the lack of care that many people work in their hat was eye-opening. It made me realize that the entire 15% Pledge would not be a realistic goal. We tried on several occasions to reach out to them to talk with them about building the infrastructure to decentralized blackness for the brands and instead emphasize visibility in general, as well as helping the brands build their marketing case for their desired targeted customers. All of those things fell on deaf ears, and we never were able to see the full realization of the initiative. Plus after the era was over people quickly dismissed everything that had to do with Black Brand so positioning them for Charity was a disastrous idea for which my agency was against. I’m so glad to see someone writing about this and being honest about it because it is ridiculous.
wai? you reached out to the 15% pledge telling them should decenter it and they ignored you??
I’m glad you love it. You’ve experienced it firsthand the pitfalls of it. It was propaganda to calm us down and also another a reposition to pity us again. smh
They sure did, they were interested in the surface performative part of the PR portion. We had experience actually implementing and knew what it would take and what needed to be done including, making it less about black brands and more about problem solving for the customer. I find these black women organizations are often full of older black women who want to position themselves similarly to white men and haze the younger black women and it’s just a waste.
I’ve been feeling like this for years. Thanks for starting the convo.
Black consumers feel obligated to shop identity based black brands and running a business on obligation and charity is a bad strategy. When they feel obligated and something goes wrong (as it always does in biz), you get the vitriol and anti-blackness all over social media (eg: Hanifa). Hate to see it but somewhere along the lines black founders lost the plot.
Interesting! I was thinking this after the Hanifa debacle but for slightly different reasons.
Comparing calls to support Black businesses to panhandling don’t sit quite right with me though. Nobody calls “support local” panhandling. It’s a reminder not a plea. I find it important to support Black businesses so I try not to inflate my standards based on polish and optics that favor more established businesses. As long as the product meets my expectations most times that’s enough for me. I think it’s ok for people to get a reminder.