We'll fund vaccines and throw in the social stereotypes for free!

[mrissa]

Gmail is not letting me log in; this is annoying, but it says they're trying to fix it.

You know what else is annoying? United Way's print ad campaign. Again, or still. They've got pictures of people saying that they did certain things -- "I pulled 33,000 kittens from burning buildings!" -- and then it says it was through the magic of donating money to United Way. Except it's not 33,000 kittens. It's stuff like -- well, here are the examples I remember:

A bearded, long-haired guy in a leather jacket: helped preschoolers with their social skills
Two middle-aged women: built houses for the poor
(the latest one to spark my wrath) A Hispanic guy with a goatee: helped a bunch of kids get their teeth straightened out

Because everybody knows that those longhair freaky types shouldn't be allowed near children, and girls can't build houses, and Hispanics can't be dentists! Thanks, United Way, for allowing us to pay someone to have humanitarian skills we would lack if we were walking stereotypes!

As I was sitting at a stoplight boggling at a bus that had the one with the Hispanic teeth-straightener on its side, I saw that it had a set of wrenches in the background. So I think the idea was supposed to be, "Mechanics aren't dentists." But it came out, "Them Mexicans ain't dentists, but they'll fix your car up real good!" Oh yah. Much better.

I would like to send -- oh, let's say, all the women from my folks' church's Habitat for Humanity housebuilding team, plus all the Hispanic dentists and orthodontists in the suburb we lived in when we were in California -- after the idiots who came up with this campaign. The leather-jacketed shaggy people, being generally amiable, even-tempered types, can babysit for the housebuilders' and dentists'/orthodontists' kids while they go kick ad agency butt. "United Way: we will play on cheap stereotypes, so give us your money." Great. Thanks. Just what I wanted.

Comments

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I think what you mean is that you suspect they didn't mean to be playing to stereotypes at all. Because, in fact, they were. They were relying upon the viewer's reaction to their image and text to be one of surprise or incongruity. The images were clearly non-random with the text.

I'm glad you like your job and believe in the work you do, but that doesn't mean that United Way as an organization or individual United Way branches haven't made some bad choices in the past. You can believe in the work you do without defending various tactics that other groups have used, such as placing large amounts of pressure on people in their places of employment and, yes, use of stereotypes in ads.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

but that doesn't mean that United Way as an organization or individual United Way branches haven't made some bad choices in the past. You can believe in the work you do without defending various tactics that other groups have used, such as placing large amounts of pressure on people in their places of employment and, yes, use of stereotypes in ads.

Of course - my point is to please not disparage all UWs because of the actions of the few that engage in less than good practices. We aren't all cut from the same cloth. That's why I specifically talked about the UW I work at - because I know how we operate. I can't speak for any other UW, but I do know that ours can't be the only "good" UW out there. :)

[grndexter.livejournal.com]

Ummm... could they perhaps have been reaching out to the demographics in your area? People tend to identify with people like themselves - for ex your ad would be more favorably received by more people if it had folks from the local ethnic groups in it than always them "white folks" - with whom other groups have a hard time identifying? Show me an ad with a Paris Hilton look-alike in it and I know immediately it's nothing I'm interested in. Same deal with ethnic groups.

By putting the ethnic people in the roles of givers as opposed to always takers, they could have actually been promoting an anti-stereotype.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

What a lovely false dichotomy! We can either show people from different groups in a limiting (not just limited) way, where the positive things they've done are presented as surprising, or we can show Paris Hilton clones! Those are the only options!

[grndexter.livejournal.com]

Targeting ads is not discriminatory nor is it stereotyping. It's just an effort of the advertiser to reach a certain segment of the population. Picturing the group you want to reach is standard advertising methodology when you want to target that group, and has been for a long time. I didn't see the ad pictures, but the way you described them did not sound to me like anyone was "limited". What you described - I probably would not have even noticed the ad.

Like Mamapduck said - "damned if you do, damned if you don't." There are people who WILL be offended no matter what you do. I'm related to a couple of them - the kind of people who can be offended at anything, no matter how innocuous, and who WILL take anything you say wrong. (Want to trade relatives? I have one father and one brother I'm willing to deal for...)

The Paris Hilton illustration in no way relates to this particular ad campaign except as simply an illustration of how *I* would react to an ad with Paris Hilton in it because the demographic/class of people who would care what she does would be the targeted market, not a male old fart from Missouri.