Many advertisers choose to recognise events that celebrate diversity, such as Black History Month, which takes place every October. These occasions provide an opportunity for reflection, recognition and celebration, and many brands use them to demonstrate their commitment to diversity and inclusion. However, not every campaign has been received positively.
The Code requires advertisers to take particular care not to offend on the grounds of age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. It is true that very few advertisers want to offend, harm or alienate their existing or future customers, and sometimes the ASA’s rulings make clear that they believe no offence was intended. However, offence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and what the advertiser might have intended does not sway the ASA when it comes to considering complaints of this kind.
In this article, we take a closer look at two contrasting case studies to explore what separates meaningful engagement from marketing missteps, focusing specifically on racial stereotypes. As you’ll see from the cases, playing on or even referring to stereotypes associated with racial or ethnic groups can cause serious offence.
A match made in misjudgement
The ASA found that an ad for an online dating service exploited both gender and racial stereotypes in an offensive and harmful way. The ad featured the claim, “Ukrainian Women need the protection of strong and mature men from the West” and was posted from an account called Ladies For A Night during the time of war in Ukraine.
The ASA considered that, in context, the ad implied that Eastern European women were more open to relationships with older men from wealthy countries, and that Ukrainian women were more likely to engage in sex work. Furthermore, it implied that potentially vulnerable women needed protection from men in a time of war.
In this case, this seems to have been harmful stereotypes the advertiser actively wanted to exploit to encourage people to sign up, but again, in most other cases, the harm or offence ads cause is more likely to be inadvertent, and might even be a result of an intent to be inclusive.
Washed away by controversy
In an ad for Sanex body wash, Colgate-Palmolive featured models with various backgrounds, skin tones and ethnicities. The ad featured a voiceover that stated, "To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water" alongside scenes of a black woman with red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked clay-like material. The ad went on to show a white woman showering with the advertised product. The ASA investigated complaints that the ad was offensive because it perpetuated negative stereotypes about people with darker skin tones.
The advertiser argued that they were committed to diversity and had wanted the ‘before and after’ scenarios to show that the product was suitable and effective for all.
The ASA took the view that showing the black skin as problematic and uncomfortable and the white skin as smoother and better after using the product, could be interpreted as suggesting that white skin was superior to black skin. It understood that this message was not the one intended and might appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers – however, it concluded that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotypes that black skin was problematic and white skin was superior.
Both of these ads, whilst very different, were found to cause offence or harm. It can sometimes be tricky to judge ads likely impact, particularly if they appear in untargeted media. Our Guidance on avoiding racial and ethnic stereotyping in ads contains more advice, but if you’re still not sure, the Copy Advice team is always happy to offer a fresh perspective.
More on
-
Keep up to date
Sign up to our rulings, newsletters and emargoed access for Press. Subscribe now.
