TV commercial about racism as a face cream
by Carmen Van Kerckhove
Remember that racism as a face cream print ad we discussed a few weeks back? Well, it turns out there’s a TV campaign to go along with it.
According to gay persons of color, the spot was “directed by Tim Gibbs and produced by 8 Commercials, Sydney, for Saatchi & Saatchi, Sydney, the commercial won the Silver Plaque at the United Nations Department of Public Information Awards in September.”
So we’ve already discussed the print ad. But what do you think of the spot?
If you’re reading this in an RSS reader and can’t see the video, please click on the post title.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
rose wrote:
While the makers of this commercial intend to do well, it is still upholding the white, Euro-American standard of beauty. Also it is implying that a person can be more racist than another, but the point shouldn’t be that the more racist you are, the “uglier” you are — it should be that racism exists in all different forms. The ad camapgin should instead address those forms (especially institutional).
Posted 12 Dec 2006 at 9:11 am ¶
Susan wrote:
It’s an interesting concept, but who is to define what “ugly” is? People with skin conditions? Elderly people? People with bad teeth? I would hate to have some skin condition like the “after” of this woman, and just have a confirmation that yeah, I am really ugly.
I see the point they’re trying to make, but I think it is off target. I agree with what rose said about racism exisiting in different forms - now that would be a good campaign to see.
Posted 12 Dec 2006 at 12:50 pm ¶
Katie wrote:
My sister is still dealing with the low self-esteem from years of bad acne. I’d hate for her to see this ad.
It’s ironic that, in the attempt to stop people from hating other people based on, among other things, the way they look, the ad’s creators would try to make us associate racism with their perception of ugliness.
Posted 12 Dec 2006 at 12:59 pm ¶
mel wrote:
It’s an effort, but didn’t sit well with me at all. Do we have to appeal to vanity to show that racism is wrong?
Posted 12 Dec 2006 at 1:04 pm ¶
kim wrote:
This ad campaign should just borrow a page from Picture of Dorian Gray/Grey and focus inward.
I told an incredibly cowardly and racist sister-in-law that the salt in her veins should wither her arteries and send her into cardiac arrest for the nastiness she spewed toward my family and children. (Of course, I followed up with a detailed explanation of just what I would do to her if she failed to heed my written warning to abstain…but I digress!)
Posted 12 Dec 2006 at 1:44 pm ¶
al wrote:
it’s a flawed metaphor. which makes it kind of pointless.
Posted 12 Dec 2006 at 4:36 pm ¶
al wrote:
and i meant to say, the video ad is much more flawed than the print one, because the print one was more open to interpretation.
Posted 12 Dec 2006 at 4:37 pm ¶
paul wrote:
I think that if one is racist, one will probably see facial blemishes and distortion as something that does in fact make one look “ugly” and therefore a subject of discrimination. The ad is obviously not targeted to the more enlightened (that would be like preaching to the converted), but rather it is targeted to racists who don’t want to look “ugly.” Since racist values include discrimination based on physical appearance, the commercial, I think, speaks effectively to racists on this level. Sure it brings up issues about vanity and beauty, but it’s directed at people who actually believe that vanity and beauty play some strong role in societal validation. The ad is trying communicate with racists in a manner that racists understand. Baby talk for babies. Baby steps to enlightenment.
Posted 12 Dec 2006 at 10:18 pm ¶
HighJive wrote:
hey, is there an anti-racism facial creme that could be applied as a solution to the problem? now that would be cool.
Posted 13 Dec 2006 at 12:45 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:
>and i meant to say, the video ad is much more flawed than the print one, because the print one was more open to interpretation.
Posted 16 Dec 2006 at 2:04 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:
Sorry, I was quoting in the comment above.
I actually think the video ad is much less flawed. The print one showed a woman with “ugly” facial features that would probably be determined largely by heredity (large nose, twisted lips, a hairy mole or wart on her face). She didn’t fit the stereotypical white/Western ideal of beauty because she wasn’t meant to.
In the video spot, the woman begins as stereotypically beautiful, but, as she applies racism, her skin (undeniably) becomes unhealthy, and breaks out. It’s not so arbitrary a standard of ugliness.
It is still a very flawed metaphor though.
Posted 16 Dec 2006 at 2:05 am ¶