Cancel culture, branding, cultural divides, and Kim Seon Ho
I’ve written before on the intricacies of cancel culture in China and how it can impact brands. The current situation in South Korea surrounding actor Kim Seon Ho differs because the international popularity of K-dramas introduces new elements into the marketing equation.
What we have are a wide array of cultural attitudes and markets all intersecting around a single incident, creating a unique global situation.
The beginning
To first give context, an anonymous post about a Korean actor appeared on Korean social media, claiming to be from an ex-girlfriend post-breakup.
The first issue, was dramatized translation. An early translation referred to him and a forced abortion, promising marriage, and then break up. Later translations changed this to coerced, but the initial translation gained the most traction.
Like all celebrity rumours on social media, it spread quickly, as did inaccuracies — including the inference he demanded an abortion, and dumped her immediately. Later it was revealed the couple remained together 9 more months.
The sensational aspect revolved around Kim Seon Ho being presented as a respectful and positive person offscreen. The contrast to the post’s description, and his recent leap in popularity, moved the material into the news sector.
The post also implied his public persona was fake, citing private conversations and even sexual habits. The actor was revealed to be Kim Seon Ho, who apologised, and in response many of his contracts were cancelled.
Culture, and the concept of cancel
At this point the situation devolved on social media into a melting pot of global cultural attitudes that often collided.
For example, many Westerners did not understand the core concept of a scandal in Asian entertainment — and the fantasy sell of South Korean celebrities.
Fantasy marketing sees men and women in South Korean entertainment preferably viewed as single, and committed to their fandom. This is why most South Korean stars are publicly single.
Lovers of celebrities usually sign NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) so the illusion can be maintained. Marrying and having a child is often a contract violation, and will likely lead to cancelled roles, and a possible fine.
Many Americans and European followers were shocked to discover celebrities at the level of Hollywood stars pretend to be single for decades, unaware these caveats were part of the couple’s dynamic.
The apology
Another emerging point of confusion, was the apology. To some the actor’s apology meant a statement of guilt regarding every accusation listed. In fact, an apology is a recognised response in Asian entertainment.
To give context, South Korean celebrities release apologies when they are injured, or contract COVID19. Celebrity apologies are generally for causing distress, trouble, or schedule issues for co-workers, partners, fans, or the public.
The actor apologised for the scandal happening, and to the women for any pain he may have caused. Many Westerns assumed his silence regarding all her claims also meant guilt, not understanding this is standard practice.
South Korean celebrities are expected to remain silent in such situations. To start a public he said/she said spat with a non-celebrity ex-partner via the media would be considered highly distasteful, unprofessional, and disrespectful.
Abortion, and MeToo
Abortion is legal in South Korea, but social media users in countries where it is not legal denounced the actor as a murderer, therefore viewing the situation from religious or moral standpoints.
So, at this point, you have different versions, different levels of understand of South Korean celebrity culture, different moral and cultural beliefs, and different interpretations of his actions in play.
Now, the MeToo aspect. Arguing began between those who believed and supported the woman’s version of their relationship wholeheartedly, on all points, and those who took a more cautious road. Words like gaslighting, forcing, and coercion were used.
For many the situation became binary: one person the angel and one the devil, and those labels were decided. (International media even ran the story with links to gender inequality in South Korea as the only cultural context.)
My personal opinion was it seemed excessive to cancel his career within hours based on an online rant from an ex-girlfriend, as they are both adults in their late thirties, with their own perspectives on their relationship.
To give you an idea of how heated the topic, on social media I was called a victim-blamer, f***ed in the head, a misogynist, and told white women have trash takes. But at the same time, one of my posts passed 3,000 likes.
A change in direction
What happened next is where the story really diverges from expected practice, and becomes a very unusual marketing situation.
Social media began to reflect changing perspectives. International fans became increasingly vocal. And Korean fans, usually known for supporting cancellations, began to question the speed and abruptness of his cancellation.
Rather than the usual plunge on social media, Kim Seon Ho’s follower counts began to rise. This was an unheard of phenomenon. On Instagram, rather than losing millions, his followers increased from 7.3M to 7.4M.
International fans argued his private life was of no interest. They engaged with the actor through his K-dramas streaming on Netflix, and were uninterested in the fact Korean networks had cancelled him as standard practice.
A Hollywood-style perspective on celebrities appeared to dominate: his personal life was his own; whatever happened to the couple was between them; and if he did wrong, he would learn from his mistakes but it had nothing to do with his acting.
Cancel the cancel culture
Days passed, and Kim Seon Ho’s name continued to trend globally, across dozens of countries, along with another hashtag: #cancelthecancelculture. And now, increasingly Korean internet users were expressing dissatisfaction with cancel culture.
Rather than demands and support for his cancellation, as many expected from Knets (as they are often referred to) petitions were popping up in South Korea asking he be reinstated on a popular variety show.
While it is standard for a portion of the fandom to stand by a celebrity during a scandal, the reaction extended beyond his dedicated supporters. People with only a vague interest in the actor were driven to engage by a distaste for this particular form of cancel culture.
Around the globe, more petitions emerged demanding his contracts be reinstated. People began repeat watching his K-dramas on Netflix to show their support. And slowly, attention turned to the brands he had endorsed, who had distanced themselves from the actor.
Marketing, and cancelling
Normally when a celebrity is “cancelled” in South Korea, similar to China, they lose the majority of followers, aside from their avid fandom.
Cancelling all contracts quickly is the standard move, to make sure the brand isn’t consumed by the celebrity’s fall from public favour. It is also a way for brands to show they support public sentiment.
…And yet in this case, Kim Seon Ho wasn’t falling. Instead, social media users began initiating boycotts of brands who had “judged and abandoned” him.
For brands, this is an unforeseen development. In trying to avoid the fallout in the traditional way, many are finding they face a new, more complicated public relations dilemma.
One example: Calls for South Koreans to boycott Dominos, who quickly distanced themselves from the actor. This stance was adopted by his fans in other countries, such as India, who encouraged their own local boycotts.
Suddenly, what was an internal South Korean marketing issue, threatened international repercussions for a global chain.
An emerging power shift
Korean networks went to the extreme step of blurring Kim Seon Ho’s face in footage. Amongst the ensuing outrage, international audiences began to ask questions, and certain questions appeared repeatedly.
If international streamers like Netflix, Apple, and Amazon etc are not just licensing shows from South Korea but producing them, why did the opinions of a small clique of South Korean network executives, matter?
And just like that, the power structure within the industry was placed under the spotlight.
K-drama was supported by the government as a part of a long-running initiative to give South Korean entertainment an international audience, a move that over the decades has proven hugely successful.
But it never really occurred to anyone international broadcasting would lead to international productions — who didn’t require full Korean participation or societal approval when casting.
Netflix, and Kim Seon Ho
For streaming giant Netflix, Kim Seon Ho continues to be an incredibly popular figure. His K-dramas Start Up and Hometown Cha-Cha-Cha have performed extremely well.
An interesting question remains. If an actor has a massive international fanbase, from a monetary perspective, is an international streamer required to “cancel” him?
In the past Netflix has produced entertainment whose content has upset conservative elements in certain countries. They are generally aware of this from the outset, and very rarely remove material.
So, the Kim Seon Ho situation has the possibility to set a number of very unusual precedents. Will an international platform respond to the request of global fans, and utilise a talent regardless of local market opinion?
Korean cancellation of celebrities usually means networks won’t give them roles to appease a conservative culture. But if an actor isn’t cancelled outside his own country, it can be argued international platforms have no need to comply.
Cancel fatigue
South Korean celebrities have been cancelled in the last two years at an increasing rate. Even the Korean public, if their social media is anything to go by, is beginning to experience cancel fatigue.
Social media has been integral to the jump in celebrity cancellations. In recent times a number of entertainment management agencies have attached themselves to legal counsel, warning that anonymous online posts will be treated legally as defamation.
Merely the perception of misconduct is enough to damage a career. Even in cases where a South Korean celebrity is cleared of an accusation, they are still normally expected to step aside for a grace period before returning to work.
It is this factor which international fans are struggling with: that the accuracy of claims is partially irrelevant, in regards to career status. Whatever the outcome, a star embroiled in a scandal won't appear in new films or television for the foreseeable future.
With Kim Seon Ho now believed to be hospitalised and his ex-partner removing the post, citing misunderstandings, the story continues to unfold. The details of a private relationship are being argued and dissected on an international stage.
The branding fallout
Brands are being forced to re-evaluate their advertising stance when it comes to navigating the complex waters of cancel culture in different countries around the globe.
Cancelling someone generally applies to removing professional and financial opportunities, to reflect support for public disapproval. But as cancelling becomes more rife, and support for a cancellation splinters or falters, where does that leave the brand?
Maintaining a “pure” public image continues to matter for celebrities in certain Asian countries. At the same time, other cultures and regional reactions may range from uninterested to unimpressed with policies driven by public perception of purity.
Cancelling a local contract now qualifies as the company taking a stance on the cancellation itself, in what has become murky waters when the impact extends to the global market.
At the very least, being involved with a celebrity endorsement is causing brands to monitor public response even more extensively, and take note of the increasing possibility of a disconnect between news sites, and public opinion via social media.
