This essay just goes to show that stereotyping is still very strong in american society today. The majority of child advertisements contain if not all, mostly all white children. Children of color are shown on TV, yes, but only in ways that depict them as "problems" or as suffering or hoodlums. The essay says this is why they are seen more on the news, where their stereotype can thrive more, which makes sense. When children of color are shown in ads, it is in a passive manner that shows them observing white children having fun and standing by. It is also interesting to see that the reason businesses show white babies in ads rather than those of color is because a dominant group is more stable and safe to do in ads and is seen to be less problematic and safe to portray for their company. With this stereotype in place, no wonder marketing departments still do not put children of color in ads, because they believe it will not be as effective. The stereotype is even more disturbing when the essay talks about that whenever there are domestic views, like home settings or personal settings, children of color almost never will appear in these. This is sad that marketing completely disregards children of color when it comes to the home life setting and family based ads. the general market is still seen as white dominant.
1. the essay says that babies are used in ads because they rarely offend. can you think of situations where they would offend?
2. If the market is truely a white market, would an increase in children of color in ads have an effect of business that those ads market?
I can't really think of a time when a baby or young child would offend. The baby E-trade commercials just came to my mind, which I think are completely hilarious but maybe those offend certain people. I am pretty sure E-trade uses both black and white babies. I think companies and advertisers may be starting to become more aware of the issue, but maybe I am just giving them the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDelete