I know, I know. It’s just a clothing line! Lighten up! And it’s so kawaii as the ads keep telling me, forcing the word on me like a pacifier to the lips of a crying, reluctant babe. (Wouldn’t be surprised if Gwen Stefani had tried to trademark the Japanese word for “cute” some time in the last 5 years or so. She’s already pretty much got “Harajuku”–the name of a Tokyo neighborhood–locked down legally.) And look, the Harajuku Mini for Target children’s clothes collection, which launches Sunday online and in stores, is“kawaii,” in a “What if a little panda cub who was part skater-punk threw up and it looked like lollipops and rainbows?” sorta way.

But, you know, I can forgive, but I can’t forget. Wait, who am I kidding? I can’t forgive either! Because when I see this ad plugging Gwen Stefani’s latest business venture…

…all I see is this:

And that is still, always, and forever whatever the Japanese word for “bullshit” is.

[The Stir: Gwen Stefani Harajuku Mini Arrives in Target Sunday!]

Spotted this awesome Target commercial on the tube last week and absolutely fell in love with it. I just watched the 30-second spot like five times in a row. It features Shannon, a Cool Asian Mom doing all sorts of Cool Asian Mom stuff for her family (with the help of products she purchased at Target, of course). She does it all…

Playing tetherball, working at the travel agency, beatboxing for her groovin’ kid, taking fabulous all-American family portraits. Sure — nobody’s mom is this cool, but it’s so friggin’ cute, you cannot resist. It’s just refreshing to see a nationally-televised commercial where Asians are not the butt of the joke.

According to Macon D at Stuff White People Do and Craig Brimm at Kiss My Black Ads (Both wonderful blogs that you should be reading on the regular), a Minneapolis-based retailer, Chicago-Lake Liquors, has launched a new ad campaign that depicts middle class white folks acting “black” (or rather the minstrelized version of blackness popularized by BET).

Funny or offensive?

I vote for the latter. What at first may elicit a snicker becomes troubling when pulled apart. (Some folks say you can’t analyze comedy, but I maintain that good comedy can indeed be weighed and turned over and still be funny.) When I’m faced with something allegedly comedic that rings my “racially offensive” bells, I try to ask myself “What’s so funny?” I mean, what about the situation in question is supposed to make me laugh?

In this case, I think the funny is supposed to come from two things: the “black” street slang (Those black folks sure do talk funny!) and the notion that good, middle class, white people (read: normal people) would adopt such behaviors as their own.

Macon D wonders:

Are these ads racist? Or are they making fun of racist white people? And if they’re “only” doing the latter, does that really make the contemporary blackface here any more acceptable?

I don’t think the ads are making fun of the dominant culture, though it seems so at first. The ads are making fun of behaviors and language deemed “black” by showing white people indulging in them. They are highlighting “otherness” using the mainstream as a backdrop. If you think the joke is not about blackness, but about poking fun at urban, street lingo and style, consider why none of the ads feature a straight-laced, middle class, black guy. Why? Because all black men are expected by the dominant culture to talk jive. It’s not funny when a black person says “pimp tight” and sports gold fronts, cause you know, that’s just what we do.

I am stymied by what message these ads are trying to send. The prices at Chicago-Lake Liquors are so low that they make even good, white folks indulge in coonery? I suspect there is no message; this is one of those aggravating campaigns that seek to raise awareness of a brand through nonsensical, “edgy” ads that draw a lot of heat for a moment in time. The flash point? Race. I have no doubt some hipsters in a Twin Cities ad agency are sitting around right now, fist bumping and congratulating themselves on a job well done. “We rock, yo!”

I’ve been hearing from a bunch of folks about some wack KFC commercial, but haven’t really been able to catch in on TV. But I guess that’s what YouTube is for. Here is the commercial in question, and indeed, it’s really idiotic: KFC Commercial – Fried vs. Grilled – “Multicultural” commercial (WTF???) (Thanks, John).

As you can see, it features folks of varying size, shape and color debating the merits of fried versus grilled chicken… including two Asian dudes dressed in ethnic costume for no apparent reason. Seriously, everyone else in the commercial is dressed “normally,” but these two Asian dudes — speaking in heavily accented Engrish, for good measure — are going full Oriental.

What is the reasoning behind this? Once again, the Asian guys serve as the funny foreign element in the commercial — looking, speaking, and at the end the of the spot, dancing like silly-ass fools. That’s racist!. I don’t know, perhaps KFC would like to hear from you about this. Customer contact info here.

Tim, a Brazilian digital communications provider (cell phones, internet service, etc), recently launched an ad campaign entitled “Você, Sem Fronteiras,” which means “You, Without Limits.” “Fronteiras” is a Portuguese word* that means limits, borders, or restrictions, and is often evoked in reference to behavior, culture, and access to resources. In this ad campaign, Tim is encouraging its current and prospective users to think of all three contexts.

The first page of the ad reads: “ALGUMA COISA ESTÁ ACONTECENDO” (“something is happening”):

The second page reads: “UM HOMEM NEGRO COM NOME MUÇULMANO É PRESIDENTE DOS ESTADOS UNIDOS” (“a black man with a Muslim name is the President of the United States”)**:

The third page reads: “O PRÊMIO DE MELHOR JOGADOR BRASILEIRO DO MUNDO É DE UMA JOGADORA” (“the award for best Brazilian soccer player in the world belongs to a woman”)***:

The fourth page reads: “QUALQUER PESSOA PODE CARREGAR SUA PRÓPIA REDE” (“anyone and everyone can access their own wireless internet network”):

The fifth and final page of the spread reads: “É TEMPO DE MENTE SEM FRONTEIRAS” (“the time has come to have an open mind / a mentality sans limits”):

When I first saw the ad, a series of thoughts crossed my mind, but before I prejudice you, the readers, with my thoughts, I wanted to hear your first impressions. I will leave mine later via the comments section.

*I translated the Portuguese to make sense in English, not word-for-word, as that never quite works!
**Clearly, here they are talking about President Barack Obama.
***On page 3, they are referring to Marta Vieira da Silva, a Brazilian female soccer player who is considered the best female soccer player in the world.

Advertisement courtesy of Veja Magazine, March 19, 2009

Or not.

I get what they’re going for, but I must admit my first thought was “So now there will be a serving of love with our racial terrorism?”

They also put together this ad:

Thoughts?

(Thanks to Copyranter – who termed it KKKlay-Doh – and tartedelune for the tip!)

Change has come to America. But it took a detour around Madison Avenue. While citizens have adopted phrases like “post-racial,” the advertising industry operates in a pre-Civil Rights time warp. Whenever the topics of diversity and inclusion appear, ad executives consistently display stunning ignorance. MultiCultClassics has sought to address the issues in the past. However, the matters have evolved along with society, despite Madison Avenue’s retarded development. As a public service, this blog will answer a series of Frequently Asked Questions to enlighten the asses… er, masses.

Question: Isn’t Cyrus Mehri just another opportunistic bottom feeder in the Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton tradition?

Answer: It’s always interesting—yet never surprising—to see individuals who protest injustices branded as bottom feeders. Then again, facing off with Madison Avenue on these issues does require lowering yourself to nasty depths.

Regardless, it’s important to recognize key differences between Mehri and Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton.

Despite occasional forays into advertising industry affairs, Jackson and Sharpton are ultra-outsiders. (Although rumors claim Black-owned agency executives told Jackson to back off when he offered to wage battles in the past.) While the two clearly understand things like exclusion and discrimination, they’re corporately clueless, at least when it comes to the ad agency business. In contrast, Mehri has done his homework. The Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants, Inc. report is nearly flawless in its examination of the inner dealings on Madison Avenue. The AAF and 4A’s couldn’t have produced a more factual, accurate document.

Additionally, the tactics employed by Jackson and Sharpton have possibly lost effectiveness over the years. One could argue that Jackson especially often resorted to intimidation that played on White guilt. Mehri, on the other hand, seeks to intimidate by proving Whites are guilty.

Advantage Mehri.

As for being opportunistic, well, let’s really consider the term. Remember, this battle has been plodding along since the 1930s. Madison Avenue has had plenty of opportunities to address matters for about 80 years. It’s not as if Mehri seized upon the moment, catching people unaware. The truth is, industry leaders have been opportunistic by perpetuating the problems via apathy and worse. Maybe we should all see this as an opportunity to create positive change.

If Mehri manages to take this drama to a courtroom, we can’t wait to learn whom Madison Avenue will call upon to defend. Even Denny Crane would take a pass on it.

Change has come to America. But it took a detour around Madison Avenue. While citizens have adopted phrases like “post-racial,” the advertising industry operates in a pre-Civil Rights time warp. Whenever the topics of diversity and inclusion appear, ad executives consistently display stunning ignorance. MultiCultClassics has sought to address the issues in the past. However, the matters have evolved along with society, despite Madison Avenue’s retarded development. As a public service, [The MultiCultClassics] blog will answer a series of Frequently Asked Questions to enlighten the asses… er, masses.

Question: Doesn’t President Barack Obama prove we don’t have to pursue this diversity stuff anymore?

Answer: Why do certain individuals view President Barack Obama as some form of reparations—as if his election pays off the bar tab of bias Madison Avenue has amassed over the years?

President Obama symbolizes a major milestone in racial progress. Madison Avenue represents a serious setback in cultural evolution.

President Obama assembles a staff reflecting the vibrant variety of brilliance in America. Madison Avenue collects excuses like, “We can’t find qualified minority candidates.”

President Obama signs his first bill in support of equal pay. Madison Avenue signs diversity pacts and is exposed for paying Blacks 20 percent less than Whites.

President Obama proves change is possible. Madison Avenue shows resistance to change is possible.

By all means, let’s hold up President Obama as the one to revere. But let’s also recognize Madison Avenue as the one to reform.

Change has come to America. But it took a detour around Madison Avenue. While citizens have adopted phrases like “post-racial,” the advertising industry operates in a pre-Civil Rights time warp. Whenever the topics of diversity and inclusion appear, ad executives consistently display stunning ignorance. MultiCultClassics has sought to address the issues in the past. However, the matters have evolved along with society, despite Madison Avenue’s retarded development. As a public service, [The MultiCultClassics] blog will answer a series of Frequently Asked Questions to enlighten the asses… er, masses.

Question: Given the tanking economy and widespread advertising agency layoffs, isn’t this the absolute worst possible time imaginable to wage a diversity war?

Answer: Oh, there are worse timings one could imagine. Like during a supernova, or at the moment of Armageddon. Try to keep matters in perspective. As noted on numerous posts, the battle first erupted in the 1930s. Madison Avenue has seen lots of catastrophic occurrences over that period. We shouldn’t let the probability of a total economic collapse prevent progress.

Besides, it’s actually easier to ignore the issues in good times. When jobs are plentiful and the corporate coffers overflow, advertising executives feel less obligated to make diversity a priority. But when your shop is teetering on financial ruin, well, the prospect of Cyrus Mehri seizing gobs of cash certainly grabs your attention.

Other considerations loom large too. The ad business is experiencing seismic shifts right now. The old ways are being abandoned. The old hierarchies are being redrafted. The old business models are being shattered. The grizzled cynics proclaim, “The ad biz as we know it is OVER.” The seasoned veterans are in the process of Reinventing Advertising. Everyone foresees a brand new day. Even the culturally clueless aren’t completely clueless.

So while Madison Avenue is undergoing an extreme makeover, why not fight to ensure diversity becomes a part of the foundation? This could be the absolute best possible time imaginable.

Change has come to America. But it took a detour around Madison Avenue. While citizens have adopted phrases like “post-racial,” the advertising industry operates in a pre-Civil Rights time warp. Whenever the topics of diversity and inclusion appear, ad executives consistently display stunning ignorance. MultiCultClassics has sought to address the issues in the past. However, the matters have evolved along with society, despite Madison Avenue’s retarded development. As a public service, this blog will answer a series of Frequently Asked Questions to enlighten the asses… er, masses.

Question: Why do all the diversity discussions focus on Blacks—what about Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, People With Disabilities, Gays, Lesbians, Women, Veterans, Older Employees, Pit Bull Lovers, Mutants and The Rest Of Us?

Answer: Get in line. Unfortunately, the deeper you dig into Madison Avenue’s corporate closet, the more skeletons you’ll find. Recent years have seen work and deeds demeaning everyone listed above, including a Jewish creative director allegedly sexually harassed by a neo-Japanese warlord.

Blacks are in the spotlight for a few reasons. First, the group has been officially fighting for change since the 1930s. To understand the details, read Madison Avenue and the Color Line by Jason Chambers. The author presents a fair and frank documentation of events, showing the successes and failures to date. Additionally, the New York City Commission on Human Rights’ latest efforts have been led by New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook and activist Sanford Moore, who are strongly pushing a predominately Black agenda. Finally, attorney Cyrus Mehri is building a class-action lawsuit focused on the inequities Blacks seemingly always face in the ad game.

However, it’s important to realize the real battle is not being waged exclusively for any single group. The Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants, Inc. report stated the following:

Although this paper focuses on African Americans, the same issues of employment bias in the advertising industry simultaneously affect other “outgroups” — race-ethnic minorities such as Latinos and Asians; women; older workers; persons with disabilities; and even White males who do not share the cultural or stylistic characteristics of the White males who dominate the industry. These other groups would benefit alongside African Americans from a reformed, inclusive advertising industry culture. This broad potential enhances the urgency of addressing the problems raised in this report — and addressing them in effective ways.

In closing, a recent story published at AdAge.com inspired this comment:

I find a couple of things interesting. To think that addressing the evident discrimination of Blacks in advertising won’t benefit the other discriminatory issues in advertising is naïve. Nearly all of the fights for equality use the struggle of Blacks in history and especially the Civil Rights Movement as their standard. While I applaud the office of Chief Diversity Officer in its motives, I think it is a shame that any company or industry has to have someone in charge of doing what is right by people. The idea of respectful accountability should be a tenet of leadership. Instead, someone has to be paid to make sure that a company is exhausting all recruiting resources to look for the best talent, which, in my opinion, is hiring smart people (they come in all colors, genders, orientations, etc.) with a good work ethic, who never tire of learning. Someone is paid to make sure everyone is treated with respect from recruiting through their tenure with the company. It is a shame that someone has to tell my company we need to pay and promote fairly. It is a shame that the integrity in how we treat each other has to be regulated, mandated and disguised. While we may not have control of ensuring respect in society at large, I would like to think in a corporate structure that respect is such an intrinsic part of the company culture and values, that there is no need for a Chief Diversity Officer. I will go further into diversity blasphemy by stating that I would do away with the word “diversity” and all of the affinity groups having lunch and going to happy hours. My company statement would be simple: “We treat everyone with respect.” This is the plumb line for all we do. It captures every issue of diversity and beyond. It would solve the issue of this group being left out or feeling this or that. Now that this is off my chest, I understand my views are idealistic, but I also know it would work. Who will be the first to make a stand against diversity and promote true respect to the point where a Chief Diversity Officer is a position of the past?

Hadn’t planned to examine the L’Oréal/Beyoncé drama, as others have already addressed it with better perspective, better emotion and better boycotting. Besides, it’s always best to avoid touching a Black woman’s hair—even as a blog topic—unless you really know what you’re doing. Hey, this subject is so combustible, it managed to draw comments at the typically ignored Agency Spy. Anyway, here are a few thoughts from a primarily advertising-related viewpoint.

Contrary to popular protests, it’s unlikely that L’Oréal deliberately lightened Beyoncé’s skin or messed with her nose and other items. The company officially insisted, “It is categorically untrue that L’Oréal Paris altered Ms. Knowles’ features or skin tone in the campaign for Féria hair color.” The company is probably right. However, they’re still probably wrong. Bear with us for a bit.

Technically, it’s a safe bet L’Oréal did not covertly tamper with the superstar. Anyone who has ever produced fashion advertising or fashion photography will attest that lighting plays a key role. When filming hair, incredibly strong lamps are used to make each strand visible and shiny. For example, commercials for Pantene and Clairol often show the backs of women’s heads for two reasons: 1) to display every glistening follicle and; 2) to avoid having the person’s face completely “blown out” (or whitewashed) by the spotlights. Given that L’Oréal is selling a haircolor and highlights product, they undoubtedly employed a ton of lights. Think supernova.

This is not a case of L’Oréal manipulating Beyoncé via Photoshop (at least not beyond the normal ultra-retouching done for fashion shots). Quite the opposite. L’Oréal should have used Photoshop—to restore the natural skin tone removed by the lighting. Sorry, but it simply doesn’t make sense that L’Oréal would alter Beyoncé for this campaign when she has already graced numerous ads for the beauty company.

Unfortunately, L’Oréal unwittingly stepped on a cultural landmine, and ultimately displayed their cultural cluelessness. They should have worked harder with their lighting to compensate for a Black woman (Black hair care specialists are much more savvy about these things). Plus, they should have looked closer at the image to realize the potential issues. Although they were not actively being sneaky or evil, L’Oréal was professionally insensitive in this scenario. Despite being headquartered in Paris—a locale boasting forward thinking—the company is culturally clueless.

Ironically, L’Oréal owns SoftSheen-Carson, an expert in the Black hair care category. Rumors claim the enterprises remain segregated, so it’s not like the White folks would ever consider consulting with the Black sister company. And heaven forbid SoftSheen-Carson might receive L’Oréal budgets to sign up Beyoncé too. SoftSheen-Carson has to settle for Kelly Rowland.

Another dilemma to keep in mind: L’Oréal is working with White beauty standards. Hence, they failed to foresee the damage this campaign has generated. Beyoncé looked just fine to L’Oréal—and she still does. We’ll forgo the standard(s) rant associated with this observation.

In the end, L’Oréal didn’t intentionally do anything wrong. Unless you believe that an international beauty corporation being culturally clueless is wrong. For the advertising industry—and the fashion industry—it’s par for the course.

I recently came across the above campaign, produced by Mortierbrigade Brussel, an ad agency in Belgium.

MediaBistro notes:

To attract attention for the cause, a young boy dressed in shorts and a tank top could be seen running into prime time TV shows (live programs, with hosts) only to drink the water that sat in front of the hosts, or their guests. The boy chugged the water and ran off.

In three days, the boy had been on enough programs that a stir was created. In just six days, people donated the equivalent of $5.24 million dollars. Considering the relatively small size of Belgium, that’s no small feat.

The viral piece was meant to highlight the disparaging situation for the 1.1 billion people that don’t have clean water, and the fact a child dies every 15 seconds from a lack of clean water. The agency’s client ‘Music for Life’ and their partner, The Red Cross, did more for clean water in a week than anyone could have imagined.

(It is also interesting to note that Media Bistro took the word “Black” out of the title when reporting the piece.)

Here is the video:

What do you think readers? (Particularly interested in the international perspective.)

So, I was browsing Jezebel and came across this Photoshop of Horrors entry:

And I thought to myself, what person is this supposed to be? I don’t quite recognize the…wait a sec, that’s supposed to be Beyonce?

Now, Beyonce is a style chameleon.

But I looked at this shot:

And this one:

And a few others, and she still looks like Bey. Even with the changes in make up, hair, and the application of Photoshop, she is still recognizable.

But what did they do to her skin? And her nose?

(Thanks to Jezebel for letting me snatch their scans.)

Edited:

I’m going to add another photo:

And commentary from Cheryl Lynn:

Can we please lay off Beyonce? I highly doubt that this woman, who we have all seen get blissfully darker as she gallivants across the globe with her husband, fired up the ol’ Photoshop in order to lighten her skin color for this advertisement. Why direct your ire at Beyonce? [...]

You want to do something to stop it? Contact the companies that do this and inform them that you will no longer be buying their products until the situation has been rectified. But giving the side-eye to fair-skinned black women who are just trying to make a living? Lame. Especially when these women have been some of the most vocal about the rampant colorism taking place in the entertainment industry. Why? Because they get a front row seat when it comes to viewing the damage that is inflicted upon dark-skinned women who are told that they will never be worthy enough. They see what has been done to their daughters and sisters. And it cuts them deeply. Why yell at the only people trying to keep you from falling while the rest of the world tries to knock you down?

Deesha sent in these two ads for the skin-lightening product Fair and Lovely. Targeted to the Indian market, the ads promise job advancement (and the perception of beauty) after you lighten your skin by a few shades.

This ad is in English:

Notice, when the actress mentions that four is her lucky number, they show her skin lightening by four shades.

This ad is not in English, but the meaning is clear enough:

Not only does the ad show the model lightening six shades, but the emphasis in this commercial is working with a “modern beauty company.” So modern beauty equates to fair skin? Fascinating.

I am also amused by Fair and Lovely’s marketing to women in Indonesia:

Inspiring women

Since 1993 until today, we have been committed to transforming and inspiring the lives of women through beauty. We also believe in the economic empowerment of women to improve standards of living and contribute positively to the quality of life of all Malaysians.

What we offer

The products we offer are dedicated to the beauty of women everywhere. Our range comprises Fair & Lovely Fairness Cream, Fair & Lovely Herbal Cream, Fair & Lovely Facial Facewash, Fair & Lovely Under Eye Cream, Fair & Lovely Fairness Soap and Fair & Lovely Fairness Body Lotion. Our Multi-Vitamin Fairness Cream is yet another innovation to make your skin naturally fairer and radiant in a mere 4 weeks – harnessing the goodness of 4 essential vitamins, namely Vitamin B3, C, A and E.

How noble.

To commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, it seems appropriate to note the debate ignited by Chicago Sun-Times advertising columnist Lewis Lazare. The writer recently criticized a new commercial for Quiznos starring an Asian American woman working at a Laundromat. Created by Cliff Freeman Advertising, it can be viewed at the Quiznos website. In the spot, the old woman eats a $5 bill; plus, she appears to be in the throes of dementia as she gazes adoringly at her Quiznos sandwich.

“Cliff Freeman takes sandwich war too far by demeaning Asian Americans,” read Lazare’s headline. “To say the commercial insults Asian Americans is a massive understatement.”

A few days later, Lazare published the following reactions to his perspective:

You are right about the Quiznos spot. The Six Flags ad is even more stupid and offensive to Asian Americans. —Mike Kocher

I thought the commercial was an attempt to be funny. You review the same type of ads with young white guys doing stupid antics and don’t mention anyone being insulted. Can’t Asian Americans act stupid to get laughs? —Michael Schimp

I strongly feel the Quiznos ad is insulting, and I’m not Asian. It is really a stupid way to try and get people to buy their brand. —Kathy Repak

Are you Asian American? I wonder how do you know what offends someone else? (I work in a Chinese restaurant, where they slurp their soups and drink loudly without concern—offensive to you or me perhaps, but not to them.) Would you have said the same thing if the actress in question were Caucasian? Probably not. You see a woman of Asian descent. I see a woman. —Lou Lohman

How is the Quiznos ad an insult to Asian Americans? Are they, like the handicapped, not to be made fun of? Are they sacred and therefore not to be displayed in any light less than reverent? Would the ad be acceptable with a white woman? —Michael Curley

Thank you for your opinion piece on the Quiznos ad. I was so shocked when I saw it on television. Somehow, Asian Americans are always portrayed as crazy on television. —Jack Song

While I am not Asian, I think there is still a big difference between funny and offensive. This was funny! —Roger Kelner

I wondered how long it would take for someone to blow the whistle on Quiznos’ obnoxious—and blatantly racist—television ad that pulls its laugh at the expense of a poor old mama-san. —Mary Shen Barnidge

How is this a demeaning commercial? They were able to hire an Asian to do the spot, so it can’t be that bad. My girlfriend is Asian, and she finds the commercial funny. You need to loosen the bow tie and find your funny bone. This ad may not bring more customers into Quiznos, but it may give normal folk a good chuckle. Learn to lighten up. —Chris Murphy

Don’t mean to sound jaded like a dragon, but these debates have become so predictable—plus a pathetic portrait of the culturally clueless characters in the advertising industry and beyond.

It’s almost as if these racial respondents materialize on cue to hit their marks, dropping statements which have become as stereotypical as the imagery that inspires them. From the person who wonders why no one takes offense when Whites are portrayed as stupid to the Chinese restaurant worker allegedly witnessing heathen behavior to the dude with an amused Asian girlfriend to the attacker of political correctness griping that we all need to lighten up (hey, no Freudian slip there), the discussions on these topics reveal a true lack of progress in society at large.

On the multicultural marketing totem pole, Asian advertising agencies in the U.S. are still positioned far below their already-disrespected Latino and Black peers. Which means the overwhelming majority of Asian depictions in commercials and print are coming from the White ad shops. Granted, Asian Americans are starting to make positive appearances in advertising and media. Perhaps it’s partly because the White shops feel more comfortable integrating the “model minority” into messages. Or maybe it’s an offshoot of the popularity of Lucy Liu, Jet Li, Jackie Chan and kung-fu movies. Whatever.

But it’s hard to deny the history of representations indicating adfolks consider people of Asian descent to be loud, bizarre, Sumo wrestling, Zen-speaking Laundromat owners inclined to eat anything.

Way back in Essay Fourteen (March 2005), MultiCultClassics noted DiversityInc.com called out Advertising Age and Adweek for the publications’ lack of minority representation in editorial content. Why, MultiCultClassics even generously offered suggestions in Essay Seventeen.

Since then, Advertising Age has shown dramatic progress. The enterprise has provided consistent, detailed reporting on diversity-related issues, covered multicultural marketing and launched The Big Tent blog.

Adweek, on the other hand, hasn’t done shit. In fact, parent company VNU even dumped Marketing y Medios, a leading source for news on Latino marketing.

When others spotlighted the dealings between Madison Avenue and New York City’s Commission on Human Rights, Adweek was conspicuously absent. The New York Times’ Stuart Elliot and Advertising Age recently ran stories on the agencies’ alleged progress, and once again, Adweek was nowhere to be seen. This week, Elliott and Ad Age mentioned the “major new initiative that will specifically address the dearth of African-American executives” presented at the 4As Leadership Conference. Adweek didn’t bother typing a sentence about it.

Is Adweek lazy, culturally clueless, racist, too White or just plain irrelevant? Probably all of the above.

But since the magazine is no longer a weekly, and there appears to be no effort to generate more inclusive content, perhaps it should be officially renamed Adwhite.

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?

by Guest Contributor Brigitte, originally published at Make Fetch Happen

I’d noticed these Old Navy ads a few days ago. First because the dark skinned model in the ads, Nina Keita, has been featured in quite a few Old Navy ads recently and second, because her “love interest” in the ad is white.

I guess I’m so accustomed to seeing these types of ads go in a different direction that changing it up a bit immediately transforms me into a deer-in-the-headlights.

Ordinarily, this type of commercial would usually show the group of young white women (with their one black friend) flirting with a groups of white guys (and their one black friend) at a mall or amusement park. The end of the ad would show everyone matched up by race having a great time sharing fountain drinks.

I always thought that this set up put way too much pressure of the black friends. What if they didn’t like each other? What if one of them was gay? Clearly, these were the only two black people in town. How was it that they were only just now meeting one another? Good Lord, what if they were related? Would their white friends care? Did anyone even bother to ask them how they felt about not being given a choice?

I’ve read many a designer complain that if they use a black or other non-white model in an ad or on the runway, then the consumer will pay more attention to the model than the product.

I think this is only partially true. I always pause at a ad with a person of color partly because of the rarity of black models in national campaigns but when I do I always note who is producing the ad. I can’t watch Nina Keita stroll around town in that Old Navy green tube dress without wondering how it would look on my body. On the flip side, models like Jessica Stam, Kate Moss and Gisele appear in so many similar advertisements that I’d be hard pressed to tell any of the campaigns apart.

How exactly does that work in the designer’s favor?

The General Market ad shows the Kleenex being hurled like a snowball. The Latino version? A soccerball, of course.

Fast Company recently profiled Alicia Morga, founder and CEO of online-marketing firm Consorte Media.

The opening paragraphs of the article reveal exactly what is wrong with the advertising industry:

Every marketer, pollster, and advertiser knows this much about Hispanics living in the United States: They are deeply family oriented, and their families are big. So when Alicia Morga, founder and CEO of the Hispanic-focused online-marketing firm Consorte Media, first started working with ad agencies on home-financing campaigns, she was told to use cheery images of happy, home-owning families. Problem: “The pictures of the big, brown family turned out to be the lowest-performing creative among Hispanics,” Morga says with a laugh. “By far.” What worked instead were simple shots of well-kept homes with white fences and lush lawns. “It’s aspirational,” she explains. Who knew?

Anyone who bothered to think outside the caja would know–and Morga does. In less than two years, she and Consorte Media have changed the thinking on how to find Hispanic Web surfers in the United States and convert them into customers, replacing the stereotypes that often typify minority-targeted marketing with insights gleaned from rigorous data collection and analysis. And she has built a business that’s already profitable, scored big-name clients including Best Buy and Monster.com, and completed two rounds of venture funding worth $10 million. Her secret: “Data works. There’s too much of the anecdotal in this marketplace.”

I am not sure why marketers want to overolook things that are fairly obvious. Perhaps it is the need for quantifiable, packaged data. I used to work for a market research aggregator and some of the reports that came across my desk for loading were sketchy, at best. Much of the research targeting specific ethnic/racial/gender/age demographics were heavily biased, used to essentially justify pre-existing stereotypes.

A coworker and I occassionally amused ourselves by opening some of the reports and laughing about what the researchers said our demographic wanted. Apparently, according to an older report targeting the African-American market, I am supposed to be single, very religious, overweight, and respond well to food images and church choirs. I guess that’s what the deal was with this Nivea ad.

As a gamer, I was socially awkward and probably spent a lot of time alone. (I was also a guy. Girl gamers had a very small segment near the end explaining how we need pink to relate to video games and we prefer games that were more feminine with a focus on relationships, cooking, or shopping. No I’m not kidding.)

I am not saying all market research is bad – on the contrary, there were some very well researched and thorough reports out there that did crazy things like actually poll the market. Or observe trends. Or conduct focus groups. Still, there were a great many companies who seemed like they couldn’t bother to even do that basic amount of research.

So, I can’t say I was surprised to see the language barrier brought up in the article as another key stumbling block:

The language barrier is obstacle enough for many marketers–the most infamous example is a Spanish-language version of the “Got Milk?” campaign, in which the mangled-in-translation tagline ended up meaning something akin to “lactation.” But Morga emphasizes that the demo “is not monolithic”: One-third of U.S. Hispanics are English-dominant, one-third speak primarily Spanish, and one-third are fully bilingual. And Forrester Media analyst Tamara Barber adds that “it’s not just about language. It’s about culture.” U.S. Hispanics are incredibly diverse, hailing from more than two dozen countries–and that jumble of mores, traditions, and cultural quirks renders generalizations problematic.

What? Latin@s speak English?

¿Desde cuándo?

And Hispanics/Latin@s in the US are diverse? (Meaning everyone isn’t Mexican?)

I think I just heard the sound of heads exploding on Madison Avenue.

[Image taken from the Fast Company website]