Snarky Stock Photo Analysis…or Recycling Racism for Cool Points?

by Racialicious special correspondent Latoya Peterson

In browsing the Adrants blog, I came across a mini-rant on why stock photography blows.

As a person who uses/dabbles in stock photography, I was intrigued. I follow the original adrants link, and end up at this page.

The first thing that pops up is a random stock image from a random telecom company. The blog owner comments:

Finally,” I thought to myself, “a site that sells chubby black women.”

Hmm…

I browse around the site a bit. This guy appears to bill himself as a snarky asshole with snarky commentary, so his writing is in keeping with the tone of the blog. Reasonably assured that this was meant to be satrical, I continued to read.

2. Hot curly haired black women go moist for wireless broadband routers and mainframes.

Possibly the first and only cliche in history I’ve wanted to bang, curly-haired black women are the preferred marketing tool to sell obscure telecom products and telephone services so long as their skin tone isn’t too dark. She should be dark enough to score that hip diversity dollar, but not so dark as to scare away that heartland racist dollar.

Now I’m mildly disturbed by the crude sex references and apparent race (and hair type) fetish, but he is making a valid point about racial preferences in advertising. I snicker at the fairly inspired Microsoft comparison below it, and keep skimming.

Then I get to:

4.

At least 1 in 3 people chosen at random will necessarily be “African American,” even though only 13% of the US population is black.

When a corporation claims to be diverse, what they really mean is that they hire black people, asians, and a latino every now and then. There is no image more meticulously engineered in this world than that of a corporation’s statement on “diversity.”

For example, the energy company Entergy states on its website that the cornerstone of their corporate culture is:

“respect … for every individual regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or any other cultural factor. “Tolerance” is insufficient in this organization that values differences… ”

Entergy should be commended for having the courage to go beyond simply “tolerating” different races by treating them with respect, because it is assumed that other races are not treated with respect unless a corporation explicitly states that they do on their website. The world needs more companies willing to follow Entergy’s bold leadership by doing more than just tolerating other races.

Again, good points are made here. The random forced diversity is pretty telling (though I must admit, a bit easy for me to forget living in Chocolate City.)
Same thing with the whole “tolerence” bit.

Still, finishing the piece, I was vaguely unsettled. I don’t know what is rubbing me wrong about the piece (mouth-raping comments aside) and its treatment/discussion of race, but something about it disturbs me. I can’t quite put my finger on it…

What also disturbs me is that this piece is intended to be satirical, and it plays up to this by using multiple references to sex (and lube), a bit of fetish, and a bit of stereotype…and yet AdRants is acting like this is the gospel?

From the mouths of AdRants:

Now we have “9 things I learned about the world according to anonymous stock photo models.” From creepy parents to “curly haired black women ‘going moist’ for wireless broadband routers” to “People who sit in cramped cubicles answering customer service calls in drab corporate call centers are overjoyed to help fix your DSL modem” to the over representation of African Americans to stupid laptop poses to “Random-ass white dudes should be placed all over your corporate website for no fucking reason,” this site cuts through all the crap and tells it like it is. Check it our [sic] before you choose your next stock photo.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Sorry! We don’t have that in your color. . . at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 16 Aug 2007 at 9:16 am

    [...] started on the hair! Natural hair styles for black women are only seen on women in advertisements (you know, that curly haired, racially ambiguous brown woman look in every stock photo on the planet), and when the magazine does have a hair feature including a black woman, it’s usually a [...]

Comments

  1. Ike wrote:

    It’s Maddox. The guy writes things specifically to offend.

  2. wendi wrote:

    I won’t comment on the more offensive terms used in the blog author’s commentary, but I think he hit the nail on the head when he discussed the physical appearance of black women in such advertisements. I have noticed that myself and always wondered, “Do all black women come in a medium skin tone and have curly hair in the ad world? Is that just the right level of ‘racial ambiguity’ to appease an audience that is not comfortable with women who have dark skin or who may be too fair to suit their dark male counterparts?” (more on that in a sec). It IS a bit odd. Maybe advertisers fear (much like a few designers Carmen brought up in a previous article about the lack of diversity on the runway) that the presence of a dark woman will distract an audience from the product? Maybe they also fear that a black woman with overly Anglo features (i.e. very light skin, straight hair) may somehow be mistaken as an “interracial relationship” (gasp! light woman with a black man! omg!). That brings me onto another topic…ever notice that the male counterpart to these generic medium skin toned curly haired women tend to be darker? I guess light-skinned men don’t exist? The woman is almost always lighter than her male partner. . . not only in print ads, but on tv too.

  3. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Ike –

    Agreed. That’s why I browsed around the site and looked at a few other ones. Like I said, some things made me laugh, but I was still feeling strange after I finished.

    And Adrants mentioned nothing of any offensive content, which I think would be the least they could do. Warn you before you’re at work reading about someone’s lube fantasies…

    Wendi –

    Yup, I see the same thing you do. The “preferred” view of blackness is very very limited.

  4. gatamala wrote:

    The preferred black chick is extremely pervasive when it comes to featuring young children. Right from infancy black females will learn where they stand in the social and beauty hierarchy.

  5. Alicia wrote:

    ….it’s Maddox. Enough said.

  6. mr guy wrote:

    Yeah it’s Maddox.No need to think too deeply about it latoya.

  7. merq wrote:

    Yeah, LaToya/Wendi. I usually have to interrupt people recounting scenes from TV shows/ads with the question,
    “Wait. Was she black, or was she ‘TV Black?‘”

  8. Anna wrote:

    I’ve worked on and off in stock photo agencies, they are far from perfect, but this commentary is just lame “but I’m ironically racist!” comedy too many white people try and fail at. (note I’m white and can’t wait for this trend to die. Putting aside political-sensitivity issues, is anybody actually funny doing this?)

    However his examples all appear to be from already dated low end royalty-free discs that the stock industry flooded the market with where 5-7 years ago. These discs contained specific images and early-nineties looks for every group. Try finding any brunette whites (sometimes they were labeled Latino) on any of them. The only Asians are the Japanese tourist or businessman stereotypes. At the time the photos were shot, they probably thought using a curly- haired, medium skin toned black woman was progressive, some of these images are probably 15+ years old.

    Unfortunately a lot of advertisers are so cheap they are still picking these images off the discs to use. Thats why you still see them around so much, and they are so strikingly dated that everyone sees them and groans everytime. The stock industry seems to have woken up, a little bit, mainly because of competition from the web, and are shooting new images.

    The higher end of stock now boasts of collections with so-called “normal”(some even use the term ugly) looking people with “unusual” features. But they’re really just a wider selection of extraordinarily beautiful people who happen fit today’s preconcieved stereotypes.

  9. merq wrote:

    Great insight, Anna. But what about actual broadcast advertising? Still the same garbage going on there.

  10. Anonymous wrote:

    “That brings me onto another topic…ever notice that the male counterpart to these generic medium skin toned curly haired women tend to be darker? I guess light-skinned men don’t exist? The woman is almost always lighter than her male partner. . . not only in print ads, but on tv too.”

    I’ve noticed that as well. I asked around the internet and the general opinion seems to be that light-skinned African American men are seem as less masculine than their dark-skinned brothers. =/