I think it certainly does. They chose Naomi because she has (arguably) chocolate brown skin and (not arguably) a reputation as a diva.
But is that in itself enough to consider it racist? I would say no. I think it’s a relatively weak attempt at humor, and the only reason there’s a controversy about it is because Naomi threw a diva-esque fit. Maybe she thinking about a lawsuit alleging they used her for commercial gain without paying her. I’ll leave it to the lawyer types to speculate on how likely that might be. Maybe Cadbury will pay her just to STFU – I might, if I were wealthy enough.
I think it would be REALLY funny if Carbury now hires her for a follow-up campaign, “Naomi Doesn’t Want to Move Over”. The can have billboards of her shaking her finger at a chocolate bar and looking angry. TV ads of her saying, “You think you can just walk in her and push me aside? Well, I’ve got news for you…”
I voted other because it struck me as plain fatuous. Particularly since Campbell’s most recent media attention all came from her (mendacious or very stupid) appearance at the blood diamonds trial. What are they trying to say? This chocolate is so much a diva it bathes in blood diamonds?
I think it’s highly unlikely* that a large company such as Cadbury would be intentionally using Naomi Campbell’s skin color as a comparison to chocolate. I think it’s far, far more likely that they were wholly intending the ad to refer to Campbell’s (entirely deserved) reputation as a spoiled brat of a diva.
OTOH, it’s clear (from this discussion, alone) that there are some people who naturally see the connection.
Intentional? Very unlikely.
Not terribly racially sensitive? Apparently.
not saying it’s not possible, but considering all the people (including lawyers) who review every ad which a large company produces, both at the company itself, and at the ad agency, overt and intentional racism simply seems unlikely.
I don’t think you can even say that they chose to reference her because of her skin colour; the rest of the campaign is entirely about anthropomorphizing the product as a pampered diva. Let’s examine it for racial subtext:
First, the television spot. We see little dioramas of the bar in various life-of-leisure contexts, followed with the tagline, “Cadbury’s Bliss - the World’s Most Pampered Bar of Chocolate.” Music is supplied by The Manhattan Transfer, who some may argue have been known to overdo it a bit with the whole “white” thing. (If we wanted to simulate Naomi-level racial sensitivity, we might argue that they are best known for “The Java Jive,” which has the word “jive” right there in the title, quite apart from the well known fact that coffee is often served black - but we won’t, because this is the Dope and we know a thing or two about constructing a valid syllogism.)
Cadbury has gone out of their way to associate the product with the hallmarks of a pampered existence, partnering with beauty and body care product companies. I don’t think you can reasonably argue that this is anything apart from racially neutral.
Other print ads? Here’s one. More of the same, luxury, privilege, leisure. No credible racial nuances.
Now, consider the quotes attributed to the block of chocolate in the two ads immediately preceding the one that has stirred up the controversy: “I’m sooooooo special,” and “I don’t do buses, darling.” Now, these are fairly race-neutral. If anything, the “darling” bit may usually evoke the image of a privileged pale-skinned woman.
Given the context, it’s absurd to suggest that the intent was to make an analogy between the colour of the product and the person named. In order to claim that this is racist, you would have to insist that her pigmentation is the most significant attribute that Ms. Campbell has, willfully ignoreher other attributes which are consonant with a high-profile marketing campaign which has been underway for nearly a year, and take the position that chocolate itself is such a racially-loaded product that you must only use white or perhaps asian people in its marketing, lest people naturally assume that a statement of some sort is being made about race.
I don’t think that demanding a constant and unreasoning preoccupation with race is very useful in aid of reducing racism.
Alluding to or mentioning the color of someone’s skin isn’t racist, so eve *if * Cadbury intentionally ment to compare Campbell’s skin to the color of chocolate-- so what?
Alabaster, peaches & cream, cafe au lait are all used to describe women. Why is it an insult, much less a racist one, to use the word ‘chocolate’ to describe Naomi Campbell?
My first take was that they were poking Campbell for the blood diamonds. I didn’t think anything of the color of the chocolate and the diamonds were pretty Scrooge McDucky in number.
What do we do about the fact that “Java Jive” was originally recorded by The Ink Spots? I’m so confused.
Seriously, this is Naomi having a tantrum which only serves to reinforce her image as a pampered brat. And I’m not sure who else has that level of name recognition for that type of behavior - none of the other people mentioned in this thread would register on the consciousness of the average British twentysomething (seriously - the Gabor sisters?). Naomi’s famous for being a spoiled bitch and gets tabloid coverage for her bitchiness. There are plenty of famous black people out there, but only one Naomi.
