This essay was written in order to bash the methods of the advertising industry when it comes to portraying children in commertials. The author takes a definite stance, pointing out that young white children are portrayed as go-getters who have a bright future. It also points out that minority children are marginalized, often faded into the background, submissive, showing no unique personality traits.
The theme of the essay is blunt. The author goes as far as to state that "advertisers treat minority consumers no better than Columbus treated the Indians centuries ago." Even though advertising that targets minority audiences is increasing, the author still senses unfairness, pointing out that most advertising is for a general market.
My first reaction to this essay is one of surprise. And naturally, I had to ask myself this question, "Why would someone be interested in such a topic?" So I looked up the author, Ellen Seiter. It turns out that she works at USC as a Professor of Television Studies. I realize I'm going on a tangent, but take a second to soak that in: there is now a politically correct term for "couch potato". I guess they give out a diploma for everything, but I digress.
Whenever I see a commercial that portrays a child, I associate it in one way or another with newness, innocence, and thoughts of the future. And I think this is the general reaction that most people get. Like those Gerber commercials that tell mothers to give their kids the best so they can grow up strong and healthy. And they use healthy and happy babies to reinforce their statements. Who wouldn't? I always recognized the use of children as a marketing ploy, but never once did I view it in a cultural context. And I have to give some props to the author: she makes valid arguments based on numerous observations.
Having heard her points, I don't know if I can really do an honest assessment of the whole issue and decide what's right ant what's wrong. I don't really know what to think, and I really don't know what to do about it. Of course, everyone wants to see diversity and equal opportunity across all media outlets. Yet it is clearly demonstrated that these commercials are dominated by white kids. Is it wrong to do this? Probably, but guess who has the final say.
I like to think that the ethnicity of the person on the commercial has nothing to do with the measure of success of certain advertising. But based on the evidence shown in the essay, white kids are still dominating these types of commercials. Is this an accident? No it isn't. The bottom line is that advertisers know what they're doing. If the current methods didn't work, they wouldn't use them. If the ethnicity and portrayal of the kid on the commercial really didn't matter, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
In a utopian world, all cultures, religions, ethnicities, nationalities would get a fair representation in all relevant contexts. This is clearly not the case, even when dealing with one of the most innocent of things, such as how babies are portrayed in commercials.
Questions to ponder:
1. The author cites on p. 214 a description of what white is in terms of cultural identity. Do you think this is accurate? Why or why not?
2. How does advertising reinforce social meanings of race and ethnicity?
3. In a way, the actors on the commercial serve as role models for their respective races. What other role models are there in the media, advertisements, etc., particularly positive role models for young Black children?
No comments:
Post a Comment