Thursday, July 19, 2012

Stereotyping: still alive and well

While touring the Guinness factory in Dublin this weekend, we came upon the history of Guinness advertising section and found this little gem. I don’t think I have to convince anyone of the blatant racism portrayed in this ad; and though it might not have been a deliberate attack on Native Americans, the ignorance of advertisers in regards to cultural stereotypes still proves harmful. This topic is relevant because we have recently been studying the effects of stereotyping in the mass media; and though an ad like the one above may seem a little extreme for our time, stereotypes are still constantly being exploited for the sake of advertising and marketing.

“Advertisers would never do that today.” But wouldn’t they? Maybe not something so conspicuous as this, but certainly advertisers aren’t completely concerned with portraying minorities in a positive light if it means playing off stereotypes to sell their products and services. One example that had been in the news recently was the uproar over Mary J. Blige (an R&B artist) singing about fried chicken in a Burger King commercial. Blige told critics she had been misled as to how the ad would be shot; she thought it was going to be shot “in an iconic way,” and Burger King has since pulled the ad. Another ad that plays off of gender stereotypes is a billboard in Athens advertising used cars; the billboard features a beautiful woman posing provocatively and the caption under it reads “You know you’re not her first…but do you really care?” The ad implies that the woman is promiscuous, which is only assumed because of her attractiveness.

The bottom line is, an ad doesn’t have to be blatantly racist/sexist to prove harmful to minority groups. Some ads are more subtle, but still perpetuate negative stereotypes. This is why students of mass media should display cultural competence and adhere to a code of ethics in their line of work.


  1. First off, woah. I did not know about that billboard in Athens, and I am shocked that people were allowed to put it up.
    But that's just it. Who allows companies to display such offensive stereotypes in their ads? Surely it caught your attention, which is the whole point of advertising. Who regulates which ads can be produced and which ones cannot? In the case of Mary J. Blige, it took a public outcry to get it pulled. However, I don't think companies should have to wait for the public's reaction to know which ads are offensive and which ones are not.

  2. I wonder if that ad was run because it doesn't necessarily pertain to people that the British care about. That sounds insensitive, but I know we stereotype all the time and people rarely care if it doesn't directly pertain to a group that's related to the US. For example, we make fun of British teeth or German drinking. Perhaps this is the same sort of thing? I still think it's ridiculous to post such an offensive ad, but like Dr. King said stereotypes make it easier for us to sort people into groups. I'm sad to see that something like this would be run, but perhaps the stereotype of Native Americans being drunkards (which is still alive and well today) is the same as us drinking like an Irishman or getting an "Irish Car Bomb". Just so you know, don't order that in Dublin. I wonder if the British have any "American themed" drinks... Just a thought.

  3. Kind of going off what Kristen said, I wonder if the Irish company thought it was okay for them to play into that stereotype to "connect" with Americans. For example, the company might have thought that ad would have at least attracted the attention of American consumers, and thought it was kitschy to do so? On a tangent note, it's interesting to consider how groups use stereotypes and the mechanism of othering people who are different from them as a way to bond with people within their own group. That could have been what was happening here. White American and Irish people can laugh together at a "cute" depiction of Native Americans.