Who do you think at Intel signed off on this ad campaign (via Afro-Netizen)?
This might have been an acceptable advertisement in 1907, but in 2007? Why are there still people in ad agencies and major corporations who fail to understand how offensive this depiction of a white manager/supervisor as slave overseer is to African Americans. Are they simply ignorant? Or do they think that there target audience (IT professionals) are comprised solely of bigoted white men? It’s a mystery to me.
Of course, Intel pulled the ad after it was pointed out to that employing imagery suggestive of a past when African Americans were slaves in this country just might be considered an endorsement of a racist, white supremacist ideology.
The ad, which was for a new generation of micro-processors, showed six black sprinters crouched in the start position in front of a white man wearing a shirt and chinos in an office.
Above the image was a slogan which read: “Multiply computer performance and maximise the power of your employees.”
Blogs were quick to spot the connotation of a white master surveying a group of black workers apparently bowed at his feet.
In a statement on its website, Intel said: “We made a bad mistake. I know why and how, but that simply doesn’t make it better.”
Obviously, not everyone at Intel is an idiot. But that begs the question: Why did anyone think this was a good way to sell Intel’s products, and how did it slip past Intel’s (and their ad agency’s) vetting process, one presumably designed to eliminate the risk that such embarrassing and ugly ad would ever see the light of day?
This is a classic example of institutional racism. Only people deeply ignorant of how the African-American community feels about racial stereotypes, which far too many white people believe regarding blacks, would fail to perceive that this would be taken as a highly offensive insult by many in the black community. Indeed, many Fortune 500 companies now employ an entire department to deal with diversity issues, including issues that could arise from advertising that ignores cultural differences. I know this to be true because my wife works for a company as a supervisor in their Diversity Management Division of her company’s HR department. She goes to conferences where the only attendees are other diversity management professionals from other multi-national corporations.
Why do these companies spend money on issues related to “diversity?” Because their failure to do so would negatively effect their company’s reputation, impact sales in countries around the world where they do business and ultimately hurt their bottom line. And because smart executives know that many of their white managers don’t understand cultural differences in non-white communities, whether those communities are halfway around the world or just across the street from their manufacturing facilities. And if you don’t train people to be sensitive to other cultures, racist ads like the one Intel just produced get released.
Maybe there’s a lesson to be learned here by the progressive blogosphere from Intel’s “little misstep?” Don’t assume you know which issues are important to minority communities, and don’t assume you can take their support for granted. If you want to sell the “Progressive” brand, maybe you need to spend some time listening to, and supporting, those communities in the progressive movement that aren’t comprised primarily of white men. Just a thought.
