So in many advertisements there are a lot of black, Asians, ... before. Many companies do that so to be better out. Partly many more such people come than "white". Since I wanted to ask if the racist is. There are people who say: take more black into advertising and less white. Imagine you are white and will not be recorded?
This is simply a reaction of the (most) companies on current activism in which it is monisted that too little, especially black, but also other people of color are represents, also in advertising . Also a reaction to exciters of recent years, as certain activists or normal people of color generated that just "they" or people with their skin color in advertising for products that were bought traditional or primarily bought by them, or just on the edge (Sheamoisture was there a big name).
And of course companies say, when we have a better image and more people buy our products, if more people show different ethnicity / skin paints / hair structures in our spots, then MacOf course we'll do that!
This is pure profit orientation.
On the other hand, it is so: one buys products that address one. If you are now deemed or black in a predominance of "white" country asian or otherwise "not knows", then it could be that you never feel addressed by certain advertising because there are no people with similar skin / similar hair. E.g. Shampoo advertising with predominantly blonde, almost exclusively smooth hair. Who has now Afrohaar, could believe that he is not targeted anyway (which is probably the same way - for Afrohaar, another care is often used as for smooth hair; Lighthers with less extreme curls use other care as people with 4C Hair).
If you for BEExtracted products exclusively seeing black people, especially for cosmetic products and "ethnic" clothing - would you possibly be considered if you are not targeted and do not buy these products? Just as it can go People of Color in Germany.
Therefore, such an advertisement is meaningful because it shows that all are really addressed. From the point of view of the company, of course, because so that no potential customer is lost.
Racistic is not that, so that it would be racist, if you would only see more months of a particular race in commercials over several months and you would see you So ask if everyone else is no longer potential customers.
On the other hand, you also have SiTuations such as commercials for children before Christmas spots, woken up by the wishes. If you never see yourself as a non-white child, you could get on the thought that this toy is not intended for one. Since representation is already important on the customer side.
Otherwise, you can usually be pleased if you are not reproduced - then you can buy less!
No, that's not racist.
The selection of a suitable advertising medium is entrepreneurial and artistic freedom. If the black in the spot is now boatenous, you would not question it.
Only when thereby spreading opinions that should clearly distinguish against other people, it is racism. In the AAlthough even the "breed" of the actors is not discussed at all, but simply presented non-white in exactly the same banal situations that formerly experienced "biogutsche" actors.
No, these are mostly international companies that take their American spot and synchronize them. This is cheaper than turning a new spot for each country.
I'm sure most spots in D are occupied with white.
The increased inclusion of formerly discriminated edge groups should show how modern, cosmopolitan and politically correct the company is.
And as long as there are people who start social media crusades and coycotten companies, whitel is kissing two women in advertising or because a multi-consuming couple is visible, the world apparently needs such commercials.
No. Even if companies doing to "better assist" this is an important sign of diversity.