Starbucks South Korea Receives Backlash for Media Campaign, Will Temporarily Close Locations for History Training

Starbucks plans to temporarily shut down all its South Korean branches on June 22 as part of a mandatory history training session. This decision follows significant public backlash against the company’s recent promotional campaign that many viewed as insensitive.

The controversy arose from a marketing initiative that featured a range of stainless-steel tumblers called “SS Tank,” coinciding with May 18, the anniversary of the tragic military crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Gwangju in 1980. Although the aim was seemingly innocuous, the selection of the phrase “Tank Day” led to protests and calls for boycotts, as it invoked painful memories of this pivotal moment in South Korea’s history.

The Gwangju Massacre, which unfolded over several days in May 1980, resulted in hundreds of deaths, with many citizens violently suppressed by military forces. It marked a significant and traumatic chapter in South Korea’s struggle for democracy. The promotional materials for the tumblers were interpreted by some as a disturbing reference to this historical event, leading several government ministries to cut ties with the coffee chain.

In response to the uproar, Starbucks announced that it would close its cafes at 3 p.m. local time for a session focused on history and “social sensitivity.” Chung Yong-jin, the billionaire head of Shinsegae Group, which operates Starbucks in South Korea under a licensing agreement, is also expected to attend a separate training session on June 24.

Compounding the controversy was the slogan associated with the tumblers, encouraging customers to “thwack it on the table,” which many protesters construed as an allusion to a police statement regarding the death of student activist Park Jong-chol. Park, who died in 1987 under troubling circumstances, became a symbol of the fight for democracy, with his death acting as a catalyst for the June Uprising that ultimately led to democratic reforms in South Korea.

The Shinsegae Group later clarified that the choice of the term “thwack” was made by an AI tool employed by the marketing team. This explanation has done little to assuage public anger, as the connection between the phrase and tragic historical events was seen as highly inappropriate.

In light of these events, Starbucks issued an apology for what it described as an “unacceptable marketing incident.” The company acknowledged that such a situation should never have arisen. Chung Yong-jin also publicly apologised during a press conference and through a written statement, recognising the gravity of the misstep.

The response from both Starbucks and the management team in South Korea indicates a realisation of the sensitivity required in marketing, particularly in a nation still healing from past traumas. The planned history training underlines the company’s commitment to ensuring its approach is informed by a deeper understanding of cultural and historical contexts.

While the retail chain endeavours to navigate this delicate situation, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the implications that marketing campaigns can have when they intersect with significant historical events. Starbucks is now faced with the challenge of regaining public trust and ensuring that their future campaigns respect the history and sentiments of the communities they serve.

As the world increasingly contends with issues of cultural sensitivity, this incident illustrates the potential backlash companies can face when failing to consider the broader implications of their branding decisions. Starbucks’ upcoming history training may be a step towards better awareness, but it remains to be seen whether this is enough to mitigate the damages done.