Pepsi Falls Flat

Pepsi Falls Flat

How and Why Racist Ads Happen

Racist marketing campaigns happen all the time, and when they do people always ask the same question: how did this disaster even get off the drawing board?

Take Kendall Jenner’s now infamous Pepsi ad. The commercial showed Jenner (of all people) leading a protest that resembled Black Lives Matter. At the end of the ad, Jenner handed the police a soda and the cops shrugged, realizing their new-found preference for Pepsi over state violence.

The ad trivialized major societal issues, cast the most basic white girl as the face of the resistance, and likened brave protests to block parties. If you still don’t know why this ad was offensive, then log onto Twitter.

We could talk all day about every racist detail of this ad because there were plenty. But I think it’s more worthwhile to analyze the nature of American business (and society) that allows this kind racism to seep into our advertising.

The commercial was created by an internal group at PepsiCo – not an external ad agency. Some marketers theorized that this group was under immense pressure to produce content too quickly and that its internal employees were too devoted to the brand to see the bigger picture, making it prone to disaster.

I call bull sh*t.

What went wrong at Pepsi was that minorities did not have a seat at the table. As reported by The Mirror, all six people listed in the credits for the ad were – surprise, surprise! – white.

Sometimes, when (white) people hear that more black people need to be hired into key positions they consider it a kind of reverse racism. They think that intentionally employing a black person would take the job from a perhaps more qualified white person.

This assumption is seriously misinformed.

Regardless of qualifications, employers are significantly less likely to hire black people. In fact, a black American with a bachelor’s degree is nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as a white American with the same educational background. Black men spend significantly more time searching for jobs, acquire less experience and have less stable employment than whites with equivalent characteristics.

White people hire white people. Many companies prefer to hire candidates with referrals from existing employees, a practice that favors white applicants. Résumés with black-sounding names are less likely to be considered. All people – including job interviewers – have psychological biases toward those who look and act like them. All these tendencies benefit white people and harm black applicants.

Additionally, black talent is less likely to be identified and nurtured for leadership. This is evident in the lack of black CEOs on the Fortune 500 list. There are currently no black women and only four black men (less than one percent) running the biggest companies in the U.S.

Black people are disadvantaged at every level of business. Early on, American schools are separate and unequal, disfavoring largely black communities and making it harder to get an education. Once a black person earns a degree, there are significant obstacles to getting hired. Once they are hired, many black employees are underestimated and are less likely to be put on a path toward meaningful decision-making roles.

It’s no wonder our ads are racist! Racism is embedded at every level of business. The white perspective dominates the corporate world, so of course we are going to end up with insensitive ad campaigns – an entire chunk of the American experience is essentially absent.

So, what should we do?

We need more representation. Representation has a trickle down effect. Hiring more black employees would provide more business connections to other black people. It would help minimize subconscious biases in hiring. It would provide more mentors to identify and develop young black talent. Overall, it would lead to a more balanced organization that exhibits a broader range of values and perspectives to appeal to a diverse American public.

Representation is not a moral service. It is a problem-solving necessity – and a prerequisite for real equality. Only when real equality exists in our businesses will it shine through in our marketing – and until then, expect more flops like Pepsi.

Advertisements

Hair Dare You

The War on Female Body Hair

I recently started and stopped waxing. For those who have never done it, waxing your entire body is borderline ritualistic. You dedicate a day. You bump Beyoncé on the speakers. You wrap a mirror in Saran Wrap so nothing drips onto it. Then, you contort your body into advanced yoga poses all to successfully wax yourself down into the hairless cat you know you are at heart.

Little did I know, this particular time, I had ripped the wax off in the wrong direction. In the following days and weeks, my armpits would become completely covered in ingrown hairs. They stung like infected splinters. I couldn’t sleep on my sides. I couldn’t even rest my arms against my body. Eventually, I had to see a dermatologist and get injections into each pussing pit. 

ms-rIIdWr.gif

Okay, so remind me again why the f*ck we do this?

Hair removal as we know it began as a giant marketing campaign. Most American women did not shave their underarms or legs before World War I. Then, in 1915, Gillette created a razor for women and launched what is known as the first Great Anti-Underarm-Hair Campaign.

Advertisers sought to introduce and normalize hair removal. Many ads insinuated that armpit hair was something to be self-conscious and embarrassed about. Others harped on hygiene, stating that armpit hair was unclean and uncomfortable (for women only, of course). Fashion ads showed carefree women throwing their hands up in the air sporting smooth armpits and the latest trend: sleeveless dresses. The goal was to make women feel supremely awkward about something they had never previously worried about.

Let’s talk about power. Who controls society’s impression of femininity? What is the significance of demanding women change their bodies, but not asking men to do the same? Why are women more susceptible to this kind of toxic marketing than men?

What is touted as feminine is strategically at odds with what is natural. To present oneself as an acceptable woman in Western culture requires a lot of maintenance and money – which makes sense from a business perspective since embracing women as they are would not sell any razors. It’s brilliant marketing, really. Companies have brainwashed entire populations into believing their products are inextricably linked to the female identity.

Since body hair is branded as something inherently masculine, visible body hair on women threatens traditional gender roles. As a result, women are expected to change their bodies.

Women learn that they must anticipate and adjust for male expectations, and that their bodies are imperfect and unfeminine unless somehow modified. On the other hand, men learn to assume this consideration from women, and that their natural bodies are wholly masculine in themselves and need not be a source of persistent attention and surveillance. Though subtle and subliminal, these messages are incredibly significant – and they represent a dynamic that exists outside the realm of hair removal.

The fact that women are more likely than men to be targeted by these campaigns is emblematic of greater sexism, namely the suggestion that women exist to please men. Society teaches women to evaluate themselves in terms of the male opinion. As described in a much-cited essay by Sandra Lee Bartky, a sort of “male connoisseur” resides within the consciousness of most women. The woman views herself from his perspective and under his judgement at all times.

This is the exact dynamic that companies and the media latch onto and exploit. Since society frames the male opinion as so important, the media then makes women worry that they will be undesirable to men in order to make sh*t tons of money.

ms-kpI9yt.gif

Look, I’m not saying that women should never shave another hair on their bodies for as long as they live. What I am saying is that when we worry about what a man will think of our body hair or whether he will desire us less for it we should recognize that as sexism. When we find ourselves disgusted by our own natural bodies we should recognize that as for-profit companies affecting our self-concept.

Women should feel as powerful and as comfortable as men do in their natural bodies. It is time we came to terms with how we look because the way we think we should look is fabricated by the media and made possible by sexism.

ms-00BFsQ (1).gif