by Matthew Jones

Images are very powerful, and carry with them a lot of meaning.  Right or wrong, what we see often defines what we believe.  The advertising industry is built on creating images designed to enhance, change and manipulate how we feel about the world around us – people, products, places – everything.

As a result, different demographic groups can be sensitive about how they are portrayed.  And when advertisers take a stab at reaching ethnic markets and get it wrong, it can stir up a lot of pain, anger and controversy – often to the detriment of the brand.

When the Art Directors Club of New York (ADC), an international organization serving creatives in the advertising community since 1920, called for ads to be submitted as potential candidates for its 2006 awards program, it ventured into the murky waters of ethnic based advertising.  The ad featured an African-American man dressed as a clown (that closely resembled Ronald McDonald) holding a chunk of gold in his hand.  The headline read: Pimp My Brand.

After posting the ad on the ADC website, the phone lines were not set ablaze by outraged callers.  Their emails were not flooded with concerned correspondence.  Instead, the ADC received disapproving letters from only two African-American creative directors.  The ADC also heard from McDonald’s, not to object to the content, but rather express its concerns over the similarities between the clown figure and its own icon, Ronald McDonald.

“In truth, there was not a huge number of objections to the poster,” explained Myrna Davis, executive director, ADC.  “In its defense, I have explained that the title and image are parodic, and the work as a whole meant as a satiric, inside-industry comment on the co-opting of ‘urban’ culture by mainstream culture. It is by and for creative people in visual communications who deal with these issues on a daily basis.”

Not everyone responded to the ADC ad as clinically or dispassionately as Davis.

“It’s ridiculous,” said Ahmad Islam, co-founder of commonground, a Chicago-based cross-consumer marketing agency.  “This was a call for entries for an awards contest.  It would be different if it were a news article or the headline for a discussion group – something other than an ad.  Taken into its intended context, and how it was actually used, it’s just plain ignorant.  There are numerous examples of entities crossing the line in an effort to be creative or cool.  I’d say this is one of them.”

According to the ADC, the ad was intended to open the door to discussion, however, as a stand-alone ad that appeared without any additional background or point-of-view, it seemed only to leverage current trends for its own benefit.  But in the eyes of the ad’s creator, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

“Corporate America USES/EXPLOITS African-American culture to sell its products because it believes (rightly or wrongly) that the affinity the consumer has FOR that culture will enhance / glamorize / glorify their product,” explained Ernest Lupinacci, Ernest Industries, in a written statement to diversityinbusiness.com.  Lupinacci is the award-winning freelance creative who developed the ad.  In his written response, Lupinacci continued by stating, “(Here’s the) obligatory ‘cop-out’ statement: Of course we didn't mean to offend anyone - we were just trying to express in an unconventional, provocative way a point-of-view on marketing.”

Many would not see it as a ‘cop-out’ to apologize for a potentially offensive ad, but Lupinacci is correct on one point for sure – these images are everywhere, and they’re not likely to stop anytime soon.  While advertisers feel they have the “right” to exploit and manipulate the African-American image, most do not understand the emotional and psychological impact of those images.

“I understand the need for the mainsteam to embrace all things urban, but this ad is borderline offensive,” continued Islam.  “The intent of the ad seems to be to deliver a creatively ‘cool’ idea, but it reflects a lack of originality, and a need to stoop to the lowest common denominator and the lowest form of flattery – imitation – of a played out, potentially offensive idea.  In this case imitation is not a form of flattery; it is, in fact, a sign of ignorance.”

Davis would argue that the ad was not ignorant, but rather a nod to the power and influence of the African-American target market, and a throwback to similar reversals of expectation in advertising.

“The choice of an African-American to portray Ronald McDonald referenced (marketers’ desire to tap into the African-American segment), and also the company’s effort to pay hip-hip artists for mentions of its brand in their songs,” continued Davis.  “At the same time it harked back to earlier challenges of familiar cultural icons—e.g. Sonny Liston or George Jefferson as Santa Claus.”

For others, the  ad’s references to the past are a bit more disturbing.

“When you come from a position of power, it’s easier to (make a joke at someone else’s expense), then if you don’t,” said Professor Jerome Williams, Department of Advertising, University of Texas at Austin, for a December interview with diversityinbusiness.com. (See “How Far is Too Far?” December, 2005).  “If you look at the teams that create some of these (racially charged) ads, they don’t have any diversity in the group.  It’s easy to be funny if you’re not part of the joke, and if those who are part of the joke aren’t sitting at the table.”

In Europe and across the Middle East, the world is seeing first-hand just how potentially disruptive poorly placed or executed images can be.  Hundreds of people had died in violence sparked by what has been described as insensitive cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.  It is a dramatic example of how strongly some segments of the population might react to what they see as visual humiliation and provocation.

Although direct reaction to the ADC ad was modest, the image generated a significant level of curiosity and consternation in some circles.

“Is this (ad) for real?  I don’t understand the point,” said Yolanda Caraway, founder, The Caraway Group, in Los Angeles.  She went on to express her fatigue with seeing negative depictions of race becoming mainstreamed as entertainment.  “Then again – since the Pimp song won the Academy Award (for Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures), I’m not sure about anything anymore.”

“Simply because It’s Hard Out Here For a Pimp won an Oscar does not make it appropriate to continue to abuse the concept of ‘pimping anything’ for the purposes of delivering a communications message,” added Islam.

Other professionals who saw the Pimp My Brand ad wondered why “pimps” always have to be African-American, or why we have to keep hearing “Pimp This, Pimp That” at every turn.

“The problem with ads like these is that they (are based on) words and images that are extremely loaded,” said Anne Ream, former senior vice president/creative director at Leo Burnett, and the founder of the Voices and Faces Project (www.voicesandfaces.org) - a non-profit national survivor network created to give voice and face to survivors of sexual violence.  “Like the word ‘pimp’ – a pimp is a person who uses a woman or a man and packages them like a product.”

Others see the text as reflective of popular culture as a whole.  “My initial impression is that the ad is funny,” said Renny Tirador, founder OutOfTheBlue Advertising.  “The concept is done in humor to present a new trend in advertising to use hip-hop music and rappers to sell consumer products. However, I think the ad would have been even stronger if they would have used an actual Ronald McDonald look alike wearing a lot of bling and ‘rapper like clothing.’  Pimping a Brand should mean: To create images and ideas that will appeal to a specific target group most of whom are generation-X and Generation-Y… I know a lot of Hispanics and white young men and women who enjoy listening to rap and like the ‘rapper-style’ fashions. The other thing is the word ‘Pimp’. Again, some people may be offended by this word and its original meaning, but in this case it is used as a way to define a fashion.”

Davis defends the language of the ad, stating that it, again, is reflecting popular culture’s widespread usage of the pimp image.  “In context, the word ‘pimp’ – as in MTV's popular show, Pimp My Ride – suggests that, like cars, brands subjected to such exaggerated makeovers can become preposterous and silly.”

Ream does not agree.  “The more we trivialize (these words and images), the less we get back to remembering what the words really mean,” she explained.  “We lose track of the force behind the words.  That is hugely problematic.  But you can’t just blame the ads.  They’re putting a fine point on what’s already out there, broadly.  But it just reinforces (the negative undercurrent).”

The ADC is careful not to dismiss the concerns of the public, although they have not received many complaints.  “I certainly understand the sensitivity,” Davis said in a phone conversation.  She went on to say that it’s good when issues like this come up, because it leads to discussion, and hopefully, progress.

“The target was corporate, and it was hoped that the poster would invite debate and discussion about advertising, marketing and cultural issues, as well as attract attention to the competition,” continued Davis.  “Proceeds from the ADC Annual Awards, now in its 85th year, support scholarships, city high school workshops, exhibitions, speaker events and symposia, professional and student portfolio reviews, the ADC Hall of Fame, publications and other educational activities and events.”

Davis also added that since issues have come up with their ADC Awards ad, they plan to participate in an industry discussion called Creative Differences in the spring.   The organization has hosted similar discussions in the past, including a discussion called Brand Black, where industry leaders discussed the topic of “White culture co-opting Black culture for profit.”

As the editor of advertising and related stories at diversityinbusiness.com, I would like to close with my own thoughts on the matter.

It seems to me that we all have to make up our own minds about whether or not what we see is appropriate.  And for those of us who are charged with sending images out into the world, to shape opinion, we have to acknowledge the power of what we do and say – because it does matter, and it does affect society as a whole.

At some point, we have to ask ourselves – is this the best we can do?  We can make a difference.  It’s up to us whether we’re going to make a positive impact or a negative one.

Please send us your opinions and reactions to the ad or topic by clicking on the link below.  You can see the complete written responses from Myrna Davis and Ernest Lupinacci using the links from this article.

The End