ITNTW: Sip of Controversy: The Bobba Problem

Cultural exchange through food and practices has made the world more diverse and connected. However, at times, it can raise questions about whether boundaries are being crossed. A recent episode of Dragon’s Den, the Canadian equivalent of Shark Tank, sparked controversy when two entrepreneurs pitched their company, ‘Bobba,’ which takes inspiration from the popular Eastern-Asian drink, boba – a sweet milk tea with tapioca pearls.

The pitch began on a sour note, with one of the entrepreneurs dismissing boba as a ‘trendy, sugary drink you’re never quite sure about the contents in.’ They went on to claim that their product was a ‘better, healthier’ alternative, implying that the original drink was no longer an ethical product. This later was revealed to be a false exclamation, as their product contained 20 ingredients, most of which were chemicals and foreign additives. The original drink typically has no more than 5 simple household ingredients. These remarks drew criticism, particularly from Chinese-Canadian Marvel star and investor Simu Liu, who was quick to call out the pitch as cultural appropriation. 

When asked why they entered the boba market, one of the partners admitted that it was purely a data-driven decision, saying he noticed the global rise in the popularity of boba and wanted to capitalise on the trend. This response, by failing to express any genuine passion for the drink, further made the business team inauthentic and purely profit-driven. 

Although the All the Dragons panel provided positive feedback and praise, Liu pressed them on what respect they were showing for the cultural roots of the drink. The entrepreneurs responded by stating that their partners in Taiwan developed the recipes, which they felt constituted the cultural element of their product. However, this answer failed to satisfy critics, who felt the pitch lacked genuine respect for boba’s cultural significance.

When it came time to make a final decision on the investment, Simu Liu voiced concerns about the entrepreneurs’ lack of acknowledgment for boba’s cultural origins. He emphasised that no respect had been shown to the drink’s heritage and expressed his desire to uplift minority business owners. Simu also pointed out that this company seemed to be profiting off something deeply connected to his cultural identity. Despite this, three Dragons made offers, and the entrepreneurs ultimately accepted Manjit Minhas’ investment of $1 million for 18% of the business.

The internet was quick to react with negativity. Although Liu has faced controversies in the past and isn’t well liked, many people sided with his stance on the matter. Critics accused the entrepreneurs of ‘whitewashing’ boba, especially after they claimed to have ‘improved’ the original drink. The dismissive tone used when discussing the drink only fuelled more outrage. Memes and skits mocking the episode quickly spread online.

The controversy didn’t end there. It soon circled back to the Dragons themselves. Simu took to TikTok to issue an apology, urging people not to bully the entrepreneurs or escalate the drama. He emphasised that while he stood by his critique, it wasn’t acceptable to attack the business owners. His unscripted and genuine apology was well received by most.

Manjit Minhas also issued an apology, but it backfired. Her statement, delivered in a heavily scripted manner, appeared inauthentic, as she was clearly reading from a screen. She explained that she had decided to withdraw her investment and acknowledged the hurt the situation had caused. Unfortunately, her apology was met with even more criticism, with people mocking her response through their own skits, further amplifying the backlash.  

From a PR perspective, this controversy could have been avoided from the get go. The entrepreneurs could have acknowledged boba’s cultural origins through their branding, such as on their cans and website, demonstrating that they genuinely respected the product beyond its profit potential. Additionally, instead of falsely advertising their products as healthier, they could have either avoided making such claims or been transparent about its actual ingredients. This would have shown a more thoughtful approach and likely avoided the backlash they faced.

Simu Liu’s apology was well-received, largely because it was unscripted and sincere. In contrast, Manjit Minhas could have reduced the criticism directed at her by delivering a more heartfelt and authentic apology. Had she taken a more genuine approach, similar to Liu’s, the public response might have been much more favourable.

Written by Michelle Yeow – PR & Influencer Coordinator @ InsideOut PR & AsSeenOn