When Advertising and Social Issues Collide!
by Latoya Peterson
Reader Omer sent along an interesting post from Towleroad, which discusses some very provocative images being used by Hanes to promote their new tagless underwear line in India. Here is one of the images:
Other (NSFW) images and analysis after the jump.
Towleroad writes:
With a little digging I was able to find two other ads in the campaign, via Trendhunter. They write: “In Fagg*t, you see same-sex kissing, debauchery, toys, bottles of wine and references to beauty: lipstick, nail polish and makeup. In Nigg*r, you see drugs, guns, jail cells, low-life jobs like cleaning toilets, and text about being HIV positive. In Pak! (a demeaning name for people from Pakistan), you see tanks, bullets, bombs and pigs (an anti-Islamic reference).”
Here are the other two images:
Now, I am of two minds on this one.
I think the images are interesting and provocative, particularly when compared to the small man in each of the pictures struggling under the weight of the stereotype. Under the right circumstances, this would be a great public service announcement.
However, adding the Hanes logo and promotion for the product, the whole image is skewed. I am wondering if it is ever appropriate for a large corporation to try to promote their products with a social justice angle. It just seems a bit disingenuous to make a huge political message, and then throw in a push to buy their product. It’s kind of like the backlash that came out of the Dove Onslaught video - the video on its own is fine, but when you look at the parent company and the messaging from its co-brands, like Axe, the message starts getting very murky.
In addition, can Hanes handle that kind of branding? Looking at the images and then at the product, I felt that the message in the ad overpowered the product almost completely. Next to this striking message about labels in society, the fact that the ad is selling underwear is kind of an afterthought.
Your thoughts?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Kali wrote:
The ads are stunning .
It’s not Pak or Paki but Pakistan - as would be obvious to anyone in the subcontinent. India and Pakistan are forever on the brink of going to war with each other over various issues.
Paki is used in Britain as a derogatory term for South Asians (Indian and Pakistani)
Posted 01 May 2008 at 7:19 am ¶
Kali wrote:
Latoya
You are simply amazing.
You must have a staff of hundreds to keep you abreast of the multitudinous thought-provoking issues you write about so beautifully.
More strength to your arm! You have one devoted gob-smacked (British slang) reader here.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 7:27 am ¶
Aaminah wrote:
I looked at each image before reading the descriptions, before reading the post.
Wait… it is a WHITE man “struggling under the weight of the stereotype” of the N. How is that to be interpreted? Is he struggling against the stereotype or is he feeling attacked by the N who fits that stereotype? See, I think it would have been “struggling against the stereotype” if it was a Black man used. I get a whole different, and unbelievably racist, connotation from it being a white man struggling to get away from the big bag N. And that word shouldn’t be used by Hanes anyway.
The Paki one, I felt that it was meant to be the full word “Pakistan” but with this crap obliterating it. Which to me looked like it was suggesting that India *should* obliterate Pakistan. And it *does* say “Paki”, not just “Pak” so it is using a racialized slur. “Paki” is not just a British term but has come to be well known as a slur even if it may have started in Britain.
Does Hanes have any business using loaded terms like “Nigger”, “Paki” and “Faggot”? I don’t think they do. And the images seem to reinforce the stereotypes rather than questionning them. How exactly does this sell underwear? I don’t make the connection, except that they are happy to be insulting to some in order to get the sales of others who really think that way. Is provacative ad campaign art the best way to use their corporate power to elicit discussion and societal change? If this is the example, then I think the answer is no.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 7:54 am ¶
Mary wrote:
On a purely visual level they are absolutely eye-popping - I can give credit for that.
But…
Is it appropriate to draw a parallel between being defined by racist/heterosexist stereotypes, and being “defined” by your underwear? Ummmmm, I’m gonna give that one a big NO.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 8:27 am ¶
Feminist Punk! wrote:
As a South Asian Muslim from India, I am most appalled and disgusted by the “Paki” advertisement. How absolutely degrading and demeaning to our fellow Pakistani brothers and sisters.
and yes, Aaminah is right. in the UK and other European nations, “Paki” is a very racist slur aimed at South Asians (especially Pakistanis).
I am disgusted that a large corporation like Hanes would gladly spread hatred, bigotry and ignorance in a country where 80% of Indians are uneducated and illiterate, where girls and women are still held back, where gays and lesbians are persecuted and frowned upon, and where forced arranged marriages still occur.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 8:31 am ¶
Globalistgirl wrote:
Funny - I just read about this sort of marketing, and at least according to my sales and marketing textbook, this campaign is a bad idea because of what already got said. People are going to look further than the product to the parent company (and as noted, not even the product made sense in connection to the ads), and if that doesn’t feel right, it’ll just backfire.
Interesting that a big company like Hanes chose to run that campaign, if marketing textbooks advise against this sort of thing. I wonder if it has something to do with the location of the campaign - are they assuming that they will not be held as accountable in India as in a Western market?
Posted 01 May 2008 at 8:43 am ¶
CVT wrote:
Definitely didn’t take these images as somebody “struggling under the weight of the stereotype.” More like Aaminah: seems that “those f—–s or n—–s or P—s” are holding the (ostensibly white) person back . . .
Even after associating it with the “tag-less” Hanes concept, I still think they’re awful (although powerful and thought-provoking).
Posted 01 May 2008 at 9:04 am ¶
Dennis wrote:
The ads are fake. They were created by an advertising agency for an awards competition without the knowledge of Hanes, though Hanes did step up and apologize anyway.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 9:05 am ¶
Kali wrote:
Aaminah
You cannot be familiar with British usage. Paki (pr. packy) is what white British call all ‘Asians’- in Britain that is people from the subcontinent .
Indians NEVER call Pakistanis Pakis.
The ad shows the parephernalia of war.
The ad derides all the stereotypes - including the obsession of older, right wing Indians by the threat of war posed by Pakistan and *vice versa*(nothing to do with religion, it’s to do with Kashmir and proximity) . Younger, better educated Indians think this attitude is just plain misguided.
The visuals in the ad are stunning IMO. The man is NOT white - he is clearly supposed to represent an Indian as is the female figure floating above. Why would they have someone with black hair ‘represent’ a white person.
I didn’t say this before but the reference to ‘n****r’, ‘faggot’ probably represents AntiAmericanism. The N word is NOT used in India or in the UK, only in the US.
So - although the art really is stunning the rest of it is rather a puerile to attract ‘westernized’ , newspaper-reading, blogging young Indians.
I wonder if the graphic artist does other more erious art and whether he sells well in India.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 9:55 am ¶
CuntLovin wrote:
I fully confess to having very little familiarity with Indian culture so I am going to refrain from posting my opinions about the ads beyond that they are certainly visually stunning, like Kali noted I would be interested in learning more about the artist. In addition if they being used to the effect that Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is (as LaToya noted) I would have to find offensive in this tactic, because it is one things for coporations to act without social responsibility , it is another to co-opt a social conscious to sell clothing. I am looking forward to others post to see how people feel about these.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 10:18 am ¶
Aaminah wrote:
Kali, please do not correct me if you cannot read.
I did NOT say that Indians call Pakistani people Pakis. I said it IS a racial slur that is well known and well used.
I also did NOT say that it was a white man in the Pakistan ad, but in the N ad.
It comes down to it in the end that they used derogatory racist and homophobic terms that are not acceptable and shouldn’t be seen as acceptable in our society. It’s wrong, and rather glaringly so, no matter what they “thought” they were accomplishing.
Please do not argue points against something that was never even said. Just because you think the ads are great doesn’t mean everyone else has to. If you can’t see the inherent racism they are laced with or choose to interpret them differently, that is your perogative. But if you want to argue with someone with a dissenting opinion, you should consider reading their opinion before you go off.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 10:46 am ¶
Kali wrote:
If it was intended to say “Paki” then it would be a stab at the British who use the term for Indians.
Not even (we) Indians/Pakistanis can tell each other apart in the West (not surprisingly since we are of the same ethnicity) so why credit the British with more perspicacity than they have.
I can tell you that I friends who are Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan all joke about being “Pakis” - a term thought to be used by ‘yobs’ or ‘football hooligans’/vandals
( ?precursor to ‘chavs”) only vaguely reminscent of the US - ‘white trash’.
I don’t believe ‘chavs’ is used to denigrate all white working-class British (but I only visit for a couple of weeks each year) but those with a particular code of behavior.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 10:58 am ¶
Kali wrote:
Aaminah
We are talking about an *Indian* ad so an *Indian* would not be talking about Pakistanis and calling them *Paki*
Hanes issued an apology for the ad. It was supposed to be a juxtaposition of ‘tagless’ with ‘reject the labels people may give you!’
A gifted Indian artist obvously did not ‘get’ why the ‘words’ would be objectionable because in his own culture and country they are never used.
Alavarez also posted the British ‘White Seasons’ ad which again is stunning imagery even if you (like other POC including myself ) disavow the message.
This reportage on this blog is all about race and pop culture.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 11:38 am ¶
Amanda wrote:
The images in these ads may have worked to provide a social commentary had they presented in a gallery as a series of drawings/paintings, right next to each other, using each piece as a reference for understanding the others. One of the issues is the format of advertising in magazines– who wants to be flipping through a magazine and feel so assaulted visually? I feel that there is no mass media context in which it would be appropriate to distribute these images so flippantly, leaving them open to the interpretation of “Why is the n*$$er alway trying to weigh us down?”
I read that these images were actually not intended to be ads, but were used by an advertising company without Hanes’ permission. I can’t help but think, though, that it is just a company trying to backpedal when a supposedly “edgy” campaign didn’t work out as they had hoped.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
I agree that the images are visually stunning and loaded. But I also agree that the words used are VERY LOADED and have no place in a (real or “unreal”) underwear ad, especially if, as Kali said, the Indian artist doesn’t understand the full meanings or connotations of these words.
Effed up, chaps.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 12:50 pm ¶
Drispe wrote:
The way I see it, those white guys are pulling the load of disenfranchisement that they’ve been most successful at institutionalizing for the rest of us. Given the climate of racial insensitivity at Towleroad, I bet that only the homophobic slur inspired that post.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 2:50 pm ¶
Mickey wrote:
@ Aaminah
I was wondering about the White man in the N-ad. What exactly is the reason?
The man-friend (who is White) told me (in his opinion, of course) the worst thing you can call a White man in America is a either a homosexual or a racist.
Food for thought, I guess.
I think the ads are thought provoking. Plus I’m learning a lot just from reading the comments!
Posted 01 May 2008 at 3:15 pm ¶
Brooke AKA Ummbadier wrote:
This is another attempt to side-step accountability and righting the wrongs of industrial-strength colonization. Hanes is a present day sweatshop. They are using these adds to push the image of Corporate Cool Political Social Conscience Good Guys. Whilst we critique the cultural significance here– what else are they doing?
Here is one of Hanes’ current “social programs” that they would prefer not to bring critique to: Free Trade Zones!
“The Dominican Free Trade Zone Assn said that Hanesbrand Inc., a leading underwear manufacturer, would not be leaving Santiago’s free trade zone (FTZ).Hanes, as announced earlier this year, reports DR1 Daily News (Nov. 20, 2007). Hanes added that its factory in Vega Baja, Puerto Rico would be moved to Santiago as part of its global restructuring program. ”
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7368855/Hanes-staying-DOMINICAN-REPUBLIC.html
Check the video at Walmartwatch:
http://walmartwatch.com/pages/wal_marts_dirty_laundry
Posted 01 May 2008 at 3:28 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
I am Indian and spent most of my life in India and wonder why anyone would think the ‘guys’ were white and what your prejudices might be ?
Posted 01 May 2008 at 3:43 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
The designer in me is thinking “Holy crap these ads are stunning!”
Then I think “This would have been a lot better as an editorial ad than for a product, or maybe a product known for doing this sort of thing like Bennetton.”
Which goes to “WTF, there should be an Indian guy on the first one and a Black guy on the third.”
Bah. At least they are better than that failure of an ad campaign UNICEF Germany did with the lil German children in blackface. All that did was make me solemly swear to NEVER give them money again.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 3:57 pm ¶
Brooke AKA Ummbadier wrote:
Oh and FYI for those not knowing, the term “Free Trade Zone” is very intentionally ambigous or misleading. It is not to the benefit of the workers or even the host country. It is a heinous practice. Don’t be fooled with fancy words AND imagery!
Posted 01 May 2008 at 4:15 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:
“I am Indian and spent most of my life in India and wonder why anyone would think the ‘guys’ were white and what your prejudices might be ?”
Again Kali, learn how to read and stop misquoting. Not a single commentor here said that the man in the Indian ad was white. Every person who has mentioned a white man has specifically said it was in the Nigger ad. Although, to be fair, regardless of the “dark” hair (as if no white person has such dark hair), the man in the Indian ad is mighty pale. In fact, if you bother to look at it, his arms are the PALEST OF THEM ALL.
And excuse me, but I know PLENTY of Indians that do call Pakistani people “Paki” in a derogatory sense. Maybe not you, maybe not your friends, but yeah - it’s a racist term and some stupid arrogant Indians use it too. Although I also don’t know why you are assuming that the artist is Indian… I may have missed it, but I didn’t see the artist’s name mentioned or any clarification that it was created by an Indian.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@Aaminah: It undermines your arguments when you insult people like you do to Kali above, telling her she can’t read, more than once. I don’t see you display much openness to learning or respect for people with different opinions here. You don’t have to come down so hard on people, as if you’re laying down the law.
Also I think it’s a plausible assumption that the artist is Indian considering the images and especially the words used because of the culture there. “N@#$%r” was a slur against the Indian people by the British once.
Meanwhile you make the assumption that one of the men is white when he looks Indian to me. Indians have a vast range of skin tones but almost all have black hair.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 5:44 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
Aaminah
I would listen respectfully about your own culture but you are not Indian or Pakistani.
Indians/Pakistanis/Sri Lankans/Nepali/Tibetans/Afghans/Myanmarese- all neighboring peoples and really not at all antagonistic towards each other although our governments may squabble about territory etc.
I don’t believe a word about your knowing ‘”arrogant Indians’ calling Pakistanis names”.I wouldn’t believe you if you said you knew Pakistanis who called Indians names. . India has a larger Muslim population in sheer numbers than Pakistan. It was all one country till the British partititioned India.
I have just returned from a South Asian Volunteer group in Boston - we help women from all South Asian communities and the kind of ugly behavior you describe would never happen.
Please do not spread hate and distrust
Posted 01 May 2008 at 8:23 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
Aaminah said:
“Every person who has mentioned a white man has specifically said it was in the Nigger ad”
but Drispe said:
The way I see it, those white guys are pulling …” (guys in the plural, no mentio of N***ad”)
Aaminah said:
“Kali, please do not correct me if you cannot read.I did NOT say that Indians call Pakistani people Pakis.”
but in a later post Aaminah says:
“And excuse me, but I know PLENTY of Indians that do call Pakistani people “Paki” in a derogatory sense. Maybe not you, maybe not your friends, but yeah - it’s a racist term and some stupid arrogant Indians use it too”
Peace and wisdom to you.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶
Kmoney wrote:
the ads visually grab your attention and are quite provocative. but then you read the ad print in the lower right corner, “Because the world gives you enough tags,” ruins the whole thing. Really, Hanes? Tagless underwear is the answer?
Posted 01 May 2008 at 9:10 pm ¶
Korolev wrote:
I’m not sure what message they are trying to send - I don’t think they make it clear enough that the ads are supposed to be against stereotypes.
It’s also a bit strange that an underwear company would use this sort of ad, seeing that you wear underwear UNDER your clothes, where people usually don’t see them, while these ads deal with issues that are very visible to people.
I will say that the ads are very effective at grabbing attention. But that’s probably not a good thing. In any case, you can tell the company is just doing this to get attention - I doubt the CEO of Hanes really cares about discrimination.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 11:35 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
I understand the feelings against racism, but when people stereotype ALL white people the same then it is racism as well.
When people talk about “whites” this and “whites” that it is little different than saying “blacks” this and “mexicans” that.
Stereotyping against ANY group is something we should all aim to stop, including against whites and Europeans.
Claims of racism fall on deaf ears when the words condemning the racism include their own racist terms.
Hate is hate and needs to be fought, regardless of the target. A person who claims to be fighting racism, and uses racist terms against whites, is in fact a racist themselves.
Lets avoid stereotyping any group of people. It is the mindset that allows this that needs to be fought and when you perpetuate it, you become part of the problem no matter how nobel your original intentions.
To the adds, it is pretty pointless to discuss what character “looks white” was which ones do not. Such a discussion certainly plays on the stereotypical looks of Indians/Pakistanis and whites.
There are Pakistanis and Indians who are as white as can be with light hair and coloured eyes, whereas there are whites with olive complexion and dark hair and dark eyes.
The arguments themselves here are based on sonme people’s ignorant ideas and stereotypes about what they think certain groups of people look like. The truth is, is that there is a wide variety of looks in all peoples and one cannot tell someone’s ethnicity just by looking at them.
I speak Arabic, but I am as white as they come, but I often get msitaken by Arabs for a Palestinian or Syrian, as there are many Syrians and Palestinians who are lilly white, with blond/red hair and blue/green eyes. My sister in law’s friend Fatoum, who is Syrian, has platnum blond hair, blue eyes and is as white as this blog background and her family is from Damascus and has been there for some 800 years. Steroetypes just DO NOT WORK!
Those who think these ethnic groups looks fall only in a limited range are those who just dont know what they are talking about.
What is also ignored here is the pride of place that light skin colour has in Africa and the Indian sub-continent. Look at Pakistani and Indian advertisement and you’ll have a hard time finding very dark skinned people.
If this add was truly targeting Indians and Pakistanis, then certainly having a light skinned person representing someone from India or Pakistan would be par for course.
It would have been MORE unusual to see a dark skin person depicted because it jsut doesnt work that way in that area.
Posted 02 May 2008 at 10:05 am ¶
Kali wrote:
Abu
Liked your tolerant post and I liked your open-minded blog too. Your children will be true citizens of the world.
Posted 02 May 2008 at 11:53 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
Thanks Kali!
Posted 02 May 2008 at 12:17 pm ¶
Meena wrote:
“Indians/Pakistanis/Sri Lankans/Nepali/Tibetans/Afghans/Myanmarese- all neighboring peoples and really not at all antagonistic towards each other although our governments may squabble about territory etc.”
I’m kind of late coming into this, but i disagree with this statement. I am both Afghan and Pakistani, and i cannot explain the profound discrimination I have felt both from Pakistanis, Afghans, and Indians on account of my identity. That is not to say that people can’t get along, or to normalize an inherent hate between these groups, but there is alot of deep-seated discrimination between these territories that is a colonial legacy, exacerbated and furthered by wars, US involvement in foreign affairs, and present gov’ts
Posted 02 May 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶
dalia wrote:
life is tough, hanes are tougher? wearing hanes helps protect your ass against life’s tough shit?
nice images, but really? i’m confused.
Posted 03 May 2008 at 11:30 pm ¶