The first thing that registered to me was that all the runners were black. In an ad that is trying to sell Intel as stronger and faster than the competion, that’s a poignant observation. The racial composition of the team juxtaposed with the white manager gives a racial tint to the message that is distracting and yes, a little offensive, as it is a reminder of the brute negro stereotype. Had they thrown a few non-blacks into the mix, that tint would not have been there.
That the runners are clones of the same person didn’t jump out at me because their features are obscured. And I didn’t register the subserviant posture until it was pointed out by Snopes. But that seems like such an big flaw that I can’t believe it wasn’t picked up by the ad agency or Intel. All they would have had to do was simply have the runner(s) pose with his head up instead of down. When I think of a track runner at the starting line, I always picture them looking straight ahead.
My reaction to the ad is along the line of, not so much “What were they thinking,” but “Why didn’t someone think this one through?” I absolutely don’t think this was intentional; what company in their right mind would waste ad dollars to be offensive, especially when those they’re potentially offending could be a customer? Even when I see those subliminal images in certains things (Disney poster, Pepsi ad (I think)), I assume, even if it is intentional, it’s some joker graphic designer, rather than the company itself.
And yes, the Starbucks ad overreaction was a big :rolleyes: for me too.
[Hiijack] There was a big kerfuffle in the law firm where I work this week (which I witnessed). Two middle-aged women (black and hispanic) in a conversation: BW refers to HW as in “Good morning, Miss [FirstName].” HW hates this, has made it known to everyone, including BW, and reminds her of this. BW apologizes profusely, saying she forgot. HW goes on to say, “How would you like if I walked up to you and called you Uncle Tom?” :eek:
Disregarding the fact that this is not the same thing in terms of uttering a disliked appellation, how could HW have not known the racial implications of even invoking such a thing? (It’s in HR’s hand right now.) [/Hijack]
Same here. Between that and their placement directly opposite each other, it seems the ad company went out of their way to make it NOT look like runners.
I give the ad a lot less benefit of the doubt because of the fact it’s an ad. If I told someone to make a one-minute sketch of runners in an office, and she came up with that design, I probably wouldn’t find it overly suspect (though still a little telling). However, knowing that major ads are micro-calibrated to transmit their intended messages, I find it hard to consider the result completely innocent or coincidental. At some point someone had to say “All right, let’s get six black men in here” and someone also had to say “Yeah, can you stretch down a little lower to the ground?” The finished ad was probably looked over in the end by a large number of people who either did not notice or mind the uncomfortable resulting imagery. I’m willing to bet that this group did not include very many black people.
Why? “Let’s get some sprinters in here…we’ll tie that in with how fast the processors are.” “Okay, we’ll have them hunker down in between cubicles so it’s an office environment, while the manager looks happy at how efficient things are.”
I don’t think ad people sit around trying to insert subliminal racist messages into their ads. At the most, I would say this is a case of :smack:
Yeah, except it’s not like six sprinters walk in off the street, ready to do their job. Someone chooses whichever six they want most out of however many zillion models try out. These ad people are paid precisely to work with symbols and their associations. If this went truly completely unnoticed, then it’s a staggering display of lack of awareness.
I’d say an ad like this is a poster child for why ad agencies should make an effort to hire a diverse set of folks. Because even if the implications weren’t obvious in all the phases of production, surely the final product should have raised eyebrows. And I’m having a hard time believing that black people in the boardroom wouldn’t have picked up on the imagery. (Although, it would be worse if they had but were too afraid to say something, lest they be branded as hypersensitive race-card players. Which actually sounds very likely, as I think about it.)
Well, you could say that perhaps they are subconsciously racist, and in that way their insertion of subliminal messages would not be intentional. Not that I’m saying this is what has happened, but I think ad execs can have the same biases that we all do and that they can affect their work. Of course, I think it’s only fair to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think we have to make them pure-of-heart innocents to do that.
As said earlier, there a couple of easy things the ad people could have done to make this ad more palatable. An interesting experiment would be to swap out for White Guy with White Woman. Would the offensiveness be just as or less poignant? Or could it be even worse? Inquiring minds want to know.
The ad is lame, but I had to read Snopes to figure out it was racist. Why? Because the “sprinter” is wearing a track outfit and it’s one person, shown six times.
But it’s stupid. It would be better if they used six different “sprinters” and not all the same race–but they’d still run into each other right out of the cubicle. It’s the kind of metaphor that’s very strained.
(I don’t even see why Intel has to advertise in the first place. No one has ever asked me if I’d like an Intel processor in my computer. Total waste of money.)
I saw immediately what some people would bitch about. I can see the advertisers in no way meant it the way a few took it. I’m sure the team sat down and said let’s do a slave submission ad to increase sales. That is a wonderful idea. Fine, we’ll run with this.
Wow, was my thought. How could an ad exec not see right off that was pretty offensive? The clone workers, the bowed heads, and a satisfied supervisor. I wanted to photoshop an oar in each worker’s cubicle for added effect.
I see the intended meaning, and it could have been avoided simply by not cloning a single Black racer. Instead, have a diverse group of people all clad in race gear. you with the face brings up a good point that would have solved the subservient appearance, and truer to reality of running. Have all the runner’s heads up, like they are ready to achieve their goals. Sheesh, I hope someone didn’t make too much money designing that shortsighted piece of work.
No, you’re not the only one. I had to switch browsers from Firefox to IE to see the ad. Then later, I found I could see it in Firefox by disabling the ad blocker.
And as far as the topic at hand is concerned, add me to those who saw the potential for offense immediately.
Yeah my first impression of that ad is that if I buy this computer I will be happy like the white man with his six gay bumblebee sex slaves who are all black and sort of dressed as athletes. So I would be offended.
I got the offensive interpretation before the intended one. Sure they’re ready to start a race, except they are indoors, in cubicles, and facing one another. If they had placed the sprinters on a track, then I might have seen it.
I’m also sure it was not intentional. If you design an ad around a certain meaning, it’s hard to see others.