These are the sources and citations used to research Racist contemporary advertisements. This bibliography was generated on Cite This For Me on
Gap has apologized over an ad for its Ellen DeGeneres kids clothing line after the ad was called racist by some Twitter users. The #GapKidsxED campaign ad showed two white girls in impressive acrobatic positions, while a black girl stood passively as a third white girl used her head as an armrest. The photo was shared with the caption: "Meet the kids who are proving that girls can do anything." Debbie Felix, a Gap Kids representative, apologized. She told the Daily Mail Online on Monday: "As a brand with a proud 46-year history of championing diversity and inclusivity, we appreciate the conversation that has taken place and are sorry to anyone we've offended." Felix added: "We are replacing the image with a different shot from the campaign, which encourages girls (and boys) everywhere to be themselves and feel pride in what makes them unique."
In-text: (Gap has apologized over an ad for its kids clothing line that people said was racist, 2021)
Your Bibliography: Business Insider. 2021. Gap has apologized over an ad for its kids clothing line that people said was racist. [online] Available at: <https://www.businessinsider.com/gap-has-apologized-over-an-ad-for-its-kids-clothing-line-that-people-said-was-racist-2016-4?r=US&IR=T> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
In an attempt to reach African American customers, many U.S. businesses began integrating their commercials—often by relying on fraught stereotypes. In the 1970s, something special began happening in American advertising. At the tail end of the civil-rights movement, the industry began to move away from its decades-long habit of portraying African Americans almost exclusively in positions of servitude or inferiority, as props in ads aimed at white audiences. By the 1970s, companies such as McDonald’s and Coca-Cola began increasing the racial diversity depicted in their campaigns. In 1974, Jello became one of the first big companies to hire an African American spokesperson—Bill Cosby. The goal was twofold for corporations: to keep up with the times, and to broaden their potential consumer base. But the way many agencies went about this demonstrates how little they understood about their target demographic—and the results, like so many vintage ads, appear deeply misguided to modern audiences. To McDonald’s, for example, appealing to African American consumers specifically meant, in part, ads such as “Makin’ it” and “Dinnertimin,’” which made extensive use of “g-dropping.”Ads featuring Caucasians from around the same time, meanwhile, left out lines like “On the real, kids can really dig gettin’ down with McDonald’s” and the insidious “‘em.” Employing “g-dropping” to appeal to African American audiences has a long history, from Aunt Jemima’s much-maligned “mammy” ads (which used lines like “Every bite is happyfyin’ light”) in the early 20th century to President Barack Obama’s controversial speech to the Congressional Black Caucus in 2011. Burger King played up this vernacular distinction in some of its “Have It Your Way” ads to a lesser extent, though one ad inexplicably interjected the line “Have mercy!!” Charlton McIlwain, an associate professor at New York University who specializes in race and media, said in an email that he views these tone-deaf ads as “the outcome of [advertisers] trying to do the right thing, but not necessarily knowing what that meant.” White-dominated ad agencies lacked a general familiarity with blacks and black communities, leading them ”to design ads that were racially naive and necessarily relied on stereotypes for lack of any other information.” Neil Drossman, an executive creative director and partner at his own ad agency, agreed, calling the McDonald’s ads “a really cynical and superficial effort to reach a black audience.” Drossman, who began working in New York ad agencies in the 70s, said he remembers his firm working on an ad featuring a black couple and being asked if it looked “too urban.” According to Drostman, most of the industry’s missteps resulted from an ignorance on behalf of mainstream ad companies (though there were and are specialized black agencies), but the general failure in tone was something that even the conventions of the era can’t really excuse. “What differentiated the good agencies of that period from the big, bad ones (the great majority) was a respect for the target and a desire to understand it,” Drossman said. Advertisers knew empirically that African Americans were more likely to buy a product when they saw themselves reflected in ads—so targeted advertising made sense. But agencies also worried that products would become “branded black,” losing them their white consumers as a result. This turned out to be a misguided fear. Demographic targeting continued to flourish, and by the end of the decade, blacks made up around 12 percent of models in commercials, compared to 3 percent in the mid-1960s, McIlwain said. If microtargeting is a legacy of 1970s advertising industry shifts, then so is the casual—or symbolic—racism that inevitably resulted. As the sociologist Anthony Cortese noted in his book Provocateur: Images of Women and Minorities in Advertising, “Stereotypes of blacks and ethnic minorities have not been eliminated but have changed in character, taking subtler and more symbolic or underhanded forms.” While advertisers took depictions of African American more seriously, other minorities were left out, largely because they had no significant spending power and weren’t worth pursuing. Not only did advertisers regurgitate stereotypes, but they also helped invent new ones. The 1970s also marks the beginning of advertisers targeting minorities in vice-related categories. Think alcohol and cigarettes, especially menthol, which companies such as Winston branded as “Real & Rich & Cool.” As middle-class white consumers began kicking their smoking habits in the 70s, agencies began advertising for cigarettes in predominantly black communities at 2.6 times the rate of white communities. Today, McDonald’s continues to run a website dedicated to promoting black culture called 365Black. As Imani Perry, a professor at Princeton University’s Center for African American studies told Digiday in 2014: McDonald’s direct marketing to African Americans has always troubled me, largely because so many African Americans live in urban areas surrounded by fast food restaurants and with limited access to fresh produce and unprocessed food. It seemed to add insult to injury to present this business as having any investment or interest in African American history and culture. There is a difference, though, in the kind of reaction companies can expect today if an ad goes too far in an attempt to appeal to a certain demographic. “Businesses must weigh the benefit of potential profit to be gained from ethnic consumers against the risk of permanently alienating such large consumer markets,” Cortese said. “In the past, boycotts by ethnic consumers were successfully used for social change. Today's activists are much more hostile and bold. Demands that particular goods be taken off retail shelves have become more intense.”
In-text: (Cruz, 2021)
Your Bibliography: Cruz, L., 2021. 'Dinnertimin' and 'No Tipping': How Advertisers Targeted Black Consumers in the 1970s. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: <https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/06/casual-racism-and-greater-diversity-in-70s-advertising/394958/> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
n the spot, we see a young black girl from South Africa attending a school in Bangkok, where it's obvious she is having trouble understanding much of her surroundings, like the native language and the local food. Aware that the new student is a bit uncomfortable in such a foreign environment, one of her Asian classmates comes up and proceeds to lick her fingers, and the girl quickly realizes she is referring to KFC and smiles. The two girls, along with a few other Asian classmates, are then seen happily eating a bucket of chicken. However, some wonder if the ad, titled, "Tastes Like Home," is utilizing the stereotype that often links fried chicken to black people. In the commercial's description on YouTube, it reads, "It's amazing how the simplest things connect us and make us feel at home - like mealtimes and the universally loved taste of KFC. The launch of KFC South Africa's latest advert by Ogilvy & Mather Johannesburg, shot in Bangkok Thailand, brings to life how the same great KFC taste brings people together and makes you feel at home."
In-text: (KFC Commercial Draws Backlash, Calls of Racism - E! Online, 2021)
Your Bibliography: E! Online. 2021. KFC Commercial Draws Backlash, Calls of Racism - E! Online. [online] Available at: <https://www.eonline.com/news/515907/kfc-commercial-draws-racist-backlash> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
In-text: (History, 2021)
Your Bibliography: I'm Not Racist But..... 2021. History. [online] Available at: <https://iamnotracistbut.wordpress.com/history/> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
Burger King, 1970s
In-text: (History, 2021)
Your Bibliography: I'm Not Racist But..... 2021. History. [online] Available at: <https://iamnotracistbut.wordpress.com/history/> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
This poster was part of a campaign by the CRE to make people confront their own attitudes to racial stereotypes. The original teaser just had the same image and the headline, “Scared?” The reveal then had the sub-heading, “You should be. He’s a dentist” and identified the advertiser as the CRE. The campaign provoked one of the largest number of complaints ever in this area, 84, with people not only complaining about the racism of the teaser, but also the denigration of dentists and the danger of discouraging children from visiting the dentist. The CRE argued that the ad was an ironic and humorous challenge to stereotypes. There appears to have been no formal adjudication by the ASA, and it is difficult to get to the bottom of what happened in this case, but the upshot was that the CRE became the first advertiser to be required to have their posters pre-vetted for 2 years by CAP Copy Advice – a procedure that had really been introduced to deal with the notorious FCUK campaign of the time. However, it seems that the ASA and CAP were uncomfortable with the use of shock tactics, which is a long-running bugbear, and perhaps about the lack of prior consultation.
In-text: (Lewis Silkin - To mark Black History Month, we’ve looked at some of the ads that been labelled racist in both the UK and further afield, but we’ve been shocked to identify the biggest offender of all., 2021)
Your Bibliography: Lewis Silkin. 2021. Lewis Silkin - To mark Black History Month, we’ve looked at some of the ads that been labelled racist in both the UK and further afield, but we’ve been shocked to identify the biggest offender of all.. [online] Available at: <https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/to-mark-black-history-month-weve-looked-at-some-of-the-ads-that-been-labelled-racist-in-both-the-uk> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
UNCLE Ben’s rice will soon "evolve" its appearance in response to growing concerns over racial bias and injustices. “We recognise that now is the right time to evolve the Uncle Ben’s brand, including its visual brand identity, which we will do,” food giant Mars, the parent company, said in a statement. “Racism has no place in society. We stand in solidarity with the Black community, our Associates and our partners in the fight for social justice,” the statement added. Mars explained on its website that Uncle Ben is a fictional character whose name was first used in 1946 as a reference to an African American Texan male rice farmer. The image of the African American who has come to personify the brand “was a beloved Chicago chef and waiter named Frank Brown,” the company said. While it is unclear what the exact changes or timing will be, Mars added that it is “evaluating all possibilities.” The move to rebrand Uncle Ben’s follows a similar announcement from Quaker Oats, which plans to change its Aunt Jemima pancake and syrup name and logo. The world's first ready pancake mix features an African American woman named Aunt Jemima, who was originally dressed as a minstrel show performer. Kristin Kroepfl, vice president and chief marketing officer of Quaker Foods North America, revealed the changes in a press release."We recognise Aunt Jemima's origins are based on a racial stereotype," Kroepfl said. "As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we also must take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our consumers' expectations."The Quaker Oats Company, a subsidiary of PepsiCo., purchased Aunt Jemima Mills Company in 1926. PepsiCo, which merged with Quaker Oats 19 years ago, has not yet revealed what the new name or logo will be. Kroepfl added in the statement, obtained by Adweek: “We are starting by removing the image and changing the name. “We will continue the conversation by gathering diverse perspectives from both our organisation and the Black community to further evolve the brand and make it one everyone can be proud to have in their pantry.”
In-text: (Phakdeetham, 2021)
Your Bibliography: Phakdeetham, J., 2021. Uncle Ben's rice to 'evolve' appearance as concerns grow over racial stereotyping. [online] The Sun. Available at: <https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11891164/uncle-bens-logo-black-lives-matter/> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
Dove has apologised after publishing an advert on its Facebook page which showed a black woman turning into a white woman. The brand was accused of racism over the online advertising campaign and it later admitted it had “missed the mark” with an image posted on Facebook. The advert showed a black woman removing her top to reveal a white woman underneath supposedly after using Dove body lotion. The white woman then removes her top and turns into a Middle Eastern woman. The campaign has since been removed from Facebook but was shared by Naomi Blake, an American makeup artist who goes by the name Naythemua. “So I’m scrolling through Facebook and this is the #dove ad that comes up … ok so what am I looking at,” she wrote as the caption. Under the post, she was asked if people would be offended if the white woman had turned into a black woman. She said: “Nope, we wouldn’t and that’s the whole point. What does America tell black people? That we are judged by the color of our skin and that includes what is considered beautiful in this country.” I am the woman in the 'racist Dove ad'. I am not a victim. She added that Dove’s marketing team should have known better and said “the tone deafness in these companies makes no sense”. Following the removal of the advert, Dove, which is owned by Unilever, tweeted: “An image we recently posted on Facebook missed the mark in representing women of colour thoughtfully. We deeply regret the offence it caused.” In a further statement Dove said: “As a part of a campaign for Dove body wash, a three-second video clip was posted to the US Facebook page. “This did not represent the diversity of real beauty which is something Dove is passionate about and is core to our beliefs, and it should not have happened. “We have removed the post and have not published any other related content. We apologise deeply and sincerely for the offence that it has caused.” However the damage was done and the nearly 3,000 comments below the tweet were almost exclusively negative. Many social media users called for a boycott of Dove’s products. Ava DuVernay, the director of the film Selma, was one of many prominent people to criticise both the advert and the apology. She said on Twitter: “You can do better than ‘missed the mark’. Flip + diminishing. Deepens your offence. You do good work. Have been for years. Do better here.” The trans model Munroe Bergdorf, who recently was at the centre of a racism row with L’Oreal, tweeted to say: “Diversity is viewed as a buzzword or a trend. An opportunity to sell product to women of colour. Dove – Do better.” Others pointed out this was not the first time the company has been accused of racism. In 2011 Dove’s before-and-after advert charted the transition of a black woman to a white woman after using its body wash. At the time, Dove said in a statement: “All three women are intended to demonstrate the ‘after’ product benefit. We do not condone any activity or imagery that intentionally insults any audience.”
In-text: (Dove apologises for ad showing black woman turning into white one, 2021)
Your Bibliography: the Guardian. 2021. Dove apologises for ad showing black woman turning into white one. [online] Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/dove-apologises-for-ad-showing-black-woman-turning-into-white-one> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
Advertisement posters for a new children’s film have been pulled down over concerns that one of the pictured characters has stereotypical "racist" undertones. “We wanted to do the exact opposite and we are very sorry if some have felt offended or felt that we were reinforcing a racist image,” said the film’s director and author of the book, Stina Wirsén, to the Dagens Nyheter newspaper (DN). “We don’t want to fight it at all, and therefore we’ve taken down the posters which have caused the reactions.” The film, Little Pink and Brokiga (Liten skär och alla små brokiga), based on a book of the same name, is set to hit Swedish cinemas on September 22nd. But one particular character in the poster – Hjärtat – has roused the public’s attention with her black face, braided hair, white eyes and oversized, full white lips. And many are not amused by the character’s appearance. “Showing a picture like this is like saying the N-word,” argues history of ideas scholar Mikela Lundahl of the Gothenburg University to Sveriges Radio (SR). “This is one of the worst stereotypes that the African American people have been subjected to, something that came from the USA in the 1800s.” World-renowned Swedish actor Stellan Skarsgård, who narrates the film, has distanced himself from the critics, but told SR that director Wirsén is “anti-racist” and that the critics should “focus their criticism on actual racists instead.”
Your Bibliography: Thelocal.se. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://www.thelocal.se/20120911/43168> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
The CRE was a publicly funded, non-governmental body set up under the Race Relations Act 1976 to tackle racial discrimination and promote racial equality. On 1 October 2007, the CRE was dissolved and its functions taken over by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
Your Bibliography: Uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/> [Accessed 2 June 2021].
10,587 students joined last month!