What is the actual complaint in this thread? That interracial families are now over represented in media?
More of an observation, I thought. Trends in TV advertising.
I wonder when they will start using more plus size actors. Given that the audience has probably grown over the years. The advertising business is, perhaps, behind the curve.
It can seem a bit like a manufactured image rather than an organic outcome of the casting process. That is, there was likely some corporate meeting where they had a spreadsheet and they mixed and matched the races, genders, and sexual identities to meet some kind of marketing goal for diversity. Rather than having an open casting call and selecting the best actors, the casting process was likely looking for something like an “ambiguously masculine Asian man” and found an actor who fit that role. The commercial may give the impression that the company doesn’t care about stuff like race, gender, and sexual identity–that they just picked the best actors–but in reality the actors are just filling a pre-determined image the corporation needs filled to give the illusion they are diverse. Now that more commercials are doing it, more commercials feel the need to ensure their commercials are diverse. They are adding diversity to meet some marketing goal rather than because the company itself believes in diversity. In the end it helps with diversity, but I’m pretty sure a company like Cheerios was much more focused on the revenue bump from having a commercial with a mixed-race family rather than being indifferent that they were mixed-race.
One example that’s kind of like this is the corporate transformations you see during Pride Month. Companies will do stuff like have rainbow logos to show their support, but only in places where it is financially advantageous to do so. A company may have rainbow logos in the US where it’s seen as favorable, but not change the logos in places like the Middle East where they would lose business. It is done as a marketing program to increase revenue rather than reflecting the ideals of the company.
Agree.
I mostly stream now so see few ads. When I do though I note how what is advertised and how it is advertised informs you who the companies are targeting when advertising on that show.
Notice that those Cialis commercials on golf shows are not usually mixed race couples. White couples Black couples but not often mixed. On the other hand commercials on shows that more appeal to Millennials and younger adults do.
Not a complaint but an observation that tells what the marketing people are thinking their surveys say.
Is ANYONE under the impression that advertising roles go to the best actors?!?
Of course it is a manufactured process based on conclusions made about the research they have about their target demographics. Younger adult consumers more often respond positively to these groupings than negatively. The pro social good of representation and normalization is icing to sell to the mission statement people but not the driver.
This is the important thing to remember. Products like Cheerios cast a mixed-race couple because the corporation feels it will maximize revenue. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with reflecting the corporate values of the General Mills corporation. We hope it does, but more likely they are trying to target a specific market for the revenue it brings in. I’m guessing that they only play the commercial in markets where a mixed-race couple will be seen as positive and don’t show it in markets where that might hurt their sales. If diversity in commercials hurt sales, companies which were doing it for the diversity facade wouldn’t do it. If someone thinks Cheerios is casting a mixed-race couple because General Mills strongly believes in diversity, they may be being fooled.
Everything about corporate marketing and the casting process is about a manufactured image. Why would you ever think otherwise?
Back when most companies wanted only straight, white people in their commercials, do you think that was anything other than a manufactured corporate image?
Different body types do seem to be more common in recent years, although it’s safe to say that commercial actors are still disproportionately tall and thin.
Another thing you see from some of the bolder companies is actresses wearing Islamic apparel like hijabs (head scarves), although they seem to draw the line at full face coverings.
A lot of people heap diversity praise to the parent company based on the image they present, but in reality the company is just doing it for the $$$. It’s a marketing tool, not a company philosophy. I’m not sure everyone sees it that way.
For example, companies like BMW rainbow-ify their logo during Pride month as a way to show their support, but only in countries where that’s seen as positive. Other countries have the normal logo, and BMW does business with countries who have severe penalties for being gay, including death. So when people see the rainbow BMW logo, they should read it as BMW is trying to capitalize on that market rather than the BMW corporation itself supporting gay issues. Someone who really supports those issues may want to do business with companies which truly embody those ideals rather than companies which slap it on as a facade to make money.
This has been my theory since the Cheerios ad - that by showing mixed race couples, advertisers get a multiplier from the bigoted backlash, the backlash to the backlash, and then the company issuing a statement about inclusivity, with lots of social media and occasional actual news coverage. And I agree that this effect is slowly fading as interracial couples in commercials stop being so shocking, which ironically will likely lead to seeing fewer of them.
What I think has arisen post-George Floyd is simply more black people on television, period. Nobody wants to be accused of excluding black people, so they’re making sure they’re more than adequately represented. (Which, to be clear, I’m fine with - god knows there are still more than enough white people to look at).
Minorities need more representation in media. That’s a fact. If corporations are providing more representation in media for minorities, ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether their motives are pure. Indeed, most corporations’ motives are rarely going to be entirely pure, anyway.
If the corporation needs to be criticized for something else it’s doing, then that’s a different matter.
The Dillon’s(Kroger) grocery chain has ads showing one of their employees wearing a hijab.
I don’t know anyone that naive myself but YMMV.
Meanwhile there still exists a virtuous cycle. Critical mass of key purchasing demographics respond well to diverse and inclusive marketing practices, leads to more diverse and inclusive representation in advertising, leads to a greater fraction of the public experiencing these images as normative, leading to more responding well to such marketing …
It was a big deal for Korra to strongly imply a gay relationship in a cartoon. Now many cartoons have had gay characters (from Adventure Time to Steven Universe to Owl House to She-Ra …) and it isn’t shocking. More are comfortable with it (as long as the show is otherwise quality) than are put off. More begets more.
The agenda is not at any corporate level; it’s the agenda of the marketplace as actioned by consumers.
Can you tell- just by looking at someone for a minute- that they are gay or straight? I can’t.
Having worked in Hollywood in the late 70’s early 80’s, there were quite a few gay actors routinely passing and getting roles.
Agree. My company has made corporate decisions regarding DEI affecting some internal policies (impacts recruiting and talent retention), as well as in it’s advertising.
Resolved: Imagery and messaging of your company being associated with a diverse group of people is good for business.
When it’s two guys kissing, or two women in their jammies in bed and their daughter runs in, yeah, I can tell. In a commercial. Which is what this thread is about.
You can tell if their characters are supposed to be acting gay, yes. We can’t tell what the actors preferences are.
Did you think that @Acsenray meant the actors rather than the characters? Really? In the context of this thread?
Okay.
Indeed gay actors may play straight characters and visaversa and I at least would be none the wiser.
This has already happened here in Germany a few years ago. I have noticed that especially in ads and commercials for cosmetics, there are more and more actresses that don’t meet the typical flawless top model look, but are rather “normal” looking women, including overweight ones. They are still all beautiful, but not stereotypical.
Then there’s a current TV ad for sanitary napkins (is this the correct American expression? I had to look it up. In case it’s unclear, it’s about a female sanitary product used during menstruation) with a young black woman who’s overweight and a figure skater to boot. The kicker is that this is the first ad I’ve ever seen that uses an actual reddish tint for the obligatory test fluid, which is otherwise always blue, a fact that I have been joking/complaining about for decades. That’s real progress in my book.
Here’s the ad:
There’s an entire episode of the sitcom American Auto from earlier this year, that dealt with the executives trying to strike the right balance of demographics while avoiding offending anyone with their ad. I can’t find any clips to share, but you can watch the entire episode. The problems start to pile up on each other at about the 10:00 mark.
And 30 Rock had a character remark that old-school racism must be making a comeback: he just saw a home-security commercial featuring a black burglar. (“Come to think of it, I saw a white judge on Law & Order last night!”)