A Flood of Insensitive Ads: How Do We Improve?
Nowadays, it’s easier than ever to stay up to date on current events, and even simpler to voice an opinion on anything and everything going on in the world. This transparent network can be both a blessing and a curse for modern brands. Apps like Facebook offer critical navigation data that tracks the success of online ads. Brands receive almost immediate criticism—or praise—in response to their ad campaigns and announcements, which can lead to minor improvements or, in extreme cases, entirely alter the image and direction of a business.
Over the past few years, failed ad campaigns from some of the biggest, most powerful brands have made it clear that no one is immune to public scrutiny. Last year, a controversial protest-themed Pepsi ad featuring Kendall Jenner came under fire after enraged Twitter users accused it of mimicking the “Black Lives Matter” movement and abusing the power of social justice to sell more soda. The harsh backlash to the campaign prompted Pepsi to release a swift apology, promising that they never intended to “make light of a serious issue.”
When the Pepsi scandal finally died down, yet another big-budget brand swooped in to remind us that discrimination and racial insensitivity are not dead. UK-based beauty brand Dove, known for their extensive hair and body care lines, released a short Facebook ad featuring a black woman removing her shirt to reveal a white woman in an effort to emphasize the “versatility” of a new Dove body wash. Almost instantly, comments and video responses flooded into the social media sphere, criticizing Dove for its seemingly racist advertisement. Following the example set by Pepsi, Dove quickly pulled the ad, apologized for “missing the mark,” and stressed a brand commitment to celebrating diversity.
And so we entered into 2018, sufficiently battered by the insensitivities of 2017, yet empowered by the various brands of the past year that built successful ads around social commentary (see Microsoft’s #MakeWhatsNext: Change the Odds campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjahbGqZu6U). But alas, amid the excitement and confidence of the #MeToo movement, we are reminded that there is still work to be done.
This past month, Swedish clothing brand H&M released a racially insensitive children’s hoodie featuring the phrase “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle,” modeled by a young African American boy on H&M’s online site. A photo of the sweatshirt gained traction after R&B singer The Weeknd publicly admonished his now former business partner H&M, tweeting that he was “shocked and embarrassed” upon seeing the picture.
After reading the news about H&M’s flub, I began to think about the nature of advertising as a whole and what changes might need to be made in the industry to prevent brands from releasing offensive ads in the future. I don’t think that it’s realistic to imagine a world of completely tolerant, racially sensitive, and progressive marketers. However, I do think that it is possible for brands to improve when it comes to brainstorming and implementing new advertisements and campaigns.
How many groups or individuals need to review an ad before it gets released to the public? How many different sets of eyes might need to see it and how many brains need to think on it for an ad to be both successful, enlightening, and not blatantly offensive? Sometimes, controversial ads are intentional and spark intellectual conversation. But all too often, brands neglect to consider the implications of their ads and campaigns.
Drummer and DJ Questlove responded to H&M’s insensitive hoodie with an Instagram post in which he wrote, “All this tells me about @HM is that the seats in the boardroom lack something…wanna take a guess?” Questlove directed his criticism to the crux of the issue, urging brands to diversify their upper-levels. In response, H&M took a step in the right direction by announcing the hiring of a diversity leader that will express their genuine interest in “diversity and inclusiveness.”
Still, I think it is important to recognize that appointing a single person to essentially keep tabs on diversity within a brand is a Band-Aid solution, not a remedy to solve all problems. Going forward, brands should consider diversifying their workforce in every level of the hierarchy to ensure that decision-making at every level is influenced by a wide range of opinions.