Carla Speight on the Sheeran and Macklemore row and Manchester’s lesson for pop stars

Carla Speight, a crisis communications specialist who also works as a public relations expert, talent manager and influencer marketing strategist, argues that the row between Ed Sheeran and Macklemore shows how public figures can confuse performance with action, and that Manchester showed a better way eight years ago.

Speight says that for several days social media was dominated by the dispute. Macklemore was taken off Sheeran’s US tour after what she calls a “performative protest” in support of Gaza, and then named Sheeran in an angry statement. Sheeran answered with a measured statement, and the internet, in her words, “picked sides, sharpened its knives and went looking for someone to cancel.”

She says she understands the anger, describing what is happening to civilians in Gaza as horrific and what happened to people in Israel on 7 October as “equally as horrific”. But having spent more than ten years advising public figures on PR and crisis strategy, she says the question she keeps asking is what outcome people are hoping for.

Blame falling on the wrong person

Speight points out that Sheeran’s statement made clear the decision to drop Macklemore was taken by the promoters and venues, quoting him: “I spoke with the venues all week…but the venue’s and promoter’s decision was final”.

Even so, she says, it is Sheeran whose name is trending and whose fans are being urged to boycott. In her view he is “effectively being thrown under the bus for a decision Macklemore and the promoters should have seen coming.”

She describes a wider pattern in online cancel culture, in which the people who actually make decisions cannot be reached, so anger falls on the nearest familiar face. The promoters, she argues, have kept fairly quiet and left their headliner to take the criticism. “That isn’t leadership. It’s hiding.”

On Macklemore, she accepts he is entitled to his views, which many people share. But she argues that an on-stage protest at another artist’s show produces clips and headlines rather than aid at a border crossing, and that naming a colleague who did not make the decision “doesn’t move the dial for a single family in Gaza either.”

She contends that Benjamin Netanyahu will not change course because of a pop star’s post, and that Sheeran is in a position where speaking up divides his fanbase and staying quiet draws condemnation, with Gaza gaining nothing either way.

Speight questions what Macklemore hoped to achieve, saying he had been warned because of earlier issues with his behaviour and went ahead regardless, leaving the venue owners and promoter worried about the safety of future audiences.

The memory of May 2017

Speight recalls the attack at Manchester Arena in May 2017, as an Ariana Grande concert was ending, when 22 people were killed, many of them young fans. She calls it the worst thing the city has experienced in a generation.

Grande was not especially political at the time, she notes, yet her fans were targeted. Given how heightened feelings about Gaza are, she argues that bringing politics into a family show risks a repeat and is “just irresponsible”. She cites Bondi Beach as one example of how division has caused suffering on both sides.

She contrasts that with how Manchester responded. Taxi drivers turned off their meters to take people home, residents took in stranded concertgoers, Sikh temples and mosques offered food and shelter, and queues to give blood stretched along the street.

Within a fortnight Grande returned for One Love Manchester, which raised millions for bereaved and injured families, with far more raised later by the city’s emergency fund.

She writes that nobody went to Old Trafford Cricket Ground that night to make a political point. The worker bee came to stand for a city that pulls together, and people are still getting it tattooed.

“That’s the difference between performance and action. Manchester’s response changed lives. A viral protest changes a news cycle,” she says.

What celebrities could do instead

Speight sets out ways in which stars who want to use their platforms for Gaza could make a difference.

The first is funding the organisations doing the work. Established humanitarian groups need funds to buy food, water and medical supplies, and she argues that a pop star who matched fans’ donations would do more good in seven days than a year’s worth of statements or stunts.

The second is backing aid access. She points to Greta Thunberg setting sail for Gaza carrying supplies, aware she would probably be stopped, as an act that made the world pay attention to the blockade in a way a tweet could not.

The third is targeting decision makers, meaning governments rather than fellow artists on the same tour. Citing Band Aid in the 1980s and One Love in Manchester, she suggests musicians could stage a collaborative show with figures from both sides to raise awareness and money for aid and promote a message of peace.

Manchester’s Jewish community

Speight notes that Manchester has one of the UK’s largest and longest-established Jewish communities, many of whose members currently feel unsafe.

She argues it is possible to acknowledge what civilians in Gaza are suffering without making Jewish neighbours feel like targets. When influential figures let criticism of a government slide into hostility towards Israel as a whole, she says, Jewish people are left isolated, in the same way that the actions of a few should not define the Palestinian community.

Families with no connection to events in Gaza are left afraid, she adds, and celebrities who weigh in with “half thought out statements” often turn communities on the other side into collateral damage.

Lessons for brands

Speight argues the fallout is not only a celebrity issue, as employers, venues and brands are all being pressed to say where they stand. She draws four lessons from how the tour promoters handled the situation.

Businesses should own their decisions, and if they drop an act, say so and give the reason rather than leaving their talent to take the blame.

They should lead with action rather than slogans, supporting humanitarian relief through practical means such as donations and staff matching schemes.

They should consider everyone affected, since staff and customers may have family on both sides of the conflict, and messaging should support civilians without alienating communities in the UK.

And they should plan ahead, with a crisis plan ready before taking on a highly emotive issue, “so you’re not writing a statement at midnight while your name trends.”

Speight concludes that both Sheeran and Macklemore will recover, but that a war of words between two musicians does nothing for families in Gaza. Manchester, she says, showed that the best answer to horror is practical help, and the celebrity world “could do worse than follow our lead: less performance, more action, and room for compassion for everyone.”