The representation of minorities in advertising is a fraught area. Since the prime objective of advertising is to sell a product or an idea, it would seem self-defeating to be doing so in a way that contradicts consumers' core beliefs. Yet, consumers' core beliefs can be highly prejudiced against minorities, and if merchants play along with such beliefs in order to cosy up to the majority, they would in effect be reinforcing such prejudices.

Advertising can injure minorities in three ways:

1. By invisibilising minorities;

2. By representing them in stereotypical ways;

3. By using them for their shock value or as objects of ridicule.

 
Invisibilising minorities

One of the most notable aspects of advertising in Thailand, for example, is the vast difference between the skin complexion of models and actors used in commercials and the range of skin tones  encountered in everyday life. There's a preponderance of actors and models who appear to be of mixed Caucasian-Chinese ancestry, all very fair, with facial features quite different from the browner Siamese with flatter nose-bridges.

This gap is repeated through much of Asia, from the Philippines to India, reflecting the value accorded by these cultures to a light complexion and Caucasian looks. Creative directors rarely suggest to clients to use darker models. In Singapore, they too often use Caucasian models, plain and simple. They know that in these societies, being fair or Western equates with status, and since most clients want to imbue their products with status, they're not going to risk having a commercial with conflicting ideas.

But when commercials persistently show light-skinned persons as possessors of branded goods or living successful lives, then the commercials in turn feed the same mindset. It becomes hard to tell whether it's the product or service that made such fair-complexioned people happy and successful, or whether it is their fair complexion that put them in a class entitled to enjoy the happiness and success associated with those goods.

Either way, at a minimum, no statement is made about the possibility of happiness and success when you have a darker skin, and the prejudice against colour is left undisturbed.

The same thing happens with the gay minority. We are invisibilised in almost all advertising. It is heterosexuals who are shown as people of status, success and fulfillment. It would hardly be surprising if generations of gay people, especially teenagers, get the idea that being heterosexual is the road to health and wealth.

 
Representing minorities in stereotypical ways

Sometimes, a brand wants to create an image of cosmopolitanism, either because the "hip value" is considered helpful or because the brand needs to establish itself as global in some way.

Scenes from Informatics' TV commercials

Very often, the intentions are fine, but the execution lame. Take for example, the Informatics commercial currently being aired. Informatics is a private school offering courses to diploma and degree level in information technology. I believe it has a scholarship program tailored for African students, and I suspect it was this aspect of its corporate outreach that it wanted to ride on for impact.

The ads show some men in Africa, dressed minimally in animal skins, brandishing spears, dancing around a fire to the beating of drums -- all very nativist. Then a cellphone rings and one of the dancers reads a message from Informatics, telling him he has been accepted into the school's MBA course (another version of the ad has the message telling him that he has passed his exams). They then continue dancing, with added exuberance.

You can't help but ask: What value does that add to Informatics? If people didn't know that the company has a scheme to attract students from Africa (and the ad makes no reference to it) they'd be lost. They'd ask: What has Informatics got to do with Africa? Secondly, how exactly would the ad endear Informatics to Africans? Isn't the company insulting its current and prospective students by portraying them as stone-age?

Why does this happen? The most likely reason is that the producers of the commercial failed to examine their own preconceptions about Africa and Africans when the client suggested this angle.

The same thing happens with the way gay people are portrayed -- in countries where gay representation is even allowed in advertising. (That excludes Singapore; we are so "beyond modern civilisation".)

Like the inclusion of racial minorities when it does occur, the inclusion of gay characters in commercials plays on the difference from the "normal", but unlike racial minorities, who can be distinguished visually, gay characters cannot be seen unless they "act gay". This then leads to a slippery slope where they are shown in a way that the general population recognises as "acting gay", in other words, stereotypically.

Moreover, gay characters tend to be used for their surprise value too, which many consider fun in some way, thereby helping the ad stand out. And so, the stereotypical representation is compounded by the implication that such behaviour is cause for fun.

Here is an ad for a radio station that's being launched – its "coming out".

As you can see, the gay person is presented as a flamboyant, effeminate over-the-top character.

Next is an ad for Sunkist Iced Tea. I believe it is from the Philippines. The gay guy is shown as slightly predatory. (Since I don't understand the dialogue, I could be missing something. It is possible that the gay guy is saying that he's only acting, but that is also damaging, because it renders gayness as something that should be denied.)

Even brands with huge advertising budgets and the means to hire top brains to critique ideas, may let things slip unknowingly. Below is a commercial for Dolce e Gabbana watches. The brand obviously wants to appear cutting edge and counter-cultural, but in the process it may have cemented a highly sexualised image of gay men.

 
  
Using gay characters for their shock value or as objects of ridicule

It's a constant struggle for creative directors to come up with advertising that is memorable. Emotive, shock value is seen as one way of getting there. However, it's a thin line between innocently using gay characters for their surprise element (risky as it is) and deliberately using them for shock value. The difference between the two lies in the way shock-value commercials adopt a homophobe's viewpoint. In doing so, however, it legitimises homophobia.

The examples below will demonstrate varying degrees of homophobia invoked by the ad. The first one, from Virgin Atlantic, does not appear at first sight to be homophobic at all. Watch it first, before I discuss it.

You could argue that the laugh factor comes more from the second character's waistline. But supposing you substituted the second character with an overweight African woman, ending the ad with the same tagline, would you think the ad offensive? Why is that so? Perhaps it's got to do with the way that the first character is portrayed as "normal" while the "other", whether female, African, gay male or overweight, is used as a laughing stock.

So long as you use an "other" for its laugh value, you will end up causing offence to anyone who shares characteristics with that "other".

The next commercial advertises Motorola Razrwire:

Notice the way the one speaking on the phone edges away from the gay guy at the end of the commercial. What message does that send?

Even worse is this ad from Stocker jeans.

It extracts high drama from the soap falling onto the floor. It plays on the stereotype of gay men as rapists and taps into heterosexual men's fears of losing control. The final tagline, "Decide what's best for your ass", is as crude as it can get.

Here's another ad with a piece of soap falling. 

You would have noticed that it added a twist to the ending. It helps in some way, but it still leaves unexpurgated the moment when all one's homophobic fears of anal rape are called up. Basically what this ad proves is that when one starts off on a stereotypical premise, it is very hard to cure it.

Then there's this Snickers ad:

It reinforces the idea that two men's lips coming together is utterly gross, and even if it had been an accident, one's heterosexuality must be asserted through doing something "manly". Not the slightest possibility of homosexuality must be allowed to linger.

On the other hand, you might argue that the men's reactions are so exaggerated, that actually the joke is not on gayness but on their homophobia. That's a valid reading too.

A better and more subtle example of this can be seen from this ad from Argentina. It also plays on homophobia, but it clearly draws its humour from straight men's preoccupation with it, not from any gay character.

There'll be more examples in Part 2 -– commercials that do a better job of incorporating the gay angle. Watch out for it.

© Yawning Bread