We seem to have a double-standard when it comes to businesses using Māori cultural elements. So where should we draw the line? Ātea editor Liam Rātana argues with himself about it.

In a society arguably at the peak of cancel culture, cultural sensitivity can be a minefield for brands to navigate. This is especially true for companies that aren’t owned by someone belonging to the culture that they are representing. A lack of cultural awareness can quickly open businesses up to criticism. Over the last decade or so, several companies have come under fire for using Māori words or imagery to promote their products.

While people have been quick to criticise Pākehā-owned alcohol companies for appropriating aspects of te ao Māori, other companies have managed to so far escape judgment. So when is it OK to use something Māori for branding your product? Liam Rātana argues with himself.

Why are people getting upset about Māori cultural elements being used by some companies? Do we need to get over ourselves?

In recent years, a spate of companies have been called out for using Māori names or imagery on their products. These businesses, both local and international, have usually been in the alcohol industry, with criticism centred around the use of kupu Māori and imagery to promote a substance known to disproportionately cause harm to Māori. 

The most recent example of a business making such a mistake is Te Aro Brewing Company, which named one of the six beers in its new Discovery range Kupe, after the famous Polynesian voyager. The decision led to heavy criticism from cultural advisers and tangata whenua, who claimed use of the Kupe name alongside imagery of a Māori man holding a taiaha diminished his mana and was deeply offensive. The company was forced to pull advertising for the product after complaints were made to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Well, that makes sense. So no companies promoting harmful products should be allowed to use Māori cultural elements, right?

Well, it depends. New Zealand companies such as Te Aro Brewing Company or Birkenhead Brewing Company have arguably faced the heaviest criticism due to using ancestral names like Kupe, Hinemoa and Tūtānekai. Anyone with half an ounce of cultural awareness would probably realise that using these names to promote your alcohol product is a no-go. 

There have also been examples of overseas alcohol companies coming under fire for using names such as “Māori Tears” or “Indiginous [sic]” alongside Māori images on their products, including depictions of mataora or tūpuna on beer cans. 

However, there are also Māori-owned alcohol businesses and even cannabis companies using Māori words and images on their products. Take for example Tohu Wines or Tahu Gin, both of which incorporate Māori kupu and motifs on their products. Although it’s a company selling medicinal cannabis, rather than the recreational drug, Rua Bioscience recently announced it would be selling a cannabis flower product called Rua Rau Hiwa in Australia. These companies seem to have so far escaped criticism, despite effectively doing the exact same thing their Pākehā counterparts are criticised for.  

So you’re telling me it’s OK for Māori-owned alcohol and cannabis companies to use Māori cultural elements but not Pākehā-owned? That doesn’t seem fair.

This is the nucleus of my dilemma. The argument often revolves around the use of Māori words and images on products that cause harm. So why, on one hand, do we persecute Pākehā-owned alcohol companies for using Māori kupu and imagery, yet we laud Māori-owned businesses for doing the same thing? Arguing that Māori-owned alcohol companies have a right to do so simply because they whakapapa Māori falls over at the first hurdle – it’s not like their products cause less harm than those sold by Pākehā companies.

What about using Māori place names for products? I’ve seen heaps of companies doing that.

There are many well-known Aotearoa-based businesses using Māori place names in their branding, such as New Zealand Hops and their Motueka, Riwaka and Moutere hop strains – the popularity of these hops with overseas brewers is why we’ve ended up with beers with horribly misused Māori kupu and imagery. Despite the butchering of pronunciation that often occurs with the use of these names, it seems that on the whole, people don’t care too much about the use of place names, unless those names refer to an actual person. Take for example Fonterra’s Kāpiti cheese name Tuteremoana, which it claimed was named after the highest peak on Kāpiti Island. Whatever the source of inspiration, Tuteremoana is also the name of a famous rangatira from the area and its use on a block of cheese was considered offensive.

So it’s OK if the company has an understanding and appreciation of the elements they’re using?

Some people call it appreciation, others call it appropriation. The use of Māori cultural elements should always be considered, especially by non-Māori. If a company is unsure, it can never hurt to get a second opinion – especially if you don’t quite have a grasp on te reo Māori. A classic example of things getting lost in translation involves a beer brand and a leather store unknowingly using the reo Māori word “huruhuru” in their branding, which usually refers to pubic hair. 

Even some of the world’s most successful brands get things wrong, like Coca-Cola (perhaps fittingly) writing “Kia ora, Mate” on a vending machine stocking their product. In English, that translates to “Hello, Death”. These are embarrassing and likely expensive cock-ups that could have been easily avoided had a cultural expert been consulted.

Surely there are some rules or guidelines around using Māori cultural elements in brands?

The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) says businesses using Māori cultural elements such as symbols, names or imagery should ensure these elements are not offensive to Māori. This includes understanding the significance of Māori concepts like tapu and noa, and avoiding inappropriate associations, like using sacred Māori symbols for commercial purposes with products like food, alcohol or tobacco. Committees such as the Trade Marks Māori Advisory Committee and the Māori Patents Advisory Committee are tasked with ensuring that proposed IP does not offend Māori values. These committees bring deep knowledge of mātauranga Māori and cultural protocols, ensuring intellectual property involving Māori culture is handled with cultural sensitivity.

How have companies been affected?

Many companies caught up in fiascos around cultural insensitivity have either been told to, or chosen to, change the branding of a certain product. It’s unlikely any companies have collapsed due to making one controversial brand decision. However, it can be a costly exercise having to pull the product from shelves given a majority of the products have already gone to market by the time they are called out.

Conversely, as has been seen with the fallout with Te Aro Brewing Company, being criticised by some can also lead to a boom in business from the defiantly anti-woke. In response to the public criticism, a group adamant to fight back against “the commies declaring it illegal to make beer about certain characters” threw their support behind the small Upper Hutt-based brewery, buying “the beer they couldn’t advertise”.

So it’s free rein unless a company wants to trademark a brand, in which case it’s up to a group of five people to decide when it is and isn’t offensive? Seems weird.

Basically, businesses can do whatever they want if there’s no IP application involved. It’s effectively up to the public to call out things that are offensive. One official channel for this is the Advertising Standards Authority, as was seen with Te Aro Brewing’s Kupe beer. Social media campaigns can also be effective, as can complaining directly to the business. 

When it comes to trademark applications, it is strange that judgment be left to a small group of people such as the Trade Marks Māori Advisory Committee. However, as highlighted above, despite the group only being five strong, they possess an immense amount of mātauranga around te reo Māori and tikanga. While the committee may give their consent for companies to use words like “huruhuru” in their branding, or allow a Māori wine company to use reo Māori, it is ultimately the wider Māori population that dictates what is and isn’t offensive.

For me, being quick to criticise a Pākehā-owned company for using a Māori kupu in the branding of their alcohol or cannabis product but not doing the same with Māori companies opens us up to claims of hypocrisy and double standards. If we’re offended by one, I think we should be offended by the other too.