Discussing the Dallas Cowboys and Black Rifle Coffee Partnership Criticism

When the Dallas Cowboys decide to do business with you, that earns some serious attention and clout. The professional football franchise is one of the premier brands in all of sports, as owner and business icon Jerry Jones has turned his National Football League record $150 million investment in 1989 to, at last calculated in August of 2021, a $6.5 billion dollar property.

Black Rifle Coffee Company is the newest business partner with Jones’ team, yet that relationship has come under predictable public criticism due to the brand imagery and some product names.

Did Cowboys’ leadership anticipate blowback? Likely not. Or maybe.

Regardless, the relationship, at least for now, is established and moving forward. The partnership is worth discussing with experts, for helpful analysis and to derive lessons to be learned for business leaders.

Black Rifle was founded by U.S. Army veteran Evan Hafer, who has made support of veterans one of the tenets of his company. One might assume such an organization would be immune to criticism.

The trouble that began seems like an overabundance of public fuss over a football team and a coffee company agreeing to do business together, at least until you look deeper and consider the culture in which we live and the problems going on in society.

The Associated Press wrote about it and reported that the shock and anger began when it became known that the two parties announced a marketing agreement and critics showing their displeasure that Black Rifle was a “gun-themed coffee company with blends that include ‘AK-47 Espresso,’ ‘Silencer Smooth’ and ‘Murdered Out.’”

“The partnership with the Black Rifle Coffee Co. was revealed on Twitter the day after more than a half-dozen people died in a shooting at a Fourth of July parade in suburban Chicago,” the AP reported, adding, “It also comes a little more than a month since the Cowboys announced their role in a $400,000 donation to support victims and survivors of the school shooting in Uvalde in South Texas, where 19 students and two teachers died.”

The tweets critical of the agreement started of course. At first attempt of the media to get the Cowboys’ leadership to comment, the franchise executives declined.

Black Rifle leadership was excited and willing to express it.

“BRCC is proud to partner with the Dallas Cowboys, who are strongly committed to our mission of supporting veterans, first responders, and America's men and women in uniform,” a spokesman said. “The long-planned announcement was timed to coincide with the Independence Day holiday—America's Team. America's Coffee. America's Birthday.”

The Dallas Cowboys’ ownership and leadership team saw great potential in the collaboration. Was the business agreement entirely positive?

Conversing in this roundtable discussion are Dominic K. Hawkins, founder and principal at Factotum Consulting; Ashley Mann, the founder at Pinegrove Public Relations; Kelly Ann Collins, founder and CEO at Vult Lab; Cheryl Dixon, a fractional chief communication officer, strategic communication consultant and adjunct professor at Columbia University; Lizzy Harris, the founder of Pipit Communications and Peggy Bendel, President at Bendel Communications International.

Dominic K. Hawkins

How well thought out was this marketing partnership for today's cultural temperature regarding guns?

Hawkins: NFL Teams go out of their way to garner attention at all times. This is especially true in the case of Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. He basically said that off-field scandals lead to more interest in the team.

It seems like Jones believes in the old maxim that all PR is good PR.

From that lens, this was deliberate. He knows that there will be some outrage, which causes an increase in press and social media mentions of the Cowboys and that's exactly what these kinds of actions cause: more impressions.

Mann: While most partnerships of this magnitude take months, if not years to culminate, from a pure business perspective, the timing of this announcement is in poor taste considering the recent events in the U.S., including the Independence Day shooting in Highland Park and the Uvalde Massacre in the Cowboy's own home state.

While the Dallas Cowboys have a long-standing commitment to supporting veterans and veteran-founded organizations, as “America's Team,” more compassion and thought should have been put into this partnership and the announcement timing. It was tone-deaf, to say the least.

Collins: The timing of this partnership is terrible. I would advise any client to steer far away from anything gun-related right now and for the foreseeable future.

Actions speak louder than words and the action of partnering with a company that has a beverage called “Murdered Out” makes the Cowboys look tone-deaf despite the donation the team recently made to support victims and survivors of the school shooting in Uvalde.

Dixon: I think the issue was in the execution and messaging, not about the partnership. Black Rifle Coffee is a coffee company that is veteran-owned and operated by a former Green Beret, not a gun company.

It makes a lot of charitable contributions and supports current and former members of the military, first responders and others. Because of the company’s mission, ties to Dallas and “Love of American Culture,” it seems like it would be a natural marketing partnership.

I think Cowboys’ leadership may have considered and weighed the risk of an association with guns, but not gun violence.

There were several problems in the execution: the timing, the channel and the message.

Timing: It was originally timed to coincide with the July 4th holiday to support their “America’s Football Team and America’s Coffee Company.”

In the aftermath of the gun violence, it would have been wise to hold off the announcement. Media and consumers will be biased after such a tragedy and announcing it a day after mass shootings was extremely tone deaf.

Many news reports highlighted “Murdered Out” and “AK-47” as some of the product names…but the company also has products called “Flying Elk,” “Power Llama” and “Space Bear.” Gun-centric? Yes…but a proponent of violence? Not intentionally.

Channel: Also, announcing on Twitter did not allow for the in-depth messaging required to help consumers understand what Black Rifle Coffee is about and how it is purpose-minded.

Message: I imagine much of the general public does not have the level of awareness with the brand to associate it as “America’s Coffee” and will have very negative associations with the name of the company.

Harris: Ultimately the timing on announcing this marketing partnership was inopportune. According to Cornwell, “For those opposed to gun violence, there is no good timing,” but therein lies the issue: the campaign, the timing, and frankly the names of the coffee blends completely overshadow the commendable work that Black Rifle Coffee Company is doing.

Now, because of this poorly-timed announcement, many Americans will read the clickbait headlines and assume that the Cowboys partnered with a tone-deaf organization just trying to ruffle feathers, as opposed to an organization working to help an integral part of our society.

The lack of foresight in the timing, which could have been completely avoided with the proper planning and framing, ultimately has resulted in a disservice to both brands.

Ashley Mann

What perception did Cowboys' leadership think the public would have considering gun violence is widely reported on regularly?

Hawkins: At the end of the day, the team leadership knows their audience. There are over one million gun licenses in Texas and about 46% of adults in the state say they have one. Their audience is probably split on the announcement, but some may even respond positively to the pro-gun, pro-veteran posture this partnership presented.

Mann: Although I cannot speak to the Cowboy's intention with the partnership and announcement timing, my personal perception is that this is a case of two marketing teams working toward a pre-planned date that never stepped back to consider what the partnership might signal to the greater public at such a sensitive time.

Both organizations had a vested interest in announcing the partnership, however, there should have been someone on the outside or an advisor of some sort that threw a flag and at least signaled that this could have negative blowback for all parties involved.

Collins: It is nice that the coffee company is veteran owned. It's great to support veterans and our troops, and I am sure that is probably why they entered this partnership but with the number of impressionable children who look up to the Cowboys and its players, and attend games, I think the team's leadership's decision to feature a coffee with a blended called “Silencer Smooth” along with its brand, and in its stadium, is extremely poor judgement.

This is a public relations nightmare. The last thing most parents want is their child seeing “AK-47 Espresso” on a menu - or Black Rifle's rooster illustration with a rifle.

Harris: Due to their lack of comment, we can only assume that the Cowboy’s leadership team thought the public would see the brand synergy between “America’s Team” and “America’s Coffee” and would take the campaign for face value.

But Americans are more skeptical - and better researchers - than they’ve ever been. If there’s a narrative to unearth, consumers will find it.

There is a clear, linear connection between the 4th of July and supporting our nation’s veterans and first responders. But public relations and communications is about framing, and this campaign was not framed, or timed, well. Apart from the clear tone-deaf timing of the announcement, this could be interpreted as two brands trying to capitalize off of a tragedy.

Bendel: It doesn't seem they considered the public's perceptions at all. They seemed to have viewed it through the “helping veterans prism,” with no perspective on broader issues. Perhaps the decision makers were influenced by their Texas base, where gun possession and gun rights are valued more highly than in other parts of the United States.

Kelly Ann Collins

Could this anger possibly be much ado about nothing in the big scheme of things or possibly, decision incompetence?

Hawkins: This is a PR stunt about creating media impressions for the Cowboys. Time will tell whether this will impact ticket or memorabilia sales. If I were a betting man, I'd say no.

Mann: In today's world, every action or inaction taken by a large organization like the Dallas Cowboys is scrutinized. And from a business perspective, to act like this isn't a real phenomenon, it is just negligent.

The Cowboys made a show of donating $400K toward the Uvalde victims, and while money talks, the actions of a corporation usually speak louder.

Harris: At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter whether or not this campaign is overblown, or if it is indicative of an incompetent decision-making team.

I find it hard to believe that there aren’t several individuals working on behalf of both of these organizations who are highly skilled at what they do.

And while a lesson was or at least should be learned today, the issue that needs to be attended to is how a campaign like this further drives the divide between an already extremely chasmed (sic) society.

Corporations, brands, and organizations all have the responsibility to consider how their message will be received by the masses, not just its target market.

The internet has made it impossible for anything, whether it’s a personal post or a branded campaign, to exist in a vacuum, so brands shouldn’t execute it as such.

Bendel: It shows a startling lack of awareness. The team has just contributed to support Uvalde after the massacre of 19 children and several of their teachers and made the announcement the day after there was another mass shooting.

Supporting Black Rifle is not brand-adjacent, to say the least.

Cheryl Dixon

How will the Cowboys leadership respond? Will the two sides part company in their business agreement or will both sides make apologies and move forward?

Hawkins: The Cowboys have been silent so far. In these situations, public outrage tends to spike and then quiet down after a few days.

The Cowboys leadership won't respond from a high level, but if a team spokesperson is asked about the partnership in the future, they are likely to continue to emphasize that they're partnering with a company that “supports veterans, first responders, and America’s men and women in uniform.”

And let's face it, it's extremely difficult to counter that narrative.

Mann: I believe the Cowboys will tout the veteran-supporting mission of Black Rifle Coffee Company if they choose to comment at all. Black Rifle will likely take the Cowboy's lead in any communication efforts.

Harris: Judging by the lack of comment it can be assumed that they will issue some sort of apology for the poorly timed campaign, but will double down on their support of veterans and first responders, probably referring to them as the backbone of our country.

I’m not contesting this, because that’s not what matters. As a country, we are solely laser-focused on being right over all else.

But as brands, both the Dallas Cowboys and Black Rifle Coffee Company have an opportunity to apologize for their insensitivity around the timing, highlight our similarities, as opposed to our differences around the issue and spell out a commitment to being better in the future.

Bendel: Parting company would be wise for the Cowboys, although they are likely to be highly criticized for withdrawing. Black Rifle doubles down on violence simply through the names of their blends, and partnering with them definitely touches a hot button for many.

Lizzy Harris

What advice would you give Black Rifle and the Cowboys?

Hawkins: This partnership is clearly elevating Black Rifle's brand and places the Cowboys in the national spotlight, but consider that almost 23,000 people have been killed due to gun violence in the U.S. in 2022, with over 220 people shot and killed in a mass shooting in Chicago at the time of the announcement.

We're all for supporting our military heroes, and at the same time, we should support our citizens during this time of emotional turmoil in the wake of a national tragedy.

Mann: Black Rifle had a tremendous opportunity with the Dallas Cowboys partnership to bring additional awareness and dollars into supporting military families and veteran care, but it feels like an opportunity wasted because of their chosen branding.

Instead of producing great coffee that has a charitable mission and doubling down on their product quality, they've created a perception about their organization that immediately shoves them into a controversial counter-category and is dragging the Cowboys with them.

Collins: I would advise Black Rifle to step back from the partnership. Another route could be replacing the Black Rifle packaging with Cowboys packaging and signage with Black Rifle in small text, or creating a join venture between Black Rifle and the Cowboys that uses different branding, messaging and visuals. The year 2022 (or any year for that matter) is not the time to normalize putting rifle imagery throughout football stadiums.

Harris: Both organizations need to face this head-on. They each need to issue statements, individually and together. They need to identify where they misstepped, apologize for their insensitivity, and generate and publicize a multi-step plan as to what their missions are as organizations, and how they’ll stay committed to that mission moving forward.

Not every organization can be perfect, but every organization can react and handle self-driven adversity in a way that rights its wrong.

Dixon: Focus on the history of the brand, the work it is committed to doing to support veterans and first responders and follow through on charitable and philanthropic promises.

Peggy Bendel

Bendel: I would advise Black Rifle to graciously withdraw from the partnership, perhaps with a message stating that further discussions with the Cowboys marketing team has made it clear that their marketing budgets, target markets and key messaging were not well-aligned.

I'd advise the Cowboys to state that upon reflection, the two brands agreed the partnership was not a good match for either partner, based upon their respective scale and target audience. Further noting that while they are avid supporters of veterans under all circumstances, this partnership also raised the issue of dissonance with their recent support of all those affected by the school shooting in Uvalde, right in their home state.

The roundtable was slightly edited for length and clarity.