Wanted to briefly extend the examination of The San Francisco Egotist response that read:
First: We judged the people that were nominated. Are there ultra-talented minorities in the SF ad scene? Of course. But they weren’t nominated. If you know a more diverse group that should be recognized, by all means, nominate them when we do this again next year. Nothing’s stopping you. Claiming it’s from “racism” is frankly, bullshit.Second: Half of the list is women. This wasn’t done on purpose. It just worked out that way, which we think is very representative of the city in general.
Third: If you know great minority ad people who we should recognize, why didn’t you nominate them? Or would you rather just bitch about the problem instead of doing something about it?
First: Claiming it’s not from “racism” is frankly, ignorant. The advertising industry started out as a highly exclusive—and racist—field. Anyone with a brain and sense of history must admit to the truth. For over 60 years, the industry has failed to embrace diversity, clinging to outdated and discriminatory hiring practices. Is the current racism as blatant as what was executed back in the day? No. But to deny that racism is a root cause of today’s predominately White environment displays stupidity of the highest order. Then again, The San Francisco Egotist is barely half a rung above AgencySpy in the IQ department, so the cluelessness is not surprising.
Second: Half of the list is women—and most of them are White women. The San Francisco Egotist thinks this is very representative of the city in general. Sadly, the U.S. Census Bureau appears to confirm the matter. However, that should not justify the exclusivity of the 32 Under 32 clique. After all, the San Francisco advertising community is not creating messages targeting only San Francisco. These White agencies are appealing to a diverse America. It simply makes sense that an agency’s staff might reflect the inclusiveness of the audiences being addressed. Additionally, the industry has allegedly made a commitment to fostering diversity. To use the old excuse of “there just ain’t no minorities in our neck of the woods” is frankly, bullshit.
Third: The San Francisco Egotist snapped, “Or would you rather just bitch about the problem instead of doing something about it?” Um, what the hell has the online publication ever done to solve—or even acknowledge—the problem? Sorry, but the 32 Under 32 list perpetuated the problem. Celebrating exclusivity is nothing to be proud of.
Stop having adcolor awards, stop having bootcamps. Honestly you have to rip into these people and stop smiling and taking picture with them at diversity events. They are not your friends. They will only hire and promote people the people in their clique or people that they are comfortable working around aka white people. They threw in a couple asians into the list to spice it up. Honestly the advertising industry wants nothing to do with blacks and hispanics in 2015. Its a very uncomfortable topic, it will forever be the big elephant in the room.
ReplyDeleteWow. We felt your knee jerk reaction all the way in San Francisco!
ReplyDeleteIf you'd taken the time to look, last year's 32 Under 32 was actually OVERLY represented by minorities based on the cultural breakdown of the city in general.
So if you combined both years, they're just about spot on for the overall minority makeup of SF and way overrepresented for minorities in advertising.
But hey, just keep screaming that they're racists. It gets the page views, even when you're wrong, huh?
To the 2nd Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteRe-read the post, idiot. No one called them racists. Ignorant, yes. Stupid, yes. You deserve both labels too. Thanks for commenting.
P.S., Trying to justify the 2015 exclusivity by pointing out the 2014 lineup makes you culturally clueless as well.
"Trying to justify the 2015 exclusivity by pointing out the 2014 lineup makes you culturally clueless as well."
ReplyDeleteUh, no it doesn't. It paints the whole picture instead of cherry picking a small subset to make your weak point.