I wonder. As patently lazy as this is in a creative sense (late 70's, 80's style appropriation of black slang to talk to black folk in mass media), I wonder if ads like these are not, in fact, some form of negatively enlightened advertising. That is - what if this ad works very well to drive awareness, sales, etc.?
That would mean the identification of a significant common denominator that can be swayed with the random use of "my man" "tight" "fly"... too many sad slang possibilities. I hesitate to call this stuff ignorant because I suspect they know it's corny AND it works.
The bad part is that in the same sense that we adopted the black-assigned talk of the dem dat dese dose from American popular minstrel music in the early 1900's (NO, this talk is not because black folks could not say "th" due to mother languages), maybe we've finally started to become the blacks fed to us in advertising - those residing squarely in stereotypes. (Man we is tight, dog!)
Lest I be charged with any remote hints to a class rant, my personal take is that my language (e.g. "tight!") cannot really be appropriated without coming off corny. I'm not the black man (God bless him, too)that is offended or embarrassed by proprietary black talk. I believe you have to admire the magic of our language - its relevance lying squarely in its context of natural, private conversation, extending to the private conversation of a hip hop song. For me, ain't nothing "tight" about WalMart. Even if there were, I'd say that behind doors, not in a print ad. e
How far does an adperson have to go to appeal to a Black audience? Shouldn’t the photo of a Black party be enough? Let’s not forget the ad is running in Black publications. Is the client demanding things be blatantly (and even stereotypically) targeted? Or are the agency folks going there on their own volition? Whatever the motivations, the end result feels forced. But that’s just our opinion.
I think though that it serves more to make Wal-Mart themselves feel like, “yeah, we’re doing something to address diversity issues.” (Whatever that means to a corporate monolith like Wal-Mart.
I wonder. As patently lazy as this is in a creative sense (late 70's, 80's style appropriation of black slang to talk to black folk in mass media), I wonder if ads like these are not, in fact, some form of negatively enlightened advertising. That is - what if this ad works very well to drive awareness, sales, etc.?
ReplyDeleteThat would mean the identification of a significant common denominator that can be swayed with the random use of "my man" "tight" "fly"... too many sad slang possibilities. I hesitate to call this stuff ignorant because I suspect they know it's corny AND it works.
The bad part is that in the same sense that we adopted the black-assigned talk of the dem dat dese dose from American popular minstrel music in the early 1900's (NO, this talk is not because black folks could not say "th" due to mother languages), maybe we've finally started to become the blacks fed to us in advertising - those residing squarely in stereotypes. (Man we is tight, dog!)
Lest I be charged with any remote hints to a class rant, my personal take is that my language (e.g. "tight!") cannot really be appropriated without coming off corny. I'm not the black man (God bless him, too)that is offended or embarrassed by proprietary black talk. I believe you have to admire the magic of our language - its relevance lying squarely in its context of natural, private conversation, extending to the private conversation of a hip hop song. For me, ain't nothing "tight" about WalMart. Even if there were, I'd say that behind doors, not in a print ad. e
How far does an adperson have to go to appeal to a Black audience? Shouldn’t the photo of a Black party be enough? Let’s not forget the ad is running in Black publications. Is the client demanding things be blatantly (and even stereotypically) targeted? Or are the agency folks going there on their own volition? Whatever the motivations, the end result feels forced. But that’s just our opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think though that it serves more to make Wal-Mart themselves feel like, “yeah, we’re doing something to address diversity issues.” (Whatever that means to a corporate monolith like Wal-Mart.
ReplyDelete