Glenlivet backlash: Struggle heroines’ families demand answers over 1956 Women’s March whisky advert

Families of prominent South African anti-apartheid activists have accused Glenlivet, a Scottish whisky brand, of exploiting the legacy of the 1956 Women’s March in a controversial social media campaign. The backlash follows a post that incorporated images of struggle heroines and the voice of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, sparking outrage among the families of Lilian Ngoyi, Helen Joseph, Rahima Moosa, Sophia Williams-De Bruyn, and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. The families, along with the Lilian Ngoyi Foundation and the Sophie and Henry De Bruyn Legacy Foundation, have demanded transparency and accountability from Glenlivet and its parent companies, Pernod Ricard and Chivas Brothers. The controversy began with a social media post that linked the 1956 Women’s March, a pivotal moment in South Africa’s fight against apartheid, to Glenlivet’s brand. The ad featured photographs of the women who led the march and included a clip of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s voice. The families argue that the campaign commodified the legacy of these figures, reducing their historic contributions to a marketing strategy. Sophia Williams-De Bruyn, whose image was used in the ad, expressed deep distress over the appropriation of her family's activism. She stated that the campaign ignored the broader societal issues surrounding alcohol consumption and gender-based violence in South Africa, which continue to plague the nation despite decades of progress. Glenlivet responded by removing the post and issuing an apology, acknowledging that the content had caused offense. The company admitted it was investigating how the post was created and approved, vowing to prevent such incidents in the future. However, the families remain unconvinced, arguing that the damage extends beyond the removal of the ad. They point out that elements of the campaign still circulate online, suggesting that the issue is far from resolved. The families are also concerned about the use of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s voice, which they believe should not have been employed in an advertisement for alcohol, especially given her long-standing association with the struggle movement. The families emphasized the historical context of alcohol in South Africa, highlighting its role as a tool of oppression under colonial rule and apartheid. They referenced the “dop system,” a practice in which white authorities forced black workers to consume alcohol as a means of control. In light of this history, the families argue that associating alcohol advertising with the legacy of the 1956 Women’s March is deeply problematic. They see the campaign as a continuation of the systemic exploitation that characterized South Africa’s past. In seeking resolution, the families have called for direct engagement with the leadership of Pernod Ricard and Chivas Brothers, including chairman Alexandre Ricard. They want to understand how the campaign was developed, what considerations were made regarding the historical significance of the 1956 Women’s March, and why the families of the women depicted were not consulted. Additionally, they are requesting a formal, written apology to the affected families. Their demands reflect a broader concern about the protection of historical narratives from being co-opted for commercial gain. Looking ahead, the families have indicated they will pursue legal action through the Advertising Regulatory Board, aiming to safeguard the legacy of the 1956 Women’s March from what they describe as commercial exploitation. While Glenlivet has taken steps to address the situation, the families insist that the core issue, whether the legacy of South Africa’s struggle heroines should be used for profit, remains unresolved. For them, the debate is not merely about the ad itself, but about the ethical implications of using historical memory for branding purposes.