Investigating Old Racist Ads and the Public Outcry they Stir

Hey there, curious minds! Today, we're diving into a topic that might make you raise an eyebrow or two. We're talking about those old ads that didn't just miss the mark—they were downright racist. We're going to unpack a few real-time case studies of these questionable commercials, dig into what they were all about, and see how the public reacted when they aired. So, buckle up; it's going to be an eye-opening journey through the not-so-great history of advertising!

Aunt Jemima: A Legacy of Stereotypes

The Story

 The Aunt Jemima brand was created in 1889 by the Davis Milling Company to market its pancake mix. The brand's mascot, Aunt Jemima, was inspired by a minstrel show character—The "mammy" stereotype portrays a faithful and subservient household worker. The character wore a headscarf, and the early advertisements often depicted her in subservient roles, catering to white families. This imagery reinforced racist stereotypes about African American women being cheerful and eager to serve others.

Public Reaction

 For decades, the Aunt Jemima brand remained largely unchallenged. However, as societal attitudes towards race evolved, people began to recognize the brand's racist undertones. By the 1960s and 1970s, civil rights movements and activists called for change, pointing out the offensive portrayal. The pressure led to several image updates over the years, with attempts to modernize Aunt Jemima's look and make her appear more like a homemaker than a servant. Despite these changes, the brand couldn't escape its origins, leading to its retirement in 2020 amid growing public outcry for racial equality.

What Was Unethical

 The Aunt Jemima ads and branding perpetuated harmful stereotypes about African American women, reducing them to caricatures that denied their individuality and humanity. By promoting this image, the brand contributed to systemic racism and inequality.

Qiaobi Laundry Detergent: A Racist Cleaning Act

The Story

In 2016, a Chinese detergent brand, Qiaobi, released an advertisement that quickly stirred global outrage. The ad depicted a Chinese woman doing laundry, who beckons a Black man to come closer. She then stuffs him into a washing machine with a Qiaobi detergent pod, and when the cycle ends, he emerges as a fair-skinned Chinese man. The implication? That the detergent could "clean" away darker skin.

Public Reaction

The ad received immediate backlash on social media, with critics worldwide condemning it for its overtly racist undertones. Media outlets dubbed it one of the most racist ads in recent history, sparking debates on racial insensitivity in advertising. The backlash was particularly intense because the ad seemed to echo old racist tropes about purity associated with lighter skin. The ad's release highlighted cultural differences in the perception of race and spurred discussions about racial discrimination in China. Although the company issued a statement expressing regret, many felt that the apology was inadequate, further fueling the controversy.

What Was Unethical

 The Qiaobi ad was unethical because it promoted racial superiority based on skin color. By using racist imagery and reinforcing harmful stereotypes, the commercial suggested that lighter skin was preferable to darker skin, which is offensive and damaging.

Heineken: "Sometimes, Lighter Is Better"

The Story

 In 2018, Heineken’s light beer commercial depicted a bartender sliding a bottle past several people of color until it reached a light-skinned woman. The ad's message was clear: lighter beer is preferable, but the unintentional implication that lighter skin is also better sparked significant controversy.

Public Reaction

 The ad faced immediate backlash, with critics accusing Heineken of racial insensitivity. Musician Chance the Rapper was among the most vocal opponents, tweeting that the ad was "terribly racist." Heineken quickly responded to the criticism, acknowledging the unintended message and removing the ad from circulation. The company expressed regret for any offense caused and vowed to be more vigilant in the future.

What Was Unethical

 Heineken's advertisement was unethical because it perpetuated colorism—the prejudiced treatment of individuals based on skin tone. The ad's message, whether intentional or not, contributed to a long-standing societal issue that favors lighter skin over darker skin, perpetuating discrimination and bias.

Wrapping Up: The Lesson We Can Learn From these Racist Ads

So, there you have it—three real-time case studies of racist ads that missed the mark. While these ads might be a relic of the past, they serve as a reminder of the power of advertising and the responsibility that comes with it. As consumers and creators, it's essential to stay vigilant and ensure that the content we create and consume promotes equality, respect, and inclusivity.

Now that we've unraveled the history of racist advertising, what's next? Stay tuned for our upcoming blog post where we take a look at "The Evolution of Inclusive Advertising: How Brands Are Getting It Right." We'll explore how companies are turning the page and making strides towards more inclusive marketing practices. You won't want to miss it!