Its Black History Month, So Let’s Revisit The Question Of Representations Of Race In Advertising. Has Anything Changed? – Advertising, Marketing & Branding – Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
It’s Black History Month again, so it’s a good time to
revisit the issue of representations in advertising. Four years
ago, to mark Black History Month 2020, Brinsley wrote an article addressing the representation of race
in advertising over the preceding 20 years, specifically touching
on how major brands navigate – or fail to navigate – depictions of
race without perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Fast forward to
today, and the controversy surrounding Heinz’s latest campaign
for its family-sized pasta sauce raises a troubling question: Has
anything really changed, even in the last four years?
The Heinz ad, which appeared on the London Underground, featured
an interracial couple at a wedding table, promoting their product
in what was meant to be a celebration of modern families. Instead,
it sparked outrage for its “erasure” of Black fathers,
leaving many, including public figures, wondering how such a
glaring oversight made it through the approval process.
Perhaps even more troubling than the wedding ad was another
advert that Heinz recently published in the United States to
coincide with the release of the new movie, Joker: Folie à
Deux.
This image is even more shocking than the wedding advert. Many
commentators have pointed out the connection with blackface,
minstrel shows and clowns. Yes, there may be a connection with The
Joker, but that does not exclude these other references, which are
very troubling and immediately obvious, at least to to any Black
person.
It’s also stark reminder that, despite years of progress -
or the promise of it – advertising still struggles to tell diverse
stories without missteps. As I reflect on the current outcry and
compare it to similar incidents in the past, it begs the question:
Are we really learning from these moments, or are brands still
walking the same tightrope, balancing visibility with
responsibility?
As we delve into the broader landscape of race and racism in
advertising, it’s worth recalling Brinsley’s sharp critique
of the JD recruitment ad from 2021 ASA condemns recruitment ad as both racist and
sexist., Brinsley Dresden (lewissilkin.com), which was rightly
condemned by the Advertising Standards Authority for its use of
blackface—a tactic so obviously out of place in modern
advertising. The ad was a glaring reminder of how deeply racial
insensitivity can be entrenched in the industry, even in the
context of recruiting young talent. It’s astonishing that such
an oversight could be made, yet it highlighted a recurring issue:
the lack of diverse perspectives in the ad creation process.
Not long before that, we witnessed the NHS COVID ad controversy. Unlike JD’s ad,
which faced a clear judgment, the NHS ad avoided any censure by the
ASA, despite apparently receiving at least one complainant who
reached out to Brinsley after he’d submitted his complaint. We
don’t know why the ASA declined to investigate, so I am left
wondering how is it that such a significant campaign, funded by
public money, could touch the raw nerve of racial insensitivity
without being challenged?
Could this delay signify an even deeper institutional avoidance
when it comes to acknowledging these critical missteps? Not
necessarily, because when the Ministry of Justice published this
advert to promote jobs in the Prison Service, the ASA did
investigate the complaints that it received and found the MoJ to be
in breach of the CAP Code, as reported at the time by our colleague, Ardie Yilinkou. After Ardie published his
article the ASA completed an Independent Review of their
adjudication, and although they changed the wording of the
decision, they maintained their position that the complaint should
be upheld.
What both these cases share is an apparent failure to ask a
simple, but vital, question: What message are we sending with this
ad? And perhaps more importantly, who is being asked this question?
It seems clear that the right people – the ones directly affected
by these representations, Black communities – are often left out of
the discussion. Until this changes, we risk continuing to see ads
that perpetuate the very stereotypes brands claim to be fighting
against.
Another example since Brinsley wrote his article in 2020 and
which echoes this issue comes from Vic Smith Bedding’s ad, which featured a
deeply insensitive portrayal that was swiftly condemned by the ASA.
The ad’s blatant disregard for the feelings of marginalised
communities shows that, even today, the industry can fail to meet
the most basic standards of respect and inclusivity.
But perhaps there is hope for progress. The ASA has recently
published new guidelines for Black History Month 2024,
focusing on avoiding offensive depictions of race in ads. They aim
to push brands to be more aware of racial sensitivities and guide
them towards better representation.
Brinsley also tells me that Heinz have tried to be champions of
diversity and inclusion in the past, producing the first TV
commercial to feature a gay kiss between two men in 2008.
Ultimately the advert was withdrawn following a backlash in the
right wing media, which in turn provoked outrage among gay rights
activists. Brinsley’s concern is that if a brand that tries to
achieve inclusivity and reflect diversity when creating their
advertising faces severe reputational damage if they make a
mis-step, will they simply decide to play it safe, and revert to
the exclusive use of white, heterosexual nuclear families? There
are plenty of reactionary people who would be only too pleased if
that were the outcome.
However, this raises another question: Who will be in the rooms
where these decisions are made? While the guidance is a step
forward, if the same voices—those disconnected from the
realities of the Black community—are the only ones heard, we
might continue to see well-intentioned ads that miss the mark. The
real challenge lies not only in creating the right rules but also
in ensuring the right people are part of the conversation.
It’s important to note that while these steps seem
promising, only time will tell if they lead to genuine change. Will
brands take this as an opportunity to embrace diversity
authentically, or will they tread the line of performative
representation? More crucially, will the voices that need to be
amplified – the voices from the communities being depicted -
finally be heard?
Let’s hope that in the next four years, we won’t be
asking the same question again.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
link