Just been thinking that probably about half of all ads I see during commercial breaks prominently feature black actors/spokespeople. Of the other half, you have a very healthy mix of other minorities/lbgt etc

These companies put lots of research behind ad spend efficiency.

It's also not something that's regulated. Yes there is a social nudge for inclusivity, but at the same time, there are no regulations that require diverse spokesmen so this is something which is market driven.

So, if the 75% of america that is white was all racist. Then surely, if they wouldn't want to buy insurance from a company which has black spokespeople, then why have ads like this?





What people say out loud or respond to polls is not reliable. How to respond to advertising, in the privacy of their own homes, where their decision is not up to public scrutiny, is going to be an honest reflection. If white Americans were heavily racist, then surely companies like State Farm would be alienating 75% of their potential clients. Wouldn't they not have all the black actors and spokespeople? If it was about checking diversity boxes, then wouldn't it be some token black guy in the background? Or perhaps an attractive minority female even racists would want to bang?

Or... am I reading that wrong and is that exactly what Jake from State Farm is? A subtle nod to all the ladies, buy our insurance you racist bish and you'll get some bbc nobody will ever know about, it'll be our little secret ok.



So, is Jake a sex symbol for closet racists who need some deep dicking? Or has America outgrown racism and talk about "half the country are white supremacists" and "anyone who voted for Trump is a racist" is all poppycock and overblown?

I have thoughts on this topic, but it is late, so maybe tomorrow.

I will say "Jake from State Farm" is technically black by the one drop rule that American leftists proscribe to, but between his skin color and the mannerisms of the character he is playing on TV he isn't exactly pushing the Overton Window very much.

Reinforces racist stereotype that brown people are here to serve and protect everyone.

Your post doesn't seem to make the argument that your thread does. What your post appears to be arguing against is the small % of people who suggest things like all or most white Americans are heavily racist, which would be something rather a waste of time as I don't think any of those people are here. Although, your thread title is rather vague, so perhaps that's what you meant by your title as well. But I originally interpreted your title to mean something more like general concerns about racism being overblown, in which case, no, I don't think what you're seeing in advertising makes most people's concerns overblown.

I was curious if the premise of this thread were actually true or just perception. My first hit on Google was this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredco...h=49aa900394c5

The referenced study is: https://extremereach.com/press-relea...ative-in-2022/

and gets us this chart:

Isn't all this proves is that brown people are, on average, better looking?

The Hispanic category is very fuzzy, and it seems unlikely the advertising firm is using the same metrics to determine "Hispanic" as whatever census they are referencing. That could pretty much account for the entire discrepancy.

I find it extremely hard to believe that representation of Hispanics in advertising dropped by over half, leading to believe the labeling criteria might have changed in the last year.

i have issues with any article on demographics that is going to claim an ethnic group which was 75% of the population in the most recent census is 59% - that's a gap of tens of millions



I don't even own a television, so the only ads I'm ever exposed to are ads in the breaks of the sports that I stream on my laptop

so i'm not getting a holistic sample, but the ads for national brands on mainstream sporting events prominently feature black actors as the lead actor, to the point where it is basically surprising when one of the main actors is not black

i did do some cursory research but the main problem is because this is such a 3rd rail topic - ie i'm genuinely concerned over how i'll be perceived by starting this thread - that neutral parties tend not to comment or say anything

therefore we're getting a polarized range of racists complaining there are too many darkies on their television to ngo advocacy groups releasing studies that only 1.7% of roles are for transgender black women and this is due to systemic racism that must be put to an end

i did find this however, it was a response to a "too many darkies" letter to the editor that a newspaper had published

https://www.journal-isms.com/2017/11...ans-in-tv-ads/

i think this is a pretty reasonable take - they only studied major networks and got 32% and this was in 2002 and they had not done any updates

the idea that 20 years later that 1/3 could have crept up to 40-50% or even higher is not far fetched

even if it has not increased and I'm facing a selective sample (what I see is definitely 50/50 as a floor) then we still have significant over representation on national ads


also i get the feeling that a lot of the studies which have minorities in very low numbers are due local advertising where as much as 5% of a local market can be from a single local car dealership group or furniture warehouse which has their white owner in the ads or it's

i also get the feeling that the racists aren't counting but rather saying and the advocacy groups are going to selectively count


this is a black ad as far as i'm concerned



we could give an honest appraisal, that there are two primary characters who are the black father and son duo, that any other people in the ad are just there assist their delivery

but i get the feeling that if i were checking this ad for an advocacy group it would not be interpreted that way
instead i'd be counting bodies of the intentionally blurred people in the background

and counting this as well


there are 15 people in this ad, 7 are black

so I think this is where the disconnect is coming from - the viewer sees an ad about the Ball family and sees it as a black ad, there is a follow up ad for paper towels featuring a white family of 4

they see a 50/50 ad distribution

the advocacy group instead had 19 actors, of which 7 are black for 37% representation

there are numerous posts on 2p2 where people assert things like "most people who voted for trump are racists" and when i challenge that notion even more chime in to assert that most republicans ie half the country are racist

you also see/hear that a lot irl and via talking heads

that america is embroiled is a massive and wide sweeping issue of systemic racism

i am neither a republican nor voted for trump - i have no skin in that game - i just find the constant allegations really silly when we can see ample anecdotal evidence from corporate spokespeople that americans are not voting with their wallets against companies which use black spokespeople

Republicans are more like 1/4th of the country. Half the country doesn't vote.

so just 25% of the country are racists then?

You're right that that's the narrative.

Jake from state farm is incredibly boy next door. If they had Suge Knight selling life insurance on Lifetime during the morning breaks on Mash, you'd see a sales drop.

Each business has their own target audience, and each audience has different viewing channels. The commercials you see aren't the same as someone else. But the businesses got all the info on their buyers and what they like and the commercials do their best to reinforce what they can.

Jake is still going to be the best candidate for something like auto insurance just like Tom Sellek is going to be best for reverse mortgage insurance.

But they do **** up. Anheuser Buscher got rid of their VP and chief marketing director as a bud light boycott is still taking place.

lol what the ****

There's a big difference between African Americans appearing in 32% of commercials and 32% of the actors being African Americans.

One of the underlying assumptions in the OP is that there is a huge amount of overlap between the group of people who would be uncomfortable with a black or Hispanic president, or a black or Hispanic in-law, and the group of people who would be uncomfortable buying a particular brand of dish detergent or insurance if a black or Hispanic person featured in the copany's ad campaign.

That doesn't sound intuitively correct to me at all.

Your showing ads with more prominent African Americans . Im not sure about advertising in the USA but here in Canada advertising is very diverse.

You see all nationalities and genders. You are hard pressed to see an add with a white couple with white kids. No one really cares .

Advertisers are going to do what they need to do top sell

Still reminded of the total rebrand of Old Spice with the African American Actor very successful

for 25% of the country racism and bigotry aren't a deal breaker.

I mean yeah, look at how many people voted for “super predator” Joe

You’re not gonna tell me joe Biden isn’t racist against blacks

this is exactly my point

that we are perhaps getting the most objective and bias-free understanding of racism through advertising

they are simply trying to increase profits and for whatever reason have unanimously concluded that extremely diverse and black heavy casting is the ticket to do that

so if racism was a genuine and major thing then I don't believe this would be the case

for example, I'm quite certain that an insurance company would not want a black spokesperson leading their national advertising campaign in the 1950s and that doing so would severely hurt their sales growth



like i said numerous times, there's no perfect measurement system, however, there is absolutely no disagreement that 13% of the population appeared in 1/3 of the commercials and i don't think anyone who has watched tv would disagree that more than 13% of the actors they see are black

we're not getting a natural sample based on the population

and casting is almost never race neutral - it is always something that is specified so it isn't merely a "this was the best actor for the part" but rather this was the best actor of the intended race - a 2006 study of a 3 month sample casting call postings on imdb for that only 8.5% of acting job postings said it was open to all races

so none of it is by accident - when you see an asian man talking to a black woman at a cafe and giving an order to the white barista those were all intentional decisions and not just a bunch of diverse actors applied for those roles and that was just a selection of the best candidates

i'm not saying that racism is not real, just that it's not the mainstream and widespread thing that is often claimed and that perhaps a lot of racists are not "racist enough" to not vote with their wallets - that they may not like black people very much, but not enough to determine which car insurance or diabetes medication they'll use

Its not like he is calling black adult males Oh wait

And now look at the more likely side, systemic racism is used to get lower prices for actors and to show things perhaps as a great value or where browns can serve you. Who is available 24/7 via telephone? BROWN PEOPLE

Racism promotes sales. There are many different kinds of racism , not all of them are as blantant as “I hate X race”


Racism is defined as thinking one race is superior/inferior to others


It is not defined by a made up threshold of black/brown actors

i disagree with this hard - but am willing to have an open mind - do you have any credible studies/essays etc that would also agree with this conclusion?

Your argument doesn't even work as a theoretical exercise.

Imagine a world in which 60% of people have purple skin and 40% of people have blue skin. 1/3 of the people with purple skin (i.e., 20% of the total population) are highly prejudiced against people with blue skin. If a person with blue skin advertises a product, this 20% will completely abstain from buying the product. But the other 2/3 of purple skin people (i.e., 40% of the total population) love people with blue skin. Any time a person with blue skin advertises a product, everyone in this 40% will buy the product.

The blue skin people are even more prejudiced. If a purple skin person advertises a product, only one quarter of blue skin people (i.e., 10% of the total population) will buy the product.

And both people with purple skin and people with blue skin love products that are advertised using people of their own skin color. If a purple skin person advertises a product, all purple skin people will buy the product. Ditto for the blue skin people.

In this hypothetical absurd world, advertisers would only use blue skin people to advertise their products. And you would erroneously cite this behavior as evidence of a lack of prejudice against blue-skinned people, when in fact there is a high rate of prejudice in both groups.