BEVZA and five ears of wheat: why Ukrainian brands fail on difficult themes.

According to ТСН: Recently, the Ukrainian brand BEVZA found itself in a scandal over the release of a set of Christmas ornaments called 'Five Ears of Wheat.' This symbol is associated with one of the most tragic events of the 20th century – the Holodomor of 1932-1933, which claimed millions of lives, as well as with the 'Law of the Five Ears of Wheat,' which became a symbol of the genocide of the Ukrainian people. The public's reaction to this news was swift and harsh, causing the brand to urgently withdraw the product from sale.

This case is not the first in a similar situation in Ukraine. Earlier, a company from Irpin released a drink called 'Heroic Bucha Kombucha,' using the name of the city where mass killings of civilians occurred. Additionally, singer Tina Karol posed in tights with the inscription 'ZSU,' which elicited mixed reactions; some saw it as support for the army, while others considered it a cynical speculation on the topic of war.

A traumatized society will always react sharply

The societal reaction to such commercial experiments is entirely understandable. Research in the field of communication shows that communities that have experienced mass trauma exhibit heightened sensitivity to attempts to commercialize their pain.

Undoubtedly, commercial organizations may aim to promote traumatic images, but this undermines the sense of safety and hinders the recovery process of society. When a brand tries to turn symbols of tragedy into merchandise – even with the best intentions – it activates collective trauma. Ukrainian society has been in constant trauma for more than nine years.

However, the reaction is not a verdict

It is essential to realize that the decisive reaction of a traumatized society is the norm, but it does not mean that brands always have to abandon their ideas.

The issue lies not only in the difficult themes but also in how they are presented and how they respond to criticism. For instance, BEVZA has long used ears of wheat as a symbol of Ukrainianness, but transferring this symbol to a Christmas ornament reminiscent of 'five ears of wheat' occurred just before the Day of Remembrance for the Victims of the Holodomor, indicating a communication misunderstanding on the brand's part.

The founder of the brand, Svitlana Bevza, described her idea through the story of her grandfather, emphasizing the value of ears of wheat. However, an important nuance was ignored: the difference between 'ears of wheat as a symbol of fertility' and 'five ears of wheat as a symbol of genocide.'

Lessons from those who did not back down

History has examples of brands that faced criticism and emerged stronger. During World War II, Coca-Cola supported American soldiers by opening numerous plants to produce beverages for the military. This led not only to the commercialization of war but also to the establishment of connection and support in difficult times.

However, the company also faced criticism when it launched an advertising campaign for the 75th anniversary of Fanta, a beverage that originated in Nazi Germany. Coca-Cola acknowledged the mistake but was able to use this case for an open discussion about its complex history.

Modern research emphasizes that authenticity and adherence to values are key to successfully overcoming such situations. Brands with clear corporate social responsibility have a better chance of surviving crises.

Resilience through values, not retreat

The main issues faced by BEVZA, 'Bucha Kombucha,' and others lie in:

• Lack of prior work with the audience. If a brand plans to use a painful symbol, it should first create a context of trust.
• Misunderstanding the difference between appropriation and honoring. Using 'five ears of wheat' on a Christmas tree is not the same as wearing an ear of wheat earring that symbolizes resilience.
• Quick capitulation under pressure. If a brand immediately removes a product without any dialogue, it effectively admits its mistake. Sometimes the issue is not with the idea itself but with its presentation.

To avoid criticism, BEVZA could have organized a roundtable with historians and representatives of the Holodomor Museum. If part of the proceeds had been directed to educational programs, it could have created a positive context. Only through open dialogue, not immediate retreat, can a better perception be achieved.

The Ukrainian society is traumatized, and this is the reality that all brands working in Ukraine or with Ukrainian themes must deal with. Yet, at the same time, a traumatized society can grow, engage in dialogue, and integrate its pain into a cultural context. True brand resilience does not lie in avoiding criticism but in the ability to withstand it, listen, adapt, and emerge from the discussion stronger.