Mad Men: racism in advertising – Part 2 of 2

by guest contributor HighJive, originally published at MultiCultClassics

(Continued from yesterday)

Finding fault with Mad Men’s rendering of ethnic minorities in the advertising industry is somewhat impossible because, well, they barely exist. They’re invisible, in a Ralph Ellison style. Series creator Matthew Weiner hit the bull’s-eye in this area.

As historians like Tangerine Toad have recorded, Madison Avenue circa 1960 emitted a very WASPy aroma. Ethnic minorities were segregated then as they are today. Non-WASPs lived on distinctive planets. At the show’s fictional Sterling Cooper headquarters, it was awfully tough locating a Jewish employee to make a prospective Jewish client feel “comfortable”—agency honcho Roger Sterling snickered, “I had to go all the way to the mailroom, but I found one.”

Writers at Forbes observed, “In the 1950s and ‘60s, despite its image as a progressive industry, advertising clearly lagged when it came to diversity. Unfortunately, it still does. Back then, you had white shoe firms with WASPy staffers working for WASPy clients, while, as one of the characters in Mad Men puts it, ‘most of the Jewish guys work for the Jewish firms selling to Jewish people.’ Replace Jewish with African-American and you get a picture of the industry today.” Technically, you can also swap Jewish with Latino, Asian, Native American, Russian, GLBT and essentially every cultural designation on Earth. (Note: the Forbes writers made faulty comparisons that we’ll pick up later.)

The pilot episode saw adman Don Draper probing a Black waiter for cigarette insights. Not sure why Draper conducted the focus group, as his agency would never entertain wooing non-White audiences. Blacks in the next episode were bathroom attendants and sandwich sellers. No sign of Latinos, Asians or Native Americans so far. Too bad the copywriter who took the secretary on an agency tour in the second installment didn’t venture into the mailroom or janitorial closet. Although it’s a safe bet non-White minorities wouldn’t be spotted at those stations either.

It’s unlikely Mad Men will acknowledge executives for Pepsi-Cola—led by men including Edward F. Boyd—pioneered marketing to Black consumers in the 1940s and 1950s. Or the late Vince Cullers of Chicago launched the first Black advertising agency in 1956, while Luis Díaz Albertini founded Spanish Advertising and Marketing Services, the first Latino shop, in 1962. Hell, even Alex Trebek won’t recognize such trivia.

Then and now, race is the taboo topic. In Adweek’s interview with Mal Macdougall, the original Mad Man admitted, “The booze, the sex, the cigarettes, the suits, the haircuts, the harassment, the office politics, the ‘we own the world’ attitude—even the offices—are absolutely dead-on true.” Yet Macdougall neglected mentioning institutionalized apartheid. Why is it easier to joke about sexual advances that bordered on assault?

Mad Men has not blatantly addressed race; however, Weiner knows it’s out there. Adweek published an interview wherein Weiner said, “The men of that period had a different code and a lot of it is sexist and racist and selfish.” Contrary to the contentions of critical adfolks, Weiner has apparently done his homework. We’ll soon discover if he’s comfortable exploring the industry’s biases beyond anti-Semitism. Sadly, if Weiner sticks to telling an authentic Madison Avenue story, race will stay relatively untouched and deeply buried.

Returning to the notions forwarded by the Forbes writers, it’s important to consider certain realities. Contrasting 1960s Jewish firms to 21st century minority shops doesn’t fly. “Most of the Jewish guys work for the Jewish firms selling to Jewish people” is an incorrect statement. Yes, the early Jewish agencies served Jewish clients. But they didn’t direct messages exclusively to Jewish communities. Doyle Dane Bernbach—a Jewish shop with Jewish clients—produced the famous campaign that literally proves it via the headline, “You don’t have to be Jewish to love Levy’s real Jewish Rye.” The Jewish shops’ success at capturing mass markets inevitably lured broader clientele.

The 1960s creative revolution in the advertising industry brought additional significant changes. Italians and various White minorities joined the party. Don’t mean to sound paranoid, but somewhere along the journey, the WASPy, Jewish, Italian and assorted White people combined forces to control the lion’s share of business. Ethnic minorities like Blacks and Latinos were ghettoized, prohibited from expanding outside their respective pigeonholes.

BBDO Chief Creative Officer David Lubars told Advertising Age, “In no way does [Mad Men] reflect the business today. It really doesn’t. In fact, in some ways it really plays into the stereotype that advertising is full of sleazebags, but if you go into most agencies you see a lot of ethics and a lot of good hard work and people telling truth, so this really plays into the whole kind of side of the industry that I personally don’t see.” Lubars is indisputably right on a host of levels, and blindly wrong on others.

As Bill Green of the popular Make The Logo Bigger blog declared, Mad Men is depressing. In more ways than we might realize.

[Whether they realize it or not, Tom Messner, Tangerine Toad, Hadji Williams, George Parker, Bill Green, Jetpacks and other semi-anonymous blog posters contributed to this essay. Thanks to everyone.]

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

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Marketing Pop Culture on 02 Aug 2007 at 11:57 pm

    Will the genius behind this campaign please stand up?…

    Okay, so is this a fatal mistake? Not really. It’s just dumb. Oh, fuck it. This calls for Angry Black Man mode. If you’re wondering how something like this happened, I’ll tell you. Because those lily white, running-to-catch-the Hamptons-Jitney cr…

Comments

  1. Miss Profe wrote:

    I’ve watched the first two episodes of “Mad Men.” Honestly, unless there is a real plot leading to somewhere significant, I really don’t understand the logic or the purpose of such a show about in 2007.

  2. squidfly wrote:

    The purpose of this show is in not hiring non-white actors…for more than five lines.

  3. Wendi Muse wrote:

    i finally had a chance to watch the show last night and it was interesting to see the gender divide that they highlight. i think they do a really good job demonstrating the striking difference between what is acceptable now vs. then when it comes to interactions between men and women and how accepted sexism happened to be. the only racial element i noticed last night was the ridiculing of a new partner by putting a “chinaman” and his family in his office, along with a chicken. it’s unfortunate that this episode wasn’t already out and couldn’t be covered by this article because i noticed that little has changed there. asians and asian americans are still seen as foreign and the butt of jokes as a result of their supposed inability to assimilate as full-time americans. a clear example of this stereotype in the present is those atrocious stride gum ads… yikes.

  4. Wendi Muse wrote:

    oops…nevermind. you covered it here (http://multicultclassics.blogspot.com/2007/08/essay-4262.html). awesome :-)

  5. Azul60 wrote:

    Mad Men, Season 2, Episode 2 is where the writers have chosen to really crack open the egg (of racism)– in one episode they had one adman’s surprisingly black girlfriend get filleted by Joan in a bluntly racist and demeaning manner, and Draper ogles an Asian-American waitress wearing one of those short, silken kimono/yukata numbers who offers him a little sumthin’ sumthin’ after the meal.

    The redeeming factors are, of course, that the adman is sincerely protective of his girlfriend and deeply offended at Joan’s attacks on her self-esteem, and that Draper (despite being browbeaten by Betsy, stretched thin and given the dirty work at the agency, and regaled with innuendo about catholic schoolgirl babysitters by his neighbor) resists temptation and declines the waitresses offer. She was also, apparently, American born (her accent), perhaps mixed race, I think. Was that common back then?

    Accurate, maybe not, but the writers seem to be bellying up to the bar and dealing with the issue head on.

  6. Rosie wrote:

    “MAD MEN” just ended the Paul/Sheila relationship in which Sheila dumped Paul after their trip to Mississippi.

    The whole storyline, which started in “Flight 1″ was all about exposing Paul as pretentious. And they didn’t have a scene in which Sheila dumped Paul.

    Talk about a goddamn waste of time. I think that Weiner was simply paying lip service to the issue.