Microsoft in Web photo racism row Click on link if you would like to read an article about this.
So someone at Microsoft decided that a black man in an advertisement directed at Polish consumers is not a good idea. Or perhaps I should say "a black man's head," since his hands were fine.
If this had happened in the United States, I think it's probably more likely that the "photoshopping" would have occurred in the opposite direction--a white guy would have been replaced by a black guy. "We can't have a photo without at least one woman and one person of color, afterall." Given that this was directed at Polish consumers, however, I have to imagine that someone made a calculation about how much "color" would be acceptable to that very white population. I spent two months in Poland and it is clearly the "whitest" locale that I've ever visited--even whiter than the BJC during THON. (Can't we do something about that, by the way.)
Here's another way to think about this. Companies shift their advertising to appeal to different markets all the time. An ad for buses in San Francisco might have an Asian woman, for example, while the exact same advertisement for Memphis or Miami buses would replace the model with a black woman in Memphis and an Hispanic woman in Miami. Is that racist? Someone decided that a black person will be less appealing to Polish consumers. Would you use photos of straight couples in your advertisements in LGBT magazines? Sometimes, no doubt, but you'd more often opt for a gay or lesbian scene.
At the heart of the Microsoft issue is that they cut out the black man's head and replaced "it" with one from a straight up white guy. It just feels raw. Maybe the event got press simply because the manipulation that drives the advertising dimension of marketing was exposed for what it is...manipulation. And maybe it's because when companies shift the "cultural inflections" in their ads, it feels right. But when they do the same thing with "race" it comes across as disingenuine. And maybe, just maybe, all of those people sitting around the table in that photo represent one single culture -- corporate culture. To tell one of them that he has to "relinquish his seat at the table because of his race" is...well...racist. Isn't that what racism is?
But really, don't accept my interpretation of this Microsoft debacle. What do you think?
462 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 462 Newer› Newest»Microsoft is a major corporation, one where you would think they were smart enough to not make these mistakes they have made in this ad. This is not a little boo boo that they can just put a band aid over and it be done. This mistake is going to cost them, as it probably already has since they had to touch it up and air it again. Not to mention one of the top and as I thought most brilliant companies to make such a mistake as leaving the hands of the black man still in the retouched commercial. Yes, I understand the whole concept of appealing a product to your consumer in certain areas, but the people were not the product of this ad. So why take a black man out of this commercial if the people were not the product being promoted? The slogan on the ad was “ empower your people with the tools they need.” Well to me this is saying the black man can’t be empowered by using Microsoft product, I'm pretty sure they can! Microsoft is a household name used all over the world. With this type of popularity Microsoft needs to appeal to everyone. Where is the concept of diversity for this major company? This ad is going to stay with them for a great while, always going to be the company known for taking the black man out of the commercial. No matter the reasoning behind this, they are going to get a bad wrap. People like to tell it how they see it, and I believe that they will tell it as Microsoft being racist, not trying to appeal to the people in Poland.
Perhaps Poland is a very laid back place, I don’t know, I have never been there. But even if there isn’t that many other races in Poland shouldn’t the people care a little bit; everyone should know what the term racist is…right? As you stated, if this ad were in the United States there would be a HUGE argument over this. Maybe the people in Poland are laid back, once again I don’t know. I just feel that Microsoft is a better company than this; I thought they were smart and knew right and wrong, to lead with character and pride; I obviously thought wrong. I would like to think, and part of me hope that Microsoft sales fall some from this ad. But, the more I think about it; I really don’t see how that would be possible. We use the products Microsoft has on a daily basis, just like I’m using Microsoft word to type this up. Maybe Microsoft is too big of a corporation for something this major to really set it back. Think about it, all the things we use, offices, schools, students, families, millions operate day to day operations on products made by Microsoft. So was Microsoft wrong? Yes. Should Microsoft hire better people to over look their commercials so they don’t make mistakes of having black hands on a White body? Yes.
By looking at the Microsoft advertisement that changed the black man’s face to a white person utterly shocked me. Seeing this advertisement made me feel as if the ad had some type of racist offense to why they creators felt the need to change the face of only the black man. The response written about the article about why the creators had to change the advertisement were not acceptable for many reasons. One argument that was made is when they said that they need at least one woman and one colored person. With these criteria, there was already a white female there which met two of the criteria’s in one person. Also going through the process of elimination which person first as a business profession the male is looked at as more superior than the female, so why not eliminate the white female and put her as a black male. Also if the advertisement had to be fixed why not change the Asian man; they at least not have to worry about changing his hand color.
Another argument that was made is that they wondered how much color is acceptable to a very white Polish population. My thought to that argument is that since Poland is “very white” they most likely do not see many African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, or any other race in their country. The point to change the ad is to bring familiarity to the people, so why keep the Asian man if he would also not be a familiar face. To stay within a familiar area of what the people know the creators of the ad should have just made everyone white and to add diversity throw in a couple of females.
My honest opinion about the criteria methods and the targeting to people, I feel as if it mostly applies to America because it is majorly diverse as a whole, yet some cities are not. If a town or city is diverse than you should begin to wonder how much color is acceptable to a diverse area. For example Prince Georges County, MD is a majority black county so they could have a “culture inflection” and have an ad directed to black people, where Montgomery County, MD where it is more diverse they should be more considerate of who is in the ad and what is familiar to the people who live in the area. Personally as a black female I am not approving of this ad because it makes me feel as if I am inadequate of being in a business professional or if it is hard to believe that a black man can have a legitimate job. With the creators taking the black man out, brings oppressed feelings as if black people cannot be taken seriously by anyone, and makes us feel as if we are looked down upon. Feeling as if you are looked down upon makes us feel as if we have to go further than an extra mile to be on the same level as other people of different ethnicities.
When I read this article it truly reminded me of how the world has not yet changed its racist yet predictable ways. Why is it that a man of color can advertise a corporations unhealthy products such as fast foods, tobacco, and alcoholic drinks but he is not good enough to sell or even be the face of multimillion dollar company like Microsoft. For many years, the advertising industry treated African Americans as though they were invisible. However, it just isn’t African Americans who get exploited in advertisements, but any group that does not look like a typical “white American.” For instance, I was reading an article by Shafeeq Sadiq called Racism and Sexism in Advertising and he said that in Newsweek magazine, they printed a two-page advertisement for a well-known computer company on September 16, 1996, which depicted an Arab man wearing his native garb standing next to a camel. Next to this Arab man were boxes of computer parts in the corner of the page and the ad read: “Some computer companies don’t make their own parts. Makes you wonder where they get them.” Now this ad didn’t have to say much for people to know that the advertisement was insinuating that if you get any thing from an Arab Country, the product would be low-graded. On the other hand, no matter where you are in the world someone is always trying to be politically correct. And this is why it does not make any since what so ever that a major company like Microsoft would miss such a big mistake in the changing of someone’s skin color in an advertisement. I mean if you are going to be a person or should I say an organization that is prejudice towards a certain group of people because their skin color is not marketable, then I think big well-known companies should at least have better people examining their work before they put it out to the public. Do they really think that the public would believe that a billion dollar industry like Microsoft would not have at least a whole team of executives, editors and publicist looking over each and every little detail of work put into advertisements for the mainstream world more than a dozen times a day? Come on doesn’t make sense.
This article also had me really thinking about what the definition of the word ‘advertising’ in nineteen fifty and now in the year two thousand nine, because I know in some ways marketing has evolved but not by much. In, Webster’s New World College Dictionary, they define advertisement as ‘ a public notice or announcement from a business or occupation in need of help or to sell things.’ No where in the definition does it once say not even in fine print that the color of your skin may be a problem if you want to be a model or a person for an particular advertisement, to just turn around and quit. And I think this is where the problem is coming from; many people have forgotten that the color of your skin will not predict how many sells your company will get.
Much controversy has recently been circulating about a PETA ad with the suggestive slogan “SAVE THE WHALES, GO VEGETARIAN.” These five words-which would normally confuse most of the non whale-eating population-were accompanied by a picture of the backside of what seemed to be a morbidly obese woman. Although Microsoft’s ad wasn’t trying to be quite as malicious as PETA’s, it still did the purpose of targeting and reaching out to a certain audience, the goal of advertisement.
Well known activist organizations such as PETA, as well as conglomerate firms such as Microsoft, do not fund advertisements that lack meaning or ones that do not pertain to their intentions, it would be a pure waste of money. This is why one would never see the controversial “Save the Whales” billboard in a country with more than half of the population starving to death. The PETA billboard was strategically placed in the Unites States where more than twenty percent of the population is obese, and non-vegetarian. This same rule applies to the Microsoft ad, that is; the rule of reaching out to the general public.
Although Microsoft’s photoshoping could have been polished up a bit by actually including white hands with the white head, the idea of inserting a “white head: in the place of a “black head”, I believe, is totally reasonable based on the demographics of the black population in Poland….or lack thereof.
According to…wait, actually I couldn’t even find one source (in my self proclaimed thorough search) that stated the population of blacks living in Poland. Even on Google.com the first site that was listed after typing in “population of blacks in Poland” was “Black American Living in Poland.” One may say “This has nothing to do with Microsoft’s “racist” ad” when in fact it does.
The United States is one of the most diverse nations in the world. Its black or African American population alone consists of over forty one million people. With a black population of such magnitude, especially with concerns of being “politically correct,” it is only natural that American billboards, commercials, and other types of advertisements include this ethnic group. On the other hand, in Poland, nearly ninety percent of the population is white. If this is an advertisement searching for customers, why would they be trying to reach out to blacks when only a very minimal number live in the Polish-area?
To make this statement more justifiable in my case, if I were to pose for a clothing ad in the United States and was later informed that the ad was going to be expanded to Mexico, however my head was replaced with someone who looks more Mexican , I would not be offended based on the sole reasoning that advertisement needs to reach out to the general demographic or else the advertisement in itself is useless.
Much controversy has recently been circulating about a PETA ad with the suggestive slogan “SAVE THE WHALES, GO VEGETARIAN.” These five words-which would normally confuse most of the non whale-eating population-were accompanied by a picture of the backside of what seemed to be a morbidly obese woman. Although Microsoft’s ad wasn’t trying to be quite as malicious as PETA’s, it still did the purpose of targeting and reaching out to a certain audience, the goal of advertisement.
Well known activist organizations such as PETA, as well as conglomerate firms such as Microsoft, do not fund advertisements that lack meaning or ones that do not pertain to their intentions, it would be a pure waste of money. This is why one would never see the controversial “Save the Whales” billboard in a country with more than half of the population starving to death. The PETA billboard was strategically placed in the Unites States where more than twenty percent of the population is obese, and non-vegetarian. This same rule applies to the Microsoft ad, that is; the rule of reaching out to the general public.
Although Microsoft’s photoshoping could have been polished up a bit by actually including white hands with the white head, the idea of inserting a “white head: in the place of a “black head”, I believe, is totally reasonable based on the demographics of the black population in Poland….or lack thereof.
According to…wait, actually I couldn’t even find one source (in my self proclaimed thorough search) that stated the population of blacks living in Poland. Even on Google.com the first site that was listed after typing in “population of blacks in Poland” was “Black American Living in Poland.” One may say “This has nothing to do with Microsoft’s “racist” ad” when in fact it does.
The United States is one of the most diverse nations in the world. Its black or African American population alone consists of over forty one million people. With a black population of such magnitude, especially with concerns of being “politically correct,” it is only natural that American billboards, commercials, and other types of advertisements include this ethnic group. On the other hand, in Poland, nearly ninety percent of the population is white. If this is an advertisement searching for customers, why would they be trying to reach out to blacks when only a very minimal number live in the Polish-area?
To make this statement more justifiable in my case, if I were to pose for a clothing ad in the United States and was later informed that the ad was going to be expanded to Mexico, however my head was replaced with someone who looks more Mexican , I would not be offended based on the sole reasoning that advertisement needs to reach out to the general demographic or else the advertisement in itself is useless.
My reaction toward this article was very similar to "DaWhiteApe." I really wasn't surprised at all at the attempt by Microsoft to advertise in a diverse and multi-ethnic manner. Did they go about it in the best way? No! This story reminds me of a controversial situation involving the University of Wisconsin a few years ago. On their university sports magazine cover they showed a group of fans/students enjoying a home football game. The entire section of students was white. So one of the editors and/or photographers phot-shopped a black student into the picture. When the student found out about this he sued the university for racial profiling and won. But I understand the intentions of both Wisconsin that instance and Microsoft's in this instance. Both felt they were promoting images of diversity and equality. Images go so much further than words in our society. And Microsoft could've simply wrote a feature piece on African-American employees but the image of one actually being in the work environment was just too good to pass up. I feel America more now then ever is too sensative. The areas of race, gender, and religion are the three which stand out the most but race the most by far. I also feel Microsoft was extremely naive to think a global enterprise with as much influence and notoriety as them could get away with something such as this. This might have worked for a smalller organization but one the size of Microsoft is virtually impossible. I think it would have been wiser for Microsoft to just do what colleges around the country do for incoming freshmen every Fall. The infamous "welcome to college" photo with four students sitting on a rock or under a tree smiling while studying. Each student being a different race ofcourse to illustrate the beauty as well as the myth of diversity within higher learning. Microsoft could have just made a carbon copy of this model and had an employee of every ethnicity present in the board room. To skeptics such as myself this ploy would be seen for what it is. Ridiculous! But other readers who aren't as keen, would take this bait hook, line, and sinker. America garnered the title the "Great Melting Pot" for a reason. No country has diversity at such a resounding level. However, areas in our nation's fabric dont reflect this melting pot. And to force the persona in a dishonest and unethical manner is insulting to the intelligence of its citizens. I dont necessarily find it racist. It stands out more as foolish in my eyes. Microsoft means too much to the world and the technological age we are in. Such a poor lapse in judgement is unacceptable and everyone involved should be punished accordingly. Diversity is a beautiful thing but lies on any level will always remain ugly.
I personally do not have any problems with the black man in the advertisement being switched with a white man. As Sam mentioned in his post, Poland is filled completely with white people. You don’t have to take a class in marketing to know that it is imperative for a business to advertise to the market they are trying to reach. If every person who lives in Poland is white then I think it is perfectly alright for an advertisement in Poland to picture only white people. I don’t believe that Microsoft was trying to be hateful or racist with this advertisement. I bet if you asked the majority of people in Poland if they thought it was racist, I’m sure they would all say it was not. Culturally speaking, countries all over the world have different standards when it comes to what is politically correct and appropriate. Just because something like this wouldn’t be allowed in the United States doesn’t mean that it should not be allowed in other countries. Microsoft, just like any other business in the world, has a sole purpose to sell products and maximize their profits. Although I don’t have a problem with Microsoft running this ad in Poland, I do have a problem with how they went about changing the black man in the original poster to a white man in the Polish poster. I can’t believe that such a prestigious company like Microsoft would photo shop the head of a white man instead of just taking a brand new picture. It would have taken approximately five minutes to get another person to come and sit in the chair for a couple more pictures. But instead, Microsoft just photo shopped the head of a white man on to the body of the black man, and did a terrible job of it. The head seems to be place in an awkward way. It is quite funny that the “artist” completely forgot to change the colors of the man’s hands. I would expect Microsoft to at least do a decent job when making the photo shopped advertisement for the Polish market. To a degree, I feel as if this whole ordeal got blown way out of proportion. In our country right now, if everything is not one hundred percent politically correct, then a big deal will be made out of it. I can completely understand why Microsoft would want to change the advertisement for a different market. But because they did this, everyone in the States will freak out at the “racism” shown by Microsoft. Clearly Microsoft made a mistake, but I’m not quite sure that this mistake was big enough to garner all the media attention that it did.
Well I have to say I am not shocked. I think that major companies have been photo shopping and editing pictures for a while; Microsoft just forgot to finish editing. I do not have a problem with them appealing to their target audience but why not just get a white man to model for the picture in the first place. I do not know if the black man works at the company but if it were me I would feel angry. This just goes to show us that racism is still alive and well in America. Microsoft should be aware that all people from all ethnic backgrounds use their products. So how would changing a photo appeal to their audience? I think that Microsoft will probably look a little closer at their editing next time. If you are going to do something like that at least do not get caught. I do not know who was on the advertising team at that point but they definitely need to get fired. Appealing or not if you need a product your going to buy it whether it portrays a white, black, Chinese, pink, orange, purple, or yellow person. Pantene came out with hair products for black women a couple of years ago. The target audience and product was made for white women before that. I still bought and used Pantene. Just because people think that a product is predominately used by one group does not mean that other people do not buy it. I think that the excuse was horrible and it should have never been done. Yet we have a problem when people of color claim that someone or a company is racist. I wish that we could just eliminate these problems. I do not know what it is but it is just an on going thing. This makes me wonder can we ever fix the problem and how does Microsoft redeem itself from this. This makes me wonder how long Microsoft has been changing their advertisements for different areas and countries in the world. I also think that them saying they tried to please both audiences by using the blacks hands still was ridiculous, why did they not just give the photo white hands then. I wonder what Microsoft said to its black employees when they found out and how did it made them feel. If Microsoft is worried about appealing to White Poland, I am sure they know that someone of color took part in helping make the product they are using. I am sure they would not have had a problem with the photo. What do they people in Poland have to say about this and people of all different ethnic backgrounds are everywhere so where they not trying to appeal to the black people in Poland or they just did not care. Microsoft owes the model or worker in the picture an apology. They owe an apology to their customers as well. I do not know what they are going to do to fix it but it better be good and they better fix it quick. Once you’re tainted it takes a long time for you to dig yourself out of the hole.
When I first reading this article, I could not help but wonder what was the marketing team at Microsoft thinking when they published this ad? Are they incompetent or did they think it was really okay to make an advertisement that has a man with a white face and black hands? It is bad enough that they felt the need to photo shop a white man’s face in the picture for a black man’s, but they also forgot to change the color of the hands. I can see where the marketing department thought they were doing something great with the ad, but in reality they were just digging themselves deeper into a hole. By taking out the black man and replacing him with a white man, they believed this would appeal more to the Polish population since a huge majority of their population is predominately white. I can see how people feel more comfortable around things that are familiar to them because humans are creatures to habit and do not like change so I can understand where this idea originated from. I am pretty positive however that people in Poland have seen black human beings before and I highly doubt they would get offended in any way if a black man was to appear in an advertisement. However, isn’t it stereotyping the Polish people themselves by saying they are only accustomed to people who look like them and are only comfortable with people with white colored skin? Is the marketing team making Poland look like the racist instead of them? With publishing this ad, it now gives the Microsoft Corporation the stigma for being racist. The image itself says it all; the under lying statement of replacing a black man with a white man is saying that black people are not good enough. The setting of the advertisement does not help the situation either. When people think of the business world, they picture clean-cut white men in expensive suits working in a city for a major corporation. It is hard for certain types of people to picture a man of color in a business situation so by removing the man from the ad it reinforces the image that black people do not belong in the business world. By seeing that a black man is sitting at a conference table with two other people is saying that he is an equal. By removing him however, it is saying that he is lesser of a person than the other two. If you look closely, the other man looks Asian so of course he can stay in the business setting because Asians are stereotypically pictured as business men as well. To a white dominated population, like in Poland, Asians would be a minority; since both black people and Asians are the minority why was the black man photo shopped out and not the Asian man?
When I first read this article, I wasn’t very surprised that such a situation occurred, I was more surprised that they actually replaced just the head of the black man and left the hands. I was not surprised by the switch because that is what advertising and marketing is all about, how to appeal to the most customers and people to buy the product and if this is in Poland, where the majority of the people are white then I can see why they would do it. By no means am I saying its right, I actually think the complete opposite. Morally speaking it is not the right thing to do, but once again, advertising and marketing do not always do the morally right thing, for example the advertisements of cigarettes and such things that they know harm people. I also think that it is ironic how in the United States they would probably do the opposite, replace a white man’s head with a black man’s. Then again, the United States is a more diversified population than Poland, so the issue of appealing to the majority of consumers comes up again. Also, in the United States there other issues like universities and colleges having to have certain percentages of different ethnicities. Say a white student is more qualified for a certain university, but does not get in because they need to meet a certain percentage of another ethnicity, is that not racism too? After reading the article and then seeing that someone actually blogged in response to it that they were trying to be more diversified by showing that people can be both white and black, how can that really be the case? If it were, do you not thing that they would just use someone that was actually half black and half white rather than using different pieces of someone? So, I really find it hard to believe that that was their intention. I just simply think that they messed up and did not really mean for it to be photo shopped like that. They could come up with a million reasons as to why it happened, especially with all the publicity around it, but what it comes down to is marketing and advertising tactics. In a country that is predominately white, they are going to use more white people in advertisements as ridiculous as that may be. It is not ok that companies choose to succumb and basically have to succumb to social pressures and social standards especially when it comes to the subject of race. That is what this ultimately boils down to, a major company going along with the social norm and it’s such a clear blatant example of it, it happens all the time.
In response to Political Correctness or Blatant Racism, an employee who works for Microsoft Corporation decided to change the color of a black man’s skin to resemble a white man’s. On both sides of the spectrum, I take it as a statement of political correctness and racisim. However, for the sake of this class and taking on one side of the argument I take it as political correctness for the fact that this particular Microsoft advertisement was aimed at Polish consumers in Poland. Poland’s culture is very different from what we have in the United States, when you visit Poland you will see that their society is made up of the majority of white Polish people. In the United States it is very different, we are known for being the Melting Pot so Americans are use to seeing people of different color and religion here, therefore no one used photoshop on the black man’s head to make him a white man. Another possible reason could be that, we have black people who work for the Microsoft Corporation. If someone were to Photoshop the black man out of the picture here in America there would be a big uproar and people would take it as an act of racism and Microsoft would lose billions of dollars worth of business from the American people since Americans are taught to accept people of different color and backgrounds since they were in grade school. Through the process of the color change of the men’s races, maybe the employee who made the color change felt that if he or she kept the original photo with the black man’s head on it that Microsoft may have lost some of their business due to the fact that Poland is comprised of white Polish people. Another possible reason that they may have changed the skin color is that you see a white woman in picture but you do NOT see a white man in the advertisement, in America we are more accepting than other countries of having women in positions of power. To address the Asian man in the photo, I feel that they left him in the picture because he is not very dark and his skin color is similar to a Polish person’s skin color and to also allude to the fact that the largest foreign ethnic race that lives in Poland are Vietnamese people. They might have not taken the Asian man off because Microsoft does a great deal of business with China and if they were to take off the Asian man who represents the largest race in the world then they may have lost billions of dollars worth of business. At the end of the day, I think the change was made for strategic financial business reasons or it may be as simple as that the employee is racist.
The first thing that came to my head when reading this article is that it isn’t right to Photoshop someone of color to a white person but then you have to think about its business side too. Poland is country that is made up of mostly white people. Microsoft’s job isn’t to be racially correct it is to make money and sell products. I’m in no way saying what they did was right, simply saying they have a reason to do it. Lets think about it in a business’s point of view. You are going to advertise to a place that is mostly white, thus you would want more white people then people of other color. This will make it easier to be accepted by the people of Poland because they will feel more comfortable with the ad. It would also be a lot cheaper to Photoshop the black man out and just add a white person compared to getting a whole new photo shoot.
But the second thought that came to my mind is why did they choose the black guy to Photoshop out. Is it that Microsoft would find black people more unappealing then Asian people? I would think that Poland would actually be more comfortable with two white people and a black person in the ad then two white people and an Asian person. My path of thought is what threat do black people have to Poland? I can’t really seem to think when black people bothered anything about Poland. On the other hand Asian people probably have the most power and are the most threatening thing by Poland right now, with everything happening in North Korea and all that stuff. And I’m not an expert with Photoshop but if they replaced the Asian man with the white man, it could look a little more realistic since the hand wouldn’t be black.
Like I same before, what Microsoft did was wrong but they are a business and they think about getting their products sold and not so much about racism. There could have been a lot of ways to avoid this. If the people of Poland need Microsoft to change an ad because a black man was it in, then maybe Microsoft needs to change there advertising scheme to that country. It would cost money but it would shop that Microsoft actually cares about people’s race and not discrimination people. There could be a better ways to deal with this but I’m not a business major nor do I know a lot about Poland. I think some people just made this a bigger deal then it needed to be because I honestly don’t think Microsoft wanted to hurt black people, all they wanted to do was make money with is a problem in itself.
Let me first start by saying that calling out a large corporation for being racist in any manner other than hiring practices in this day and age is really a very tedious waste of time. A successful corporation like Microsoft doesn’t have a reputation of racism and they only see one color, that color being green, green referring to the color of money. Microsoft only cares about making profits and if their marketing research indicates that an advertisement featuring a white man will sell more software in Poland there is no reason why a white man shouldn’t be featured in the commercial. The mistake that Microsoft made was trying to correct the so called mistake and not correcting it fully. Microsoft only attempted to fix the “problem.” Because they didn’t want to be arrested by the public correctness police and succumb to the dregs of public perception. It’s not that Microsoft really cares about race relations they just didn’t want to get dragged through the proverbial mud. Microsoft placing a white person in their polish commercial is the equivalent of Nike using black athletes in their commercials in order to sell tennis shoes to urban black youths. I’m sure that Nike’s market research indicates that a black athlete will sell more shoes to the key black youth demographic then a white player. Even more puzzling then the choice of Microsoft to attempt to fix a problem that wasn’t in fact a problem, was the simply ludicrous reaction to the case online when certain blogs claimed that the white face black hands in actuality promotes a form of racial unity. First, anyone that thinks such a thing is really over thinking. The truth of the matter is very obvious. Microsoft had originally put a black person in the ad. When the Polish ad was sent out to ship market research dictated that a white person would sell more units, so the white head was pasted on the black body. But then through gross incompetence (and not racism) the graphic designer forgot to change the hands of the person. I strongly believe that this was the case and racism played absolutely no part in this case. I feel that Microsoft has committed no cardinal sins, just the sin of stupidity. You would think that a company with so much cash behind it could get things right and not completely fumble such a simple task. The public outcry for this should be minimal unless the 24 hours news networks get a hold of it. CNN and other media outlets with a decidedly left leaning stance will call out rage and claim racism and cry how can this happen in a country that has elected a black president. And the right wing drones at Fox News will claim this is just another case of the pc thugs controlling what we can say view and print and they will most likely throw in some reference to the Nazi party. But in the end we all lose for discussing something that was born out of stupidity and is still stupid even when viewed through a scholar’s lens.
This is was a very amusing article. Microsoft is a very professional company, or at least should be! Instead of being overly responsible, they were very careless with this attempt of an advertisement.
The company is filled with people that are most likely overpaid that should be professionals at what they do. They’re supposed to be checking everything a hundred times, before its published to the public. They’re a very successful company and should be doing everything possible to keep it that way. A slip up could potentially cost them the company, as well as millions of jobs! What makes it worse is that this ad was already printed as the original. It was edited, with the changed face and same hands and released again. How stupid can you be?! Of course people are going notice, and most likely be very upset about it. Microsoft messed up with this single ad, twice already! Let’s be honest, that’s a little ridiculous!
This sort of slip up should have never, ever happened in such a large company. Microsoft has had its fair share of experiences, being a large growing company for several years now. Considering they were already trying to play it safe by altering the original image, they should have paid attention to the rest of the photo, and double checked it.
This image is also slightly offending. I am of Polish descent, and seeing that they originally wanted to target the Polish audience, I’m repulsed by the fact that they changed the African American man to a Caucasian. Understandably, the Polish is a little more close minded than the American culture. But that has to do with the fact that the African American population is very, very minuet. And Poland’s impression of Blacks is the typical stereotypes they hear about in the news, and see in movies. If they wanted to play it completely safe they should have been extremely careful with it. Microsoft should already be aware of the fact of cultural differences, and should have played this ad completely safe. Also, the Polish population most definitely noticed this slip up and was even more offended that they edited the original. I’m sure many people were angered with the original, and just as angry as the editing.
This is just looking at one side of the spectrum. How do you think the few Polish Blacks feel? This is just another similar 1955 riding on the back of the bus scenario. African Americans always seem to be shafted in order to please everyone else. This is rather unfair. I mean unfortunately this is because people continue to seem very close minded, but its still unfair. At this point in time, things shouldn’t still be this way.
But from another point of view, this isn’t Microsoft’s issue and their main purpose is to advertise in order to make money. Following that statement, they should definitely be a bit more careful and what they publish and more importantly HOW they publish it.
I must say, the world never ceases to amaze me. However, I am not the least bit surprised. Individual people and yes, even big corporate companies (Microsoft), will go through extreme measures to ensure that racism continues to flood not only our nation, but our world. The claim that the picture is an attempt to show "interracial harmony", is bullshit. Clearly, there is a white woman and an Asian man. Did the presence of a black man take away from the attempt of "interracial harmony"? I think not. If anything, the picture is complete. For some odd reason, there is this perception that the absence of a white man is such a huge deal. You would think that because Microsoft has customers from all races, the picture would display just that, but I guess not. The picture has so many negative perceptions, it's ridiculous. Black men can't possibly work for Microsoft, because they are a "successful company", right? Research shows that now more than ever are black men in obtaining high positions within fortune 500 companies. Whether the polish are a predominantly white ethnic group does not excuse the fact that this is blatant racism. It would have been easier to make a photo that represented all races, because that is the composition of Microsoft's customers. Replacing a black man with a white man is such a obvious way of saying "black men are not good enough to work for us". As a graduating college student of color, I would NEVER consider working for Microsoft. Who knows, I may have been the one they would have Photoshop out of the picture. I am interested in knowing though, what kind of "investigation" will be launched? What will happen to this person who is "discovered"? Everyone knows that there is this thing called "protocol". Meaning, publications must meet the approval of the person(s) in charge before it is published. So someone obviously gave the "okay" for this filth to be circulated. That says a lot about the company puts in these higher ranking positions. Personally, I would not be surprised if this company got hit with a class action suit from the customers. The picture is highly offensive not only to black people, but those to those people who are of color. It is so sad that in this day and time, there are still narrow minded people in regards to race. This article has definitely probed a lot of thinking, for me anyway. This story will remain in the back of my head whenever I go on interview for career-oriented positions. What will they really think of me? Will there be this subtle form of prejudice present? These are all things that would cross my mind. I own several of Microsoft products, and I must say after this incident, I am not sure that I want to purchase anything from Microsoft.
Miss Legality
It would have been acceptable to market a web photo with all white people in it to a nation that is predominantly white like Poland. If Microsoft had created a separate poster specifically for Poland that included only white people there would have been no controversy. It is acceptable for companies to market specifically to specific races and regions, and that was Microsoft’s intent, but taking the original ad and “fixing” it replacing a black male with a white male because they are not marketing to a black population is racist. It leaves the impression that the black man was not worthy enough to be put in an ad for polish people and so he didn’t make the final cut. The fact that Microsoft only change to the poster was to photo-shop out the head of a black man and replace it with the head of a white one is questionable. It gives the impression that Microsoft marketers thought everything about the poster was acceptable to market to the Polish, except the black man, so he was cut. A black male should be acceptable to market to any race or region, even if they may be marketing to another race. So if he was already in the photo, why take him out? If Microsoft had created two different posters for each country there would not have been a problem. It is not beyond Microsoft’s budget to create a new web photo. Microsoft, being run by the most wealthy man in the world, could have easily afforded to make a new web photo that would be marketed only in Poland. If they had made an original poster with all white people to market in Poland they would not have been judged.
In addition to making Microsoft look racist, this fiasco has also made them look like idiots. It astonishes me that such a giant corporation as Microsoft would allow for a blunder like that to be broadcasted to the world. People may disagree on whether it was racist or not, or whether marketing specifically to a population is racist or not, but I think everyone can agree that letting the world know that you removed a black man’s face from a photo because he was not suitable to market to the Polish was a bad idea. I have no doubt that this photo, which was intended to boost sales in Poland, (and who knows by how little it would have raised them) will negatively affect Microsoft’s sales. Microsoft, being one of the most wealthy companies in the world, should not have to worry about profit first anymore, they should worry about their image. I pity the fool who published that ad to the internet.
In response to the Microsoft ad in Poland, to simply Photoshop a white man’s head over a black man’s body does seem racist. If Microsoft wanted to appear better to a predominantly white Polish Culture, then they should of just shot another ad with a fresh set of actors. Of course different areas of the world are going to have unlike races than others usually and marketing works better when advertisements use the same mix of people their targeting. This is a little hard to picture for our north eastern United States society since we are surrounded by a large racially diverse environment between New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington. Seeing advertisements with different cultures are not as bizarre to this society compared to Polska for instants.
I myself am 100% Polish and have been to Poland many times. Dr. Richards is correct when he states how Poland is basically an all white nation. Talk about being bias, Poland has a very high percentage of a white Roman Catholic culture that is very family based, no wonder Microsoft altered their add to adjust to the Polish Market. Companies such as Microsoft should take into consideration advertisement development when they plan on using an advertisement universally. Simply just switching a black man’s head with a white man’s head seems unprofessional in the sense that the Polish market would not have noticed it, plus it shows poor taste to the African American culture to electronically change that man’s race.
I would expect better taste and class of a change coming from one of the world leading companies. It is a shame first off how Microsoft needed to change the ad since it would not have done well in a culture that is sheltered to much exposure to different races. The other man in the ad appears to be of Oriental decent showing how Microsoft’s marketing department felt an Oriental man would have appealed to a Polish market. To remove the black race but not the other race shows that a black race is not as openly appealing to a Polish Market. Every time I had visited Poland, I had only seen white people, so why would Microsoft just remove one race and not the other. Is there a stigma against darker men in Poland that the Microsoft advertising apartment is aware of? This could be true, as awful as it sounds. The Polish culture might be sheltered to darker people but maybe not so much toward Orientals. The stereotype of Orientals being very smart might also be inexistence over in that part of Europe which could be why the ad did not take that man out.
I don’t think Microsoft was wrong in wanting to change their ad to appeal to the Polish market, just that they could have been more tasteful in the means of doing so.
My feelings to the Microsoft debacle are fairly neutral because I am a bit unsure if the act was truly racial or used more as a disturbing joke. I also feel that issues such as these should be ignored in a way that makes them simply unacceptable. We as a human population can only defeat racism when we stop counting how many black presidents we have, or how many black/Hispanic/etc. students attend a school, or how many people of a particular race are members of a hall of fame, organization, or place of power.
We continue to stress the fact that race does not matter, be it in school, at the home, or on television. However, issues like this photograph show up in news all over the world. To beet this ongoing problem everyone needs to put down the defense and look past these petty issues. We are almost too concerned about NOT being raciest that we can’t let some things slide. There will always be some discontent among the racial groups that simply cannot be fixed; however, we can start moving past this racial barrier by celebrating our differences rather than singling them out.
The example given in the blog post was that of people of a particular race or color appealing to other members of that same race or color in advertisements. This issue, I feel, will always be. Everyone can say that there is a comfort level among people that share similar backgrounds, features, and culture. This is a way that we can relate to someone we don’t know. That is also why this works in advertisements. This does not mean we are racist or ignorant but rather human nature to connect with someone who is similar to ourselves. Beyond the world of advertising and media, and into the real life experiences of work, school, or our personal lives, this is not as true. Racial groups are everywhere and interacting in harmony even if the racial group a person is related to isn’t obvious.
To beet our differences we must look at racial acts with discontent but also acceptance. Discontent because such actions against racial groups are unacceptable and acceptance because we cannot change the world by allowing ourselves to get emotionally stirred with every tiny racial comment but rather ignore it and look to working together. I am not saying that racial slang, violence, or discrimination should be accepted with open arms, but rather we must accept the fact that there will always be some form of discrimination that will always exist.
We will only end this ongoing debate when we stop over analyzing actions, counting our progress by how many members of each racial group are in power or media, and simply accepting each other for who and what we are.
It’s very interesting to me that such a large corporation like Microsoft would make such a huge mistake. A company like that has done masses of advertisements all over the world and should probably know better. One of the things that surprised me the most was the fact that they forgot to photoshop the hands and turn them white. If they really felt that strongly about not having a black man in the ad, they should have simply taken an entirely new photograph, or at least be way more careful attempting to alter the photo. I do not at all agree with the idea that they were “attempting to please all markets by having a man with both a white face and a black hand”. I think this was purely a mistake on the part of the person doing the photoshopping. The bottom line is that this act was racist. I can understand the ideas behind the advertising industry and that it is important to relate to the population to which you are trying to sell your product. Almost all companies alter their advertisements according to the demographic they are trying to reach. However, there is a line that has definitely been crossed with this incident. Although Poland is a predominately white population, I doubt the people there would have refused to buy Microsoft products simply because there was a black man in the advertisement. After all, they did not feel the need to photoshop out the Asian woman. Why? Did the advertisers really think having an Asian woman was that much more acceptable than a black man? It’s hard for me to believe that Microsoft felt that having a black man in the ad would have such an enormous negative impact on sales.
This really leads me to think about the way in which various cultures differ in their methods of advertisement. Here in America, we place such high regard in attempting to always be politically correct in every aspect of life. However, by only accepting a white woman, an Asian woman, and a black man for this commercial can be argued as racist in itself. We feel the need to place such a huge emphasis on race when in reality, it shouldn’t even matter whether the models or actors were black, white, or brown. On the other hand, Poland does not feel the need to be politically correct. In fact, due to the fact that they wanted a white man in the ad instead of a black man, they are called racist. It was a lose-lose situation for Microsoft. Either potentially have sales go down in Poland due to the black man in the ad, or be called racist for attempting to photoshop a white man into the ad instead of a black man.
Though I can see both the political correctness and the blatant racism in this Microsoft ad, ultimately, I feel annoyed. I am personally annoyed by society's constant obsession with assuring they aren't being "racist" with everything they do. At the same time, I guess I could say I understand the paranoia with all the negative racial claims, opinions, and law suits nowadays. A lot of eyes and pointed fingers are directed toward these big name companies. It is almost as if people are waiting and looking for them to "screw up" as to exploit them for decisions they've made that, I am sure at the time, they felt would clear them of criticism like this very article.
As much as I am annoyed at situations like this Microsoft ad, I can't find secure reasoning to blame just the company. Society has brought them to this careful (or careless depending on how you see it) behavior. Maybe if the world showed a little more susceptibility and openness to diversity, the corporate world would feel a little more comfortable presenting and condoning that very idea towards the public. Until then, just like every other company, Microsoft is going to do what they feel they have to to get the profit they need (wouldn't you?). It is the idea of trying to please everyone...but, clearly, that's not possible. Ever. Something to think about...
I wouldn’t consider Microsoft racist. They have just fallen into the trap of modern advertisement. The world is trying to be politically correct but is that the way to go? In the world today advertisement companies have to pretend they care about racism and the effect it could have through their advertisements. These companies are trying to relate to their consumer base and they might have to do this by changing the race or gender in their advertisement. It does make sense to have a mixed race advertisement in rural areas, just as much as it would make sense to have a gay couple advertisement in a gay magazine. They are trying to relate to people that would buy their products. One could look at this bad from our societies viewpoint but they are just trying to sell their products in the best way. Even though it is sad that advertisement companies has gotten this advance at selling to their consumers, they are trying to sell their products to the society group that fits the product best. The reason I consider this process bad is because advertisers know how to get to their consumer base in a very affective way. These advertisement companies have the capabilities to control their consumer base and the things they buy. This control adds to our societies materialistic view and, dare I say it, this societies debt. American society has let these types of advertisement work because we are easily susceptible to this kind of manipulation. It also makes me angry that the Internet has blown this story out of proportion. If the Internet and blog sites were not around, then this story would not have been shown or would have been able to make people consider Microsoft as racist. People love to find faults in the world and exploit them. This can be good and bad because some things need to be corrected for the better good but is this one of them? More importantly, is this story even going to change the practices of advertisement companies. These companies will probably look at this study and try to find ways of better hiding their racial advertisements. Next time they might not Photoshop a white head on a black persons body and just shot the advertisement with a variety of photos with different races. The only thing these advertisement companies care about is making money, so this racism claim is not going to affect them. Should it? I am not sure weather this should be a big issue or weather we need to push these companies to fix their ways. Although, I do think advertisement companies have to change and get rid of the hold they has on consumers.
This Microsoft ad is demonstrating just one of the major underlying problems that are still in this world. Although, as you said, Poland is clearly a mostly white country, the exclusion of a black figure shows that racism is still alive and well. In a country as diverse as this one is, you would imagine that something like that would never happen, and if it did, there would be quite an uproar from Black America. I just don’t see the point in cutting out the black man. I don’t see the significance of three white business people as opposed to two and one black business person. The objective here is clearly to demonstrate white supremacy in the business field. It’s this kind of advertisement that is holding our world back, and it demonstrates ideals that may never be changed. It also shows that people have a tough time getting away from their social norms. Walking around in Poland, as you said, I’m sure you’ll see 95-99% white faces, so if you were to put up an ad, it would obviously have the same percentage of white people. People in those types of countries need the ad that America displays. We may not have everything correct here, but one thing we are is diverse. Countries such as Poland don’t have that amenity, and an advertisement for one of the biggest companies in the world, demonstrating the variety of races in the business field, would be one huge step towards creating that open-mindedness. Maybe it will make the people in Poland realize that Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics also hold a very important role in the work force and that it should be recognized. Until white Europe has their eyes opened to other cultures of the world, things will remain the same and much of the world will still think that only one race exists. Microsoft needs to do something about this, as it incorrectly demonstrates what they think of diversity in the business world. If I were working at Microsoft, I would not let this stand. To other countries that are diverse and think that this advertisement is truly what Microsoft imagines the work place to be, America is just as racist as Poland is. If other countries cannot open their eyes to diversity, we have to do it for them. The overall idea is that to make a black man turn into a white man for this Microsoft ad serves no purpose at all. Is there anything more positive that the white man would have to offer than the black man would? The only thing that comes out of this is a realization of a world-wide problem, and a realization that some places just have to broaden their cultural horizons.
In today’s United States society, I believe it’s in the nature of people to make advertisements appealing to the proper social group but also incorporating multiple races. Because of our history and our stereotypes, businesses and many organizations feel it is necessary to add in people of multiple races when possible. I think you are right when you state that if this situation, similar to that of Microsoft, happened in the United States, that a white person would be photo-shopped for a black person, or some person of other color. Almost everywhere we look now, an advertisement with multiple people in it contain a white person, an Asian person, and a person of color, along with both sexes.
First, I’d like to point out at the fact that the United States is one of few countries where race doesn’t equal culture. Because there are so many first generation and second and third generation descendants from many countries, there is really no single, or one, main race or culture. So to take into account United States culture, you must take into account all cultures and races in the United States. Whereas in Poland, there are not as many races and cultures.
I find it to be a little ridiculous. It’s enough already. You want to put in all white people or all black people, then why should we care. It’s supposed to be a damn advertisement that’s selling a product to people. Businesses do this because they believe that having people of multiple races will attract more people to buy or try their product. If this method does make significant differences in profits, then I’m all for it, but if not, then I think it’s stupid.
Like I said previously, if changing the person in the ad for different markets makes a significant difference then by all means do it. I find nothing wrong with it, in terms of it being racist. In no form do I see this being racist.
About the LGBT magazines, I think it depends on what someone is trying to sell. If the product or service were strictly for LGBT then, having a say in this advertisement, I wouldn’t use photos of straight couples. If the product or service was being advertised in a LGBT community but it wasn’t strictly for them then I wouldn’t find it necessary to put non-straight couples in the advertisement.
Finally, I’d just like to add that before this class, I probably would have thought nothing of this article and response but now I see it in a different light. I now find it pretty interesting and enjoy reading articles every once in awhile about these conflicts between race and culture.
This ad is a very common controversy in today’s economy. Advertisers are constantly worrying about race in their ads. Whether they have enough diversity, whether there are an equal amount of men and women, blah, blah, blah. Shouldn’t the ad company just be able to pick the best actors instead of trying to fill up the race quotas? I think that this race business has actually blinded us. We start off by saying we need more diversity in everything that is publicized to the public; but why? By trying to fill these spots we are not letting more talented people shine. For example, if an ad company is making a commercial with three people in it, at least one would have to be of color and one would have to be a woman right? But what if there are three good women or three good men, or three good black men? Why should we have to turn them down so we can have diversity? By looking so closely at race I think we are contradicting ourselves. We are saying race shouldn’t matter, but we are depending on it and focusing on it constantly. Anyway back to this ad. Although I do think that it is unfortunate that this poor black man’s head had to be replaced with a white man’s head, I do not think this ad is racist. I am a marketing major and I understand how important it is to appeal to your market. Yes, the company could have just made another commercial, but let’s face it that’s expensive to do. They took the easy way out and just cropped the man’s head out. I do not think that this is racist because it is done every day. Every day we watch TV and are exposed to ads and shows with mostly white people. Is that racist? Maybe it is, but it appeals to white people who are the majority and they buy the things they see. Ad companies try to make their audience feel as comfortable as possible. For example, in Connecticut where roughly three fifths of the population of the state is white, an ad with only African American and Asian people might confuse the public. This is what I mean by “confused,” obviously white people in Connecticut are not going to see the ad and say “Oh no there’s black people in that ad, I’m not buying that product,” but the advertisers know that it might distract the audience. They do not want their clients to focus on who is in their commercials, rather, they want them to focus on how good the product looks. So by sidestepping diversity and making their viewers comfortable, they avoid interruption from their ad. My view is that people are so sensitive these days. There is no reason to make a big deal over a small ad like this. In Poland a huge majority of the population is white so this ad may appeal more to them, or, like I said they won’t get distracted. Race is a tender subject but people are beating a dead horse with the discussion. Do we have to analyze every ad, every TV show, every commercial? There are far more important things in the world and I think they deserve more attention.
Here's another way to think about this. Companies shift their advertising to appeal to different markets all the time. An ad for buses in San Francisco might have an Asian woman, for example, while the exact same advertisement for Memphis or Miami buses would replace the model with a black woman in Memphis and an Hispanic woman in Miami. Is that racist? Someone decided that a black person will be less appealing to Polish consumers. Would you use photos of straight couples in your advertisements in LGBT magazines? Sometimes, no doubt, but you'd more often opt for a gay or lesbian scene.
At the heart of the Microsoft issue is that they cut out the black man's head and replaced "it" with one from a straight up white guy. It just feels raw. Maybe the event got press simply because the manipulation that drives the advertising dimension of marketing was exposed for what it is...manipulation. And maybe it's because when companies shift the "cultural inflections" in their ads, it feels right. But when they do the same thing with "race" it comes across as disingenuine. And maybe, just maybe, all of those people sitting around the table in that photo represent one single culture -- corporate culture. To tell one of them that he has to "relinquish his seat at the table because of his race" is...well...racist. Isn't that what racism is?
test
Here's another way to think about this. Companies shift their advertising to appeal to different markets all the time. An ad for buses in San Francisco might have an Asian woman, for example, while the exact same advertisement for Memphis or Miami buses would replace the model with a black woman in Memphis and an Hispanic woman in Miami. Is that racist? Someone decided that a black person will be less appealing to Polish consumers. Would you use photos of straight couples in your advertisements in LGBT magazines? Sometimes, no doubt, but you'd more often opt for a gay or lesbian scene.
At the heart of the Microsoft issue is that they cut out the black man's head and replaced "it" with one from a straight up white guy. It just feels raw. Maybe the event got press simply because the manipulation that drives the advertising dimension of marketing was exposed for what it is...manipulation. And maybe it's because when companies shift the "cultural inflections" in their ads, it feels right. But when they do the same thing with "race" it comes across as disingenuine. And maybe, just maybe, all of those people sitting around the table in that photo represent one single culture -- corporate culture. To tell one of them that he has to "relinquish his seat at the table because of his race" is...well...racist. Isn't that what racism is?
We’re upset with Microsoft for replacing a black guy for a white guy because it will sell better? Sure it’s wrong, but the problem doesn’t lie with Microsoft, they are simply being smart business people. Let us look at it logically, so I am trying to sell a product. My audience is a group of white people. Moreover, they are really uncomfortable people of color. So what do I do? I put white people in the advertisement, not because I think any race is better, but rather because I want to sell my product, and that’s the best way to do it. I have two options here, I could put a token black guy in the advertisement to be “politically correct” or I could do what is better for making money and leave the white people in the advertisement so the consumers feel more comfortable with buying the product. The idea that Microsoft is at fault is mildly absurd. Sure, replacing a black guy with a white guy is racist, absolutely, but why are they replacing him? Surely not because they believe that white people are better, they’re replacing him because the consumers, in this instance polish people, but you and I in general, buy products because white people are featured in them. Yeah, Microsoft manipulating the system so that products geared toward white people feature white models is wrong, but it shouldn’t matter. If I’m buying a product because white people use it that makes me a racist, not Microsoft for using that system. What frustrates me about this whole situation, is that it’s not that big of a deal. We are too focused on not hurting people’s feelings and worrying about leaving someone out. A black guy gets photo shopped out of a picture and we are up in arms about Microsoft being racist. It was a smart business move. What if Fubu or another black clothing label came out with a commercial or advertisement and had a white guy featured in it by accident, then they photo shopped him out of it for a black guy? Would white people be up in arms? Would they be upset about the inherent racism in the advertisement? Of course not, they would think “ok, they are making an intelligent business move by gearing their advertisement to a specific people group.” On the other hand, if Microsoft replaced the black guy because they thought that he didn’t belong in the commercial because blacks don’t use Microsoft, then that is racist. The question here, is this: is it wrong to use race to sell products? Whether it is or isn’t I’m not sure, but I know we use sex, money, and other things to sell products, so why not take advantage of race to sell something.
Here's another way to think about this. Companies shift their advertising to appeal to different markets all the time. An ad for buses in San Francisco might have an Asian woman, for example, while the exact same advertisement for Memphis or Miami buses would replace the model with a black woman in Memphis and an Hispanic woman in Miami. Is that racist? Someone decided that a black person will be less appealing to Polish consumers. Would you use photos of straight couples in your advertisements in LGBT magazines? Sometimes, no doubt, but you'd more often opt for a gay or lesbian scene.
At the heart of the Microsoft issue is that they cut out the black man's head and replaced "it" with one from a straight up white guy. It just feels raw. Maybe the event got press simply because the manipulation that drives the advertising dimension of marketing was exposed for what it is...manipulation. And maybe it's because when companies shift the "cultural inflections" in their ads, it feels right. But when they do the same thing with "race" it comes across as disingenuine. And maybe, just maybe, all of those people sitting around the table in that photo represent one single culture -- corporate culture. To tell one of them that he has to "relinquish his seat at the table because of his race" is...well...racist. Isn't that what racism is?
After first seeing this article, it does not surprise me at all that Microsoft would change the picture. Microsoft has been getting grilled lately by Apple and by the general public. People across the country and world have been losing faith in the company especially after the Windows Vista disaster. I guess Microsoft has to do anything they can to apply to their customers.
This is clearly racism. I know Microsoft’s intentions were to market themselves to the white populated people of Poland, but they should have known that with politically correct United States, someone was bound to see this and bring it to the press. When a racist story reaches the press in this country there is no turning back, and it is extremely difficult to drop the racist tag if it applied to you. Extremely smart people founded Microsoft, and they should have known to keep the ad the way it is. I do not think anyone in Poland would have cared if a white or black person was sitting at a desk at some fake meeting.
One part of this photo, which caught my attention more than anything, is the hands. The fact that Microsoft did all the work to Photoshop the head and did nothing with the hands is a joke. Who were they kidding when they said that it was unison between white and black people? Who would actually believe that comment? At least have the decency to completely Photoshop everything out. How stupid does Microsoft think the general public is? It is not only insulting to the general public, but it is also insulting to black people.
The political correctness in this photo is almost annoying. It is not natural. In the original ad I do not see a white man, and I am not offended. There also is not a Hispanic person in the picture, and no one is yelling foul about that either. Microsoft needs to stop trying to please everyone. They should make their ads and not change them. Just make some advertisements with some groups of people and make others with other groups of people. I understand that the company is trying to target itself to many different races and groups of people, but Microsoft should find other means of doing it.
The smart thing to do would have been to have created a completely new advertisement for the Polish website. I am pretty sure that Bill Gates and Microsoft have enough money to make another one. By just making the new ad directed at the Polish population would have raised no problems at all, and now they would not be in a racist discussion. It is terrible for business to be in this position. This press only has people staying away from Microsoft because they do not want to support a racist company.
I can understand both sides of this story. I do believe that Microsoft did what they had to do in order to maximize their profit for their advertisement. But I also agree that it was sloppy of the company to not check over the picture more in depth to see that the hands were a different color than the face. I do not feel that the hand of the man was left on purpose. Nor do I believe that it was left that way to represent harmony. I understand why people get upset, and if the company would have taken more time to fix this, then the whole fiasco would not have occurred. However, I am sick of people pulling the race card at times that are unnecessary. It is ok to pull that card if Microsoft was in charge of a program to wipe out an entire race. Then I can see that as racist, barbaric, and extremely unethical. But an advertising team changing a mere photograph of a black man to a white man is not racist.
If this ad was in South America for instance, and the ad showed people of Hispanic origin in the picture, most people wouldn’t even think twice. So how is it any different if Poland wanted to show a white person in the picture to appeal to their overall population? I remember a response from someone talking about how in advertisement s for cleaning products women are usually portrayed. Although some people might notice this and seem offended, I will bet that most people do not see anything wrong with it. Isn’t that seen as sexist? And I believe that it is not. Showing a woman cleaning her kids dirty t-shirt with Tide is just more appealing to the target demographic that the product is designed for. The whole Microsoft incident is the same deal. The target demographic was a mostly-white population, so the company just changed the picture to appeal to the people of that country. I am sure that they were not thinking racist thoughts about black people and trying to exclude them.
Now if this ad was for the United States, which I believe the original, unchanged ad was, then I could see where it would cause mayhem by changing the black man to a white man. But that is because the target demographic in the United States is different than it is in Poland. There are people of many races, ethnicities, and cultures. So the original ad would be appealing to people in America because it promotes diversity. The bottom line is I feel that what Microsoft did to advertise to people in Poland was perfectly fine, and I believe people should take a few minutes to think things through before they freak out and blow things way out of proportion.
Political correctness or blatant racism? After reading the BBC news article and peers responses I would argue that the ad is blatant racism. Well, to a certain extent that is. In the United States version of the ad we see “diversity” at its best. An Asian man, a black man, and a white female, the epitome of diversity correct? I would argue that the US version speaks more about what our country is all about. As Sam explains in his blog, “Can’t have a photo without at least one person of color.” I think in the US this statement is completely accurate. As Americans, I feel like we would find the Polish ad very offensive and racist. The article states that Poland has a white demographic so I guess the reason they changed the ad was to reach the racial demographic. It makes sense that the company would want to reach out to its audience. However, I find that since the original picture includes such diversity, why would they make an effort to change it? The hands “for crying out loud” are still black. It bothers me that they would photoshop it so drastically. At first I was deciding between whether the ad was political correctness or blatant racism. It seems coming from where I grew up and the diverse country we live in, it is blatant racism. However, I could understand that Poland has such a white culture that they would want to use a “white” man. It may seem that I am somewhat contradicting myself, but let me explain. When it comes to advertising the advertiser wants to attract an audience. They will use various tactics to make sure the audience’s attention is caught. In Poland, if the ad contains three white human beings the audience is going to be happy. This seems like a crazy idea, but unfortunately it is what our world has come to. People feel more comfortable around people of their own race and people who look more like they do. So it would come as no surprise that if the same ad used in the US was used in Poland, there would be a somewhat uproar. It is just the way people work. Can we really blame them if thats what they grew up around? As Sam explained in class, most people feel more at ease when they see someone of the same color. I think this idea applies to this advertisement. In Poland, people are going to be OK with seeing an ad with people of white skin color. Meanwhile, in the US an ad with people of different color is OK because its a cultural acceptance. It all comes down to where you live and how you grew up. So in conclusion, I guess I would say that the ad is more racism than political correctness. I find it offensive that they would replace the black male white a white male, but I can’t blame Poland for its overall advertising techniques.
My first reaction upon reading this article was that this was a case of racism. But my jaded personality led me to think that this is simply another case of people overreacting to the perception of racism. One of the dirtiest things that someone could be called in this day and age is a racist. Right now we live in an era of political correctness. Presidential candidates can barley say what they want for fear of offending anyone. The mere accusation of racism is enough to move a person from the spotlight to the shadows of obscurity.
Now if a multinational corporation such as Microsoft was called racist? They would be in for a world of trouble. Marches would be organized, protests made, and a general uproar from the media. For a corporation to even be accused of racism would spell a huge loss in image, and more importantly in financial terms. Microsoft has already gone into full spin mode, apologizing for the incident and saying they would investigate who made the changes. I think that policy is troublesome. Why are they investigating the person who made the changes? To punish them? The person who made those alterations was simply doing their job in making sure that the product they were marketing was reaching the largest possible target audience. A huge business like Microsoft cannot operate without a successful advertising campaign. The way to make an advertising campaign effective is to have the audience relate to the other consumers of the product. In Poland, even if there is an underbelly of racism among the population, that would not be the reason for the change. The reason for the change is that they need to sell their product in the most effective way. In these tough economic times it takes a sound, strong marketing campaign to convince people not to hoard their money, and more importantly, to spend that money on your product. Microsoft is doing what every other company does in tailoring its advertisements to its market. When one wants to attract a youthful market, they don’t have their spokesperson as an old man in a wheelchair. And when the market is a country that is predominantly white, you tailor your product to those consumers. In the melting pot that is the USA, may god forbid you do not include every possible race and gender, but in many other countries, such as in Poland, having the majority be white is actually more representative.
The only mistake that Microsoft made in this situation was not the change from a black man to a white man, it was that they did not check their work and make sure to insulate themselves from the backlash. They may not have done the right thing in the alteration of the advertisement, but they most certainly did not do the wrong, racist thing.
In all honesty I think people on the whole are WAY too uptight about basically anything that has to deal with race. It feels as if anytime anything comes up that has to do with an interracial predicament everyone namely the media screams racism and both sides get up in arms about who was right and what went too far and on and on and on. If our society wants to truly get past racism then this type of shenanigans needs to stop. Honestly, I do not care how Microsoft advertises in Poland. If they are trying to appeal to a majority of a market then why should they not? Speaking purely as an American citizen, a white American citizen at that, I would not feel that a company or corporation is being racist if they had replaced a white person with a black person. I pose this question, if Microsoft had done the same thing but not replaced the black man but replaced the white woman with a Latina woman in an advertisement in let us say Mexico, do you think there would have been the same uproar and fuss about it? This is complete speculation obviously but I think the answer would invariably be no. Why is this do you think? Again this may be a biased view since I am white but it always seems when the predicament involves a white person over another race then it is racist however, if it is that the tables are turned and it is any minority (again I am just talking about in the United States since white people are a minority in the world) over a white person then racism is automatically attached to the situation. I do not want you to think that I just mean it is the minorities crying race every time either, on the contrary I think most of the time it is white people who think that when they cry racism in a certain situation when it involves a white person over a minority then that must mean that they are not racist. I feel that doing that is actually counter productive in the fight against racism and it actually hinders our growth as a society. I do however think that the wording of the advertisement may teeter the line. I do not know if this was just someone being lazy at Microsoft and doing a very terrible, I might add, copy and paste job over the black man’s head, but you have to wonder if they thought they (being Microsoft) would get away with no one noticing what they did here because “Empower YOUR people” ha ha really seems like Microsoft knew exactly what they were doing.
In a sense the picture seems wrong in today’s world because of the high influence that “affirmative action” has. Companies are aware they will come under fire by race groups for not properly representing different races. I am not an advertising major but it is just simple practice that you play to your audience and what will sell the product. The comment in the article left by a blogger about how the picture was symbolic of “interracial harmony,” I thought was idiotic. I myself am interracial and took it in a negative way. The picture was clearly not symbolic. Whoever the Photoshop artist was was just sloppy with their work. Yes, I do believe that Microsoft should investigate who did this because that person should lose their job. Not because of the “head switch”, but because the fool left the hands dark and the lighting on the white man’s head is different from that of the rest of the subjects. My question about the picture is why was it ok to leave the token Asianesc person in the picture? If Microsoft was so concerned about the picture not selling to White people in Poland would the Asian guy not fit the White demographic? The whole idea of the picture I do not really see it as racist; I see it more as just there. Exactly like Sam said in Miami the model is different from the one in Memphis, no one sees that as racist..Something funny about the picture was the slogan. “Empower your people,” empowerment is usually thought of something done for people who are underrepresented, i.e. minorities; which are what is being depicted by the original picture. So how are they visually showing that slogan in the Polish ad?
To make a comment about how white THON is I find it quite ironic that just this week at a S.M.A.R.T meeting that topic was touched upon. I guess because for the most part I fit into the “one drop rule.” From the outside I could basically pass as white, or some think Hispanic, when really I am half black. But when I attended THON last year as a freshman I really did not realize how few people of color there really were in attendance. I think it is because at least in the Black community cancer is not something you hear much about in children. The reason some of my dormmates, who are Black, did not attend was because they thought it was basically just something that the ‘White kids” did. At the S.M.A.R.T meeting the group was actually informed that the groups THON co-chair was herself, a Black female, a surviving Four Diamonds Child. Another negative with THON is the lack of different racial groups being on committees that help in the planning of THON.
Last year, I took a photojournalism class that studied the ethics and values of photographers and the manipulation and doctoring of pictures, especially regarding Photoshop. In this age of digital technology playing a part in advertisements, it’s almost always a routine for consumers to experience an ad that screams out the word, “Photoshop” to them. After class yesterday I realized how much Photoshop influence the way consumers should look or appear in society. Lightening creams, eyelid surgeries, and more, the advertisers try to portray what society seems. So it was no surprise when I saw the Microsoft ad that stirred up controversy among consumers and bloggers in America. It immediately reminded me of a case a couple of years back when a black student, Diallo Shabazz, was on the cover of the University of Wisconsin’s application form. The form was a picture depicting happy, spirited students cheering at a football game. The only problem was that Shabazz had never been to a UW football game. Someone had photoshopped his face from a different picture into the cover to create a more diverse student attendance. Shabazz sued and asked the University to set aside money for minority recruitment. They agreed. For that case, the situation was a controversial topic because it questioned how the University of Wisconsin’s policies were concerning the minorities and race among the student population. That individual who created the application form obviously thought that adding a black man would show possible students that the university was a very diverse one. But what are the repercussions about the Microsoft case? For such a powerful company, you would think that they would understand how the public reacts to altered pictures, especially concerning race. First of all, I don’t think the individual who reconfigured the image intended to create a man with a white face and black hands. I think they just overlooked the minor details while in the process of replacing the black man’s head with a white one. I think this ad is very conflicting because as much as we want to hate the person for changing the guys’ heads, we know that we make judgments all the time about ads that either have too little or too much diversity. Think about it. If you see a popular clothing ad with all white people you think the company is being racist and not showing a broader range of color. In another light, you notice a sports advertisement featuring all kinds of races and believe that they distinctly put those people together just to show how much their company concentrates on appealing to the entire audience. At the end of the day I think the person who manipulated this photograph didn’t have any intention of being racist by switching the two heads. He or she simply altered the photograph to appeal to the Polish audience, a predominantly white population. However, one wonders why he or she decided to change the black man’s head with the white one, instead of switching the Asian man’s head with a white man's head.
I believe that this was a clear mistake that could have easily been avoided. Yes, I do see what Microsoft was trying to accomplish, but it is something that isn’t exactly the easiest thing to do. There always seems to be a fine line when trying to target specific races because of the chance of looking racist. First off, the advertisement department for Microsoft seems to be over thinking a lot of the decisions that need to be made. I do understand that they were trying to satisfy the views of their target customers, just as many other companies do, but I really find it hard to believe that the Polish audience would change their thoughts on a Microsoft product just because of the color of someone’s skin within the advertisement. Secondly, if Microsoft really felt the need to make such a major change to an ad, it probably would have been best to come up with a completely different scene and scheme. Yes, I know that they intended to probably save money and just make the easy fix, but if you’re going to try to pull that off, don’t you think that the advertisement layout would have gone through multiple hands in the marketing department? By doing so, maybe more discussion would have developed about what really was the best thing to do for the company image. Away from all that, as I said before, the biggest mistake here I believe is the fact that Microsoft felt the need to have to crop out a man of color. Being a global company, they shouldn’t have to do such things once all people are represented within an advertisement. Their loyal and future customers should understand the fact that they are getting a product for an international company that targets many different audiences. Poland may in fact be predominantly white, but I doubt the fact that there are no people of color within the culture. Microsoft definitely knows that they made a mistake, but if the mistake was caught before the ad even went out, then we wouldn’t even be discussing this situation. If the ad was checked thoroughly, someone would have caught the mistake and there would not be any controversy. Yet, the mistake was made and now Microsoft is under discussion of whether or not they even had to worry about changing the ad to satisfy the Polish community. If this was working in the other direction and the ad was making its way to the United States, I do agree with the fact that Microsoft would have had more reason to discuss the issue of “photoshopping” in a black man for the white man. The United States in a more diverse place and doing so would prevent the company from seeming racist and willing to target people of all backgrounds.
I find this whole ordeal rather interesting and controversial. First, I’d like to comment on what the bloggers said. Some suggested that Microsoft tried to please all audiences by having a white man with black hands while others suggested it symbolized interracial harmony. I think these bloggers are wrong for two reasons. First of all, Microsoft apologized for editing the photo so therefore it was not intentional to leave the black hands. And secondly, this is an ad for Microsoft, not interracial harmony. Microsoft just made a stupid error by forgetting to change the hands to those of a white man to match the photo shopped head. I agree with those who said that Microsoft changed the head to appeal more to the Polish population, which is predominately white.
This advertisement goes to show the different cultures and what appeals to different countries. Polish consumers would rather see a white man in an ad than a black man. Here in America, we would like to see a mixture of ethnicities in our ads. I think immigration places a huge role in this. America is made up of so many different races and backgrounds that a variation is more appealing in an advertisement.
Microsoft’s advertising team must have done research and discovered that a white man would appeal more to the Polish population than a black man. If the black man stayed in the advertisement, it may not have had as much of an impact than the white man. This is similar to using a gay couple in a LGBT magazine rather than a straight couple. The target audience with this magazine is lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders. They would rather see a gay couple on the front of their magazine than a straight couple. Same goes for the people in Poland. They would rather see a white man in the ad than a black man.
I don’t think photo shopping the head in was that big of a deal. Yes, Microsoft could have redone the ad but that costs time and money. It was much easier to place a white man’s head on the body than to redo everything. However, if you are going to photo shop the head in, you have to be aware that the hands must be changed as well. I think Microsoft’s mistake was that they were not careful enough when they changed the photo and that is what started this downward spiral. What I don’t understand is why no one picked up on this mistake before the ad was put out to be viewed by the public. When I think of Microsoft, I think of a large corporation with many people and different stages. Someone or maybe even a team of people should have looked over the ad to make sure a mistake like this one did not happen.
Overall, Microsoft made a dumb mistake, but I don’t think they meant for it to become a race issue. Changing the head of the man is not racist. It is simply just appealing to your target market.
Is it racist, or is it not? This is the question I was struggling with as I was reading both the article and Sam’s response. Honestly, part of me feels it is, but the other part of me feels that it isn’t. On one side I feel that it is racist because it seems like Microsoft is not only slapping the African American in the face, but also stabbing him in the back. The slap came when first Microsoft decided to replace the African American in the ad. This man wasted his time, even though he probably got paid, for a company that is afraid to use his picture in some markets. The backstabbing occurred when they forgot to photoshop his hands. If I were in his position I would be than angry. I think I would actually try to sue Microsoft.
On the other hand I feel that it isn’t racist because some CEOs and business executives believe in the concept of doing anything to keep the business running. If the main demographic in Poland is Caucasian and Caucasians are the main consumers that are buying Microsoft products, why target your ads to anyone else? They could be going through a slight economic slump were they know that they can trust in the fact that Caucasians and even Asians, who are also represented in the ad, will still buy their products.
I disagree agree with some of the bloggers that are in the main article. I don’t think that the white guy with black hands is a symbol. To me, whoever changed the people in the ad wasn’t going for the whole try “to show that a person can be white and black, old and young at the same time” scheme. Yes, they might try to use that as an excuse if they are ever confronted about it. And yes, some people, like myself, are going to view it as a lame excuse and a way for this person to keep their job. Everyone has his, or her own opinions, but I believe that this bloggers reasoning is not of the person that photoshopped the ad.
As an African American myself, I feel like I should be a little more upset about the whole situation. The sad thing is I’m not; neither am I surprised. I honestly think it’s because I am used to it by now. Four to five decades ago, my ancestors along with other people of color fought against racism. Some of them never saw that their goal was met. I believe their goal was met for the majority, but there are still some groups that won’t accept it. Racism is like a disease that seems to never go away. Some of its strains may go away, but others still stay. They might not be strong strains, but they’re still present. These strains are what those in my generation and myself have to go through. Hopefully we can find a cure before they spread to our children and grandchildren.
Though it is clear that this is a careless, unnecessary mistake made by Microsoft, I cannot help but to be a little annoyed that this would cause such great attention. Even the title of the article, Microsoft in Web Photo Racism Row, struck a cord with me. Yes, how sloppy it was for Microsoft to quickly release an ad with such a blatant mistake, but to think that this error has brought up a racial controversy seems ridiculous to me. Yes, you can dig deep in to this situation and say that it was “raw” that Microsoft simply CUT out the black man and replaced IT with a white guy, but to claim that Microsoft and the corporate world are racist is a stretch in my opinion. The black men and the women are in American ads because they play a huge role in our society – to take out a man of color in a predominantly white society, such as Poland, does not flabbergast me.
It is the exact people that want the term “race” to be vanished from our vocabulary that are the ones to jump oh so quickly on to issues like this. If we keep calling people out on racism even if their main objective has nothing to do with race at all, this term will never be put to rest. For those who were angered by this mistake and decided that Microsoft is a racist company – maybe I am naïve, but I would have to beg to differ. Microsoft is a large corporate company and it is obvious that they are going to try their best to suit their target audience. How often do you see a skinny, white model in ads for RocaWear? Skim through a King Magazine as a white person, do you consider the ads and articles racist? No, because they are targeting a specific audience. Microsoft did not deem themselves as a racist company after the release of this add, they made an editing error, plain and simple.
Just as Sam Richards stated, an ad on the side of a bus in San Francisco may have an Asian woman while that same add in Memphis may replace the model with a black woman – so be it. To solve the majority of my problems in life I have found that simply putting myself in the other person’s shoes has been the most helpful method. As a blue-eyed blonde haired woman, I can honestly say that I would never be offended or outraged that my picture was used in an ad for Penn State University but replaced with a picture of a young black woman in an ad for Old Dominion. It is all about suiting your target audience, and if I am not the correct fit or I am too “ordinary,” I would understand. So, when it comes down to it, is the black man highly offended that he was in an American ad but not a Polish ad? Is he going to refuse to purchase Microsoft and convince others not to either? How silly this whole debacle would be if he shrugged his shoulders and said, “There are not many black men in Poland.”
More than anything, I find the Microsoft ad to be more comical than offensive. In today’s society, white people are so concerned with their remarks about race that they tend to hold back. As a white person I find myself holding back comments inside my head that I wish I could say, but ultimately keep to myself so that I do not offend anyone. Everyone always says that we as a country have defeated racism, which this ad proves to be a gigantic lie. The fact that a mistake as large as this photoshopping error can get by Microsoft is ludicrous. I really don’t think that because a black person is sitting at the table instead of a white person, a bunch of Polish people are going to refuse to buy Microsoft’s product? Microsoft is a worldwide multinational conglomerate and is one of the world’s most successful comapanies, do they really think that a black man will deter the Poles from buying their product that much? Everyone knows who Bill Gates is, and in some ways this screw up can, and probably will negatively affect him. The advertising company poorly thought this through when they were photoshopping the picture. Also, if they are really so concerned with the race in this advertisement why didn’t they also get rid of the Asian man? He isn’t a typical white male. It was dumb of Microsoft to release the original ad in the United States and then change the ad and re-release it in Poland so carelessly. Was no one double checking the ads, because this whole thing could have been easily avoided if someone had just taken the time to notice that the man’s hands were black and his face was white. I feel like this ad will negatively affect the company and it will also negatively affect Bill and Melinda Gates who both work had with their philanthropic charities and they are probably going to have to do some damage control in Poland. I feel that this ad raises issues of racism in America and how white people try so hard not to offend other people with any racist remarks because of slavery and segregation in the past. This ad makes it okay to say that companies today still consider whites to be more proficient in business, or computers or whatever this ad is trying to sell. I honestly don’t think that the skin color should not matter in the ad as long as the product is proficient and reliable. Microsoft has built a reputation in today’s society for building reliable computers and office products, and that is what they should market, not skin color. A company like Microsoft should not be so concerned with how race will affect their sales, they should be more concerned with how their product will perform in a competitive business market.
It’s no surprise to me that something like this occurred in modern day society. Race has, and always will, continue to be an ongoing debate in regards to the advertisement of goods and services. Most commercials involve representation from all races simply to avoid being accused of racism or prejudice. I think Sam’s example of selective advertisement is a perfect explanation of how marketing in today’s society. In this instance, somebody at Microsoft decided to alter the image of black man to that of a white man. The strange thing was they only altered the face and not the hands of the black male. Some of the defenses to this possible case of racism included that since this commercial first aired in Poland, a predominantly white society, that it was simply a marketing plan to make the Microsoft product appeal more to the Polish consumers. I think the poorest excuse to this was an earlier blog claiming it was a sign of racial harmony by only replacing the head but keeping the black hands.
Personally, I do believe this was completely wrong for Microsoft to do. As a business, it is an obvious practice to make your product as appealing as possible to your market. However, it is in no way justified to do something like this simply to make your goods more appealing to your target market. Basically, Microsoft is implying that although Poland is a predominantly white society, it is also a racist society. In addition they are implying that blacks simply are not “good” enough to be involved in the business world. I also believe the editor made a bonehead move by neglecting to change the hands of the man. The said part is, I agree with Sam when he claims, “if this had happened in the United States, I think it's probably more likely that the photoshopping would have occurred in the opposite direction--a white guy would have been replaced by a black guy.” Although marketing in the United States features people of all races in most of its commercials, that practice is done simply because we have to have at least one person of color in each advertisement or face ethical controversy. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe it is a good practice to incorporate all races in advertisement, but it should be for the sake of harmony and to show that everyone has an equal chance to be successful in a particular profession or using a certain product.
Obviously the media had a field day on this since race is such a touchy issue in regards to advertisement and marketing. The developed world focuses way too much on stupid race issues and whenever the media has a chance to exploit something along those lines they do.
When I first looked at this article and the two pictures, I was kind of torn. On the one hand, I was outraged that Microsoft would make the campaign one way and then completely change their minds and change the head of the only black man in the picture to that of a white man. Looking at the change and only the change, it is an extreme case of racism and it angered me that such a huge, successful company would be so careless about how they make their consumers feel. If I were a black consumer, I don't think I could help feeling personally attacked by the switch. Are they trying to say that black people not good enough for advertisement?! That’s just ridiculous! I thought we had risen above all that crap!
On the other hand, after reading through the specifics and reading other people’s opinions, the switch seems slightly less disturbing. The whole goal of advertising is to appeal to your audience. This is the very first thing you are told when attempting persuasion and let’s face it; advertising in its basic form is simply persuasion. You cannot sell a product, idea, service, etc. without knowing the specific audience that you are targeting. So after thinking about this aspect of advertising, the racial switch makes sense. It doesn’t seem hurtful or menacing, it is simply the company knowing and adapting their advertisement to a specific audience and that is an acceptable behavior.
With that being said, I am left with only one major concern. The switch was done in a very lazy, unprofessional way. Why on earth would they have gone through the trouble to change the man’s face but leave his hand exactly the same? I think the idea that this half and half man represents unity in society is ridiculous. That is giving them way more credit than they deserve! A more likely explanation is that they were simply lazy in making the switch. I think this fact is more disturbing than a company making a change to suit a specific audience. Had they completely changed the entire person sitting at that table, would people have still been as outraged? I’m sure some would have expressed anger at the company, but in my mind it would have been a much classier, professional way to go about doing this borderline racist thing … if racism can ever be classy.
As for the fact that they really believed that there was too much color at the table for a Polish audience, I find it sad that this is the case. I understand that Poland may be a primarily white population, however would acknowledging the fact that there are other races out there in the world be that disturbing to them? I think that whoever decided to make the change did not think very much of the Polish population. Do we really think that they cannot handle seeing people of other race in an advertisement? I don't think we’re giving them much credit at all. I would hope that they are just as aware as the rest of us that differences are everywhere among us.
Microsoft made a huge mistake, altering the color of a man’s skin to try to better relate to the customers they were targeting. However, can you say Microsoft is racist? Maybe. The majority of advertisements today are all suited for the certain audience being targeted. I’m a firm believer that racism still exists today, but I am also a believer that some people tend to look for it. Chances are people can question most ads. I can ask why was there not a white male in the American ad. Why don’t I? I would most likely be called racist or sexist, and the fact that I really do not care. I would have never noticed this mistake if it hadn’t been brought to my attention. That might also be because I am white. But for Microsoft to blatantly change a man’s skin color is completely different than not including a certain race or ethnic group at all. I can see why some individuals would be very upset with this ad. It makes you wonder is Poland racist, or are there any black people in Poland? What Microsoft should have done is make two completely different ads. One targeting Americans and one targeting the Polish. Although I’m sure someone would have had a problem with that as well. This is a prime example of why racism still exists today. This “political correctness” that everyone needs to abide by is making racism as strong as ever. Along with the media. Sure there are many things in today’s world worth taking a better look at. Rodney King, Matthew Sheppard, Katrina victims and President Bush. But this? There are far more important things going on right now that CNN can cover more in depth than a advertisement that will soon be forgotten. I’m not saying this is a petty matter but honestly, regardless of the ad, people will still purchase and use Microsoft products. The black population at Penn State who have Microsoft aren’t going to throw their computers out and purchase a more racial friendly application. What would everyone purchase? A Mac? Their main ad involves two white males. That would be hypocrisy. Tonight as your watching television, please notice how many different ads can be looked at as racial. For instance, has anyone seen the latest military ads? Most of them target the black and Hispanic communities. Why? I know I joined because I did not have the monetary means to go to college. I also know that the majority of the people I served with were Black or Hispanic. Why the public picked this ad to criticize is beyond me, but I do know this is not the first nor the last advertisement we will hear about due to racism.
My first reaction to seeing the mistake in the Microsoft ad was that I did not care one bit. There are so many more serious and real problems in the world today. It just seems completely silly that people would be offended and Microsoft should be seen as being racially insensitive. This led me to wonder why other people think it is a big deal when I only see it as a funny photoshop mistake. Guilty conscience perhaps? It seems to me that in America everyone is so focused on being politically correct and will quickly call out anybody or anything that appears to be in the slightest racist. They are so quick to crucify, that they lose sight of what “real” racism is and why it has and will have a negative effect on the world. It is obvious that Microsoft was trying to appeal to its target audience. They were targeting an area of the world that predominately consists of white people. There was no malicious intent to “hide” the undesirable black man from view so that the “racist polish” customer would be more likely buy the product. I truly believe it is not something to be upset about. I ask myself, does Microsoft’s decision to target the largest consumer population in Poland (which happens to be white) make sense? Yes. It is good business, it is good marketing, there are larger crimes going on in the corporate world than this (think about those wall street brokers that got caught stealing peoples money). Does getting upset that they removed a black man’s head from an advertisement and added a white man’s head make sense? No. I say no because I always thought one of the defining characteristics of racism was that there is the element of hatred behind racist actions. But in this case, there is no hatred. Humans will never stop stereotyping or noticing physical and cultural differences among one another. As long as there is no hate, no malice, no anger fueling the action, it should not be considered racist. What Microsoft did is perfectly fine with me and I do not think they have anything to apologize for. I think the people that should apologize are those that cry out racism in a situation like this. Those people are distorting what racism is, and distorting the important lesson we need to learn from the racism and slavery in our country’s past. An example of Microsoft being racist would be if they charged people of color extra money to buy their products in Poland. Ultimately, Microsoft was forced to apologize and the media got to take a few shots at a large corporation that should know better than to change their advertisement like that. Did it really make the world a better place?
This issue has me completely torn because I myself am black, but I also understand the corporate world and the brutality that can be and is advertisement. With this wonderful country called the United States I am allowed to not only have multiple or split opinions but I am also allowed to change them as often and as haphazardly as I please. So with this said let me try and argue both points as a means to try and convince both you and myself of what I think.
Being from the ethnic background that I am, African American with some traces of Portuguese, I find it utterly appalling that this company would completely (I use this term figuratively, seeing as though the guys hands were still there rules our literally) obliterate the existence of the African American and honorable attempt of diversity in the ad. Why is that people can’t see or won’t buy something that has and African American, or someone of a difference race then the norm on the cover? How long are we going to live in a world where the only “perfect” person is someone who is white, blonde, blue eyes, straight, and just barely nourished? Even after what all the martyrs like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, even Harriet Tubman have done to get us on an equal footing and to make a platform where blacks can be in a board meeting? It’s sad when even a civil war couldn’t stop the discrimination and degradation. This act doesn’t surprise me; and it saddens me that is still going on.
Now to the soulless business minded argument. It is proven, yet shallow fact that more people will buy things from people that look like them. They get a sense of connection to the product because they are reminded of themselves and what they know. It also doesn’t surprise me that the same advertisement can be run in different cities with different people on it. Memphis has a high concentration African American people living there, and Miami is a known Latino hub. It would be foolish and economic suicide to have the classic white girl on the advertisement because people in that community wouldn’t take a second glance. This is why people are paid to do market research. They go out and get demographics for their area, ask questions, and see what gets people to spend their money. Bottom line the research shows that people will spend money on things and people that they feel a connection with. There are no black guys in Poland, so why should there be one on one of their advertisements?
While it deeply saddens me that this is the way the culture has become, I feel I would have done the same thing myself. The advertising world is a numbers and money game as with everything else. I am not afraid or ashamed to say that I will only buy hair straightening products that have black women on the cover. Does this make me racist?
This advertisement is show both of Political Correctness and Blatant Racism. Because they have two advertises and it’s for two different countries. And if they don’t racist why they have to change the man head in the advertisement! And I think they want to earn good money in Poland that why they changed the head of the black man to a head of the white man.
The first advertisement for United States is represent for all the people come from different countries and different cultural, because United State is a diversity country where is a lot of different cultural lives. So I think that is why Microsoft wants to mix all the people in different skin colors in the ad to show the diversity in the U.S and represent for USA. However, the second advertise that they edit and post in the Polish and changed the head of the black man to a head of a white man. According to “I spent two months in Poland and it is clearly the "whitest" locale that I've ever visited--even whiter than the BJC during THON. “ (Lines 21 – 23). So this is mean Poland is have a lot of white people living, and it’s seem that the Microsoft company changed the head in the ad just want to bring their relationship closer to the Polish, and sell their products and earn big money.
In another way, I think it’s just the environment of the market because according to “An ad for buses in San Francisco might have an Asian woman, for example, while the exact same advertisement for Memphis or Miami buses would replace the model with a black woman in Memphis and an Hispanic woman in Miami.” (Lines 26 – 30). Base on the quote I think this is not racist because the adversities don’t have to be the same all the same; it’s have to be creative and artistic in the ads. Sometime I think they need to be different model for the products and maybe in San Francisco have more Asian live there and that why they hire an Asian woman to be the model, and as same as Miami and Memphis. Because United States is a diversity country so they can hire different model to show that United States is diverse.
Besides, I think Microsoft just want to sell their products in Poland and want their products get in to the Poland marketing as well. But I don’t think they should changed the head of the black to the white man in the picture for, because they should be proud that Microsoft corporation is come from United States of America where is the most diverse in the world.
The Microsoft ad controversy is hard to classify as either clear-cut racism or simply targeting a specific audience. In the United States, we see ads all the time featuring every ethnicity that will fit in the shot. This is because America is “the melting pot of the world,” having such an assortment of “races” (or rather different physical features), that appealing to everybody makes sense. I have never been to Poland, but from what Professor Richards says in his post; their communities are primarily white skinned. It would only seem sensible to appeal to the largest target audience. But what does that say about worldwide consumers (the U.S. included)? I feel like in 2009 the color of someone’s skin shouldn’t determine whether or not a product sells. Why do we only trust those who look like us?
On the other hand, this type of advertisement censorship could further perpetuate the stereotypes we are trying to stray from. When the black man’s face is swapped for the white man’s, it seems to be a blatantly racist decision that displays only light skinned people in corporate positions- looking jolly with their water bottles and computers, laughing at something happening to their right. Although there may be a majority of whites in Poland, why not include/appeal to everyone when selling a product? I don’t blame the country of Poland for this error (is error the right word?) because the company of Microsoft as a whole is made up of (I assume) many different types of people. I think that if we had more information, such as the ethnicity of the person who changed the picture; their motives for doing so; and if Microsoft didn’t act so casual about the situation, it wouldn’t have been blown up into nationwide gossip. The fact that Microsoft did not address the public and give a reason for the change is what made people so mad, at least in my perspective.
The BBC News article said that Microsoft was looking into the issue of who altered the image. I think this makes their corporation look unorganized and ill-managed if they don’t know who is making the decisions for advertisements that will be seen not only by Poland but by the rest of the world. This seems like a nonchalant way of excusing the issue without claiming responsibility. If the advertisers at Microsoft felt the need to change the ad, they should be ready and able to back up their decision (especially if another, whiter version of the ad exists one click away on the internet). I do not believe the man’s hand was left unaltered on purpose. I think it was a careless mistake, and because of all the rumors circulating (that a white man’s face with a black man’s hand shows integration in the workplace), Microsoft should have made a statement about the circumstance they are in.
When I look at the Microsoft ads and how they photoshopped out a black man’s head in favor of a white man’s in Poland, I feel that is racist to an extent, but I’m not sure that it’s overtly and blatantly racist. While I can see why these ads and the photoshopping can be seen as racist, with it looking like Microsoft believed that the people of Poland (no matter how white the country is) couldn’t handle seeing a black face in the advertisement and would hurt their business.
But at the same time, a major part of advertising is playing to your audience or demographic and that’s why I feel this decision was made, and was made without looking at the obvious racial undertones of the decision and how poorly it looks for Microsoft. Yes, you want to play to your demographic, yes you want to put the best advertisement out there to draw the most business, but you also want to do it with care and grace. You don’t want to just rip someone’s head out of an ad and paste another one in all for the sake of the almighty dollar. In my opinion, it just helps further the image of Microsoft as this big soulless corporate giant that cares for no one but themselves and will do anything to make a buck. There’s a reason that people refer to Microsoft as M$ and this certainly won’t help that image.
Just like you said, companies shift their advertisements in different markets all of the time. But what they don’t do, is obviously cut out a black man’s head and replace it with a white man’s, all the while leaving his hands still in the photo. It’s insulting to the people of Poland because Microsoft obviously believed that their country is so white and so isolated from other races that they couldn’t possibly handle a black face in an advertisement. It’s insulting to everyone who sees these ads because it’s just so blatant and it’s just so in your face. It also makes me wonder if those shifts in advertising are also just as racist and insulting as this, even if they aren’t as in your face. Does it mean that these companies believe that we are so divided as a people and a country that we wouldn’t possibly by a product unless it had a similar face attached to it in the advertisement? Should we be more insulted and outraged when this happens in markets like Miami or San Francisco and not just when Microsoft does a poor photoshop in an ad in Poland? I believe we should, because in my opinion, just because you can’t tell it’s happening, doesn’t mean it’s not racist. It may not be overtly racist, but it’s racism and in the end, that’s really all that matters.
Microsoft is not perfect, but the company spends enough money on advertising that it should be assured all ads were perfect before sent out of Microsoft’s hands. The fact that the black man’s face was replaced and not his hands, just makes the company look amateur, especially to Polish consumers. The unchanged hands are not the only problem with the advertisement. I do not think the ad should have to be changed for any area in the world. Are the Polish so racist that they cannot even see people of another race? Or is that the way the media wants them to think? There are many unanswered questions about this controversial change that leaked a secret of manipulating a photo to reflect racism.
I find it unfathomable that it is the year 2009 and there are still so many people that have a problem with more than one race or ethnic group. Growing up, I lived in a very small town in Florida and I still did not see differences between people. Next door there were extremely religious Hispanics and while my mother did not associate with them, I was always intrigued by them. Also, down the street was a black family that my family was very good friends with. Even in an area of Florida that could be deemed a racist place, I grew up focusing on personalities. Those are the reasons why I really do not understand why it is that Microsoft just had to change their advertisement to appeal to a certain group of people. After all we are all human with 99.9% of the same genetic makeup.
It is understandable that Poland is a predominately white race populated area and Microsoft did not want to offend anyone in the area, but that just accentuates the fact that the advertisement should have been checked over many times for accuracy. Maybe the mistake was a good thing though, because then the rest of the world would not have been able to see what exactly the company does to appeal to certain areas of the world. I still do not think that it was necessary to change the image though. Regardless if there are no minorities or people of color in the area, they should not be subjected to censorship of race. Political correctness, I think, is just an excuse that Microsoft used to make the company not seem racist in any way, but what I see is blatant racism.
The solution that I have to this issue is to educate the inhabitants of Poland on the peaceful areas of the world that are considered melting pots of race and ethnic groups. The more educated people are on different races; the more likely they are to accept them.
Microsoft is not perfect, but the company spends enough money on advertising that it should be assured all ads were perfect before sent out of Microsoft’s hands. The fact that the black man’s face was replaced and not his hands, just makes the company look amateur, especially to Polish consumers. The unchanged hands are not the only problem with the advertisement. I do not think the ad should have to be changed for any area in the world. Are the Polish so racist that they cannot even see people of another race? Or is that the way the media wants them to think? There are many unanswered questions about this controversial change that leaked a secret of manipulating a photo to reflect racism.
I find it unfathomable that it is the year 2009 and there are still so many people that have a problem with more than one race or ethnic group. Growing up, I lived in a very small town in Florida and I still did not see differences between people. Next door there were extremely religious Hispanics and while my mother did not associate with them, I was always intrigued by them. Also, down the street was a black family that my family was very good friends with. Even in an area of Florida that could be deemed a racist place, I grew up focusing on personalities. Those are the reasons why I really do not understand why it is that Microsoft just had to change their advertisement to appeal to a certain group of people. After all we are all human with 99.9% of the same genetic makeup.
It is understandable that Poland is a predominately white race populated area and Microsoft did not want to offend anyone in the area, but that just accentuates the fact that the advertisement should have been checked over many times for accuracy. Maybe the mistake was a good thing though, because then the rest of the world would not have been able to see what exactly the company does to appeal to certain areas of the world. I still do not think that it was necessary to change the image though. Regardless if there are no minorities or people of color in the area, they should not be subjected to censorship of race. Political correctness, I think, is just an excuse that Microsoft used to make the company not seem racist in any way, but what I see is blatant racism.
The solution that I have to this issue is to educate the inhabitants of Poland on the peaceful areas of the world that are considered melting pots of race and ethnic groups. The more educated people are on different races; the more likely they are to accept them.
After reading the BBC article, I saw a great amount of controversy with whether or not the altered image was “morally wrong.” First off, it’s completely true that American advertisements/movies or any other publicities always need to include someone of color and a woman to control racism. Can racism even be defined/ where do we draw the line between something that could potential be racist or not? It’s ridiculous that these days, every step we take we need to look left and right three times to make sure we’re not offending anyone or acting in a racist manner. As mentioned in class, “no one can offend you, unless you make yourself feel offended.” With that said, the concept of changing the color of a picture from color to white is completely offensive. If this man was completely cut out and replaced.. not so much. I feel this way because, looking at it from a marketing perspective, advertising agents shouldn’t have to be focused on whether or not they are offending others in a different population. Their goal is to attract a certain group of people to whom the product is related to. For example, if I was advertising a Chinese restaurant, I would obviously focus on including more Asians in the picture than other people of color. If I used the same advertisement for an Indian Restaurant, it would be immoral to change the color of their face to look Indian. However, cutting one of the Asians out of the picture and completely replacing him/her with someone who is Indian is only done to target those who would be more interested in the Indian Restaurant. In no way should that be offensive to Asians/Indians, unless their faces are photo-shopped into someone else.
In this article, the fact that someone’s head was replaced, while their hands remained from another man is completely wrong. No one’s excuse for such a “mistake” should be that it was done intentionally to include both races in one man. Obviously, there were many intentions in the picture but none of which included keeping him both colored and white. If one of the points in the advertisement was to market the product to both men of color and white men, they could have easily retaken the picture to include an Asian, American(white person), African American, and a Woman. Adding another person would not have affected the advertisement. Moreover, the fact that this advertisement was targeted to the population of Poland is interesting because I am Russian, and could say that none of the people in the picture look like they are from a European background. Maybe, one of the three has some polish background that is not visible, but the point of it is that none of them “look” polish, so if this advertisement was truly done to target only people living in Poland, why wouldn’t they add those that look like they are of a Polish decent. More importantly, why was the man of color changed to be white? Most of the Polish population is white; however, there aren’t many Asians as well. Looking at it from another view, why was the man of color changed but not the Asian man?
The incident that occurred with the black man’s head being cut out of the advertisement was ridiculous. Personally, I cant stand to see things like this happen in our society because I feel that it just promotes racism instead of unity. We still live in a world with racism, and to tell you the truth incidences like this will never end. I say this because you can clearly see Microsoft make up a dumb excuse so they don’t get sued. Well I think that the black man should sue Microsoft for everything they got. I guess Microsoft was trying to appeal to the polish markets since that country’s dominated with white people. Lets get real, they should be interested in what the Microsoft product has to offer instead of what type of people are associated with the product. Some people need to get out of their own ways and see the world for how it really is in this day and age. For those bloggers who say that the white head and black hands on the persons body depicts interracial harmony, I would like to know where that wild idea came from. I mean, in our society you are either black, white, Asian, etc. There is no such thing as a white person having black hands. Why couldn’t it be a black head with white hands? The symbolism of a black head and white hands would be different than the white head with black hands but the photo was not edited in that way because of the racist and negative view of black people. Personally both of those ideas are simply ignorant. But whoever edited or photo shopped the photo clearly hated black people. But its ok, the minority will become the majority and soon that persons ideas, thoughts, and values will have little meaning . Interracial harmony could be a lot better in our world than what it is right now. Even being here at school I still see racism frequently and quite frankly I wish it would end. For example, telling someone not to let one of my friends in a party because black people are anthrax, enough said. Also, I think to myself why wasn’t the Asian mans’ head cut out. Asians are minorities just as blacks are and I know that they don’t consider themselves to be white. Asians look nothing like white people, so his head should have been cut out as well. In saying that, racism towards black people is still alive in society. Nonetheless, I have learned to deal with such ignorance that continues to plague our society. After reading this article, it just lets me know that no matter what, racism will continue to exist until people in general come to their senses and realize that the world would be a better place if racism were to end.
I chose to present my opinion on the blog entry entitled “Political Correctness or Blatant Racism.” I can find arguments to support both sides of the debate. On one hand, I can understand why Microsoft would want to edit the photo because of the target audience and their respective culture. Contrarily, the way Microsoft went about photo shopping the picture was completely inappropriate, and I’m sure they will pay because of their choice. The side presented in the blog defending Microsoft’s advertisement alteration made logical business sense. No smart company would advertise in a way that would be anything less than ideal for the particular product they were selling to that specific audience. An African-American in an advertisement directed towards a Polish audience is probably not the most effective option for that particular situation. With that simple fact stated, it should not be offensive or inappropriate that the African-American in the advertisement was replaced with a more culturally appropriate model for the Polish version of the advertisement. It is the goal of the business to maximize value and profit for the shareholders and if being especially politically correct interferes with that goal then obviously certain steps would be taken to pursue profits over political correctness, all other things being equal. However, Microsoft took a cheap and easy way out, which is probably the most telling reason why people are so fired up about the altered advertisement. The fact that they only photo shopped the head of the African-American model doesn’t present Microsoft in a positive light. If they would have done an alternate photo shoot for the Polish version, it would have been much more appropriate and showed some thought and common sense on behalf of Microsoft. The fact that they probably took a small fraction of time to just photo shop the head of the model shows that Microsoft is lazy and not overly concerned about their image, or that they just made a severely poor judgment call. Again, I cannot fault them for trying to adjust the advertisement because they are marketing towards a different crowd than the one the original advertisement was intended for. The thing that is most bothersome is the way they went about changing the advertisement so carelessly and unprofessionally. One last point, not to be insensitive, but I feel that if any Caucasian had been substituted out for a minority there would not be a big issue, regardless of the intended audience. I think that the particular models that were substituted in and for whom they were substituted in for make this issue appear to be larger than it really is. In conclusion, I think that the model substitution and photo shop was extremely poorly done; however, I can justify the reasons behind Microsoft’s intent. While a company still has to be responsible for its actions, if its any consolation, I do not believe that Microsoft intended their advertisement to be as hurtful as some have taken it.
The incident that occurred with the black man’s head being cut out of the advertisement was ridiculous. Personally, I cant stand to see things like this happen in our society because I feel that it just promotes racism instead of unity. We still live in a world with racism, and to tell you the truth incidences like this will never end. I say this because you can clearly see Microsoft make up a dumb excuse so they don’t get sued. Well I think that the black man should sue Microsoft for everything they got. I guess Microsoft was trying to appeal to the polish markets since that country’s dominated with white people. Lets get real, they should be interested in what the Microsoft product has to offer instead of what type of people are associated with the product. Some people need to get out of their own ways and see the world for how it really is in this day and age. For those bloggers who say that the white head and black hands on the persons body depicts interracial harmony, I would like to know where that wild idea came from. I mean, in our society you are either black, white, Asian, etc. There is no such thing as a white person having black hands. Why couldn’t it be a black head with white hands? The symbolism of a black head and white hands would be different than the white head with black hands but the photo was not edited in that way because of the racist and negative view of black people. Personally both of those ideas are simply ignorant. But whoever edited or photo shopped the photo clearly hated black people. But its ok, the minority will become the majority and soon that persons ideas, thoughts, and values will have little meaning . Interracial harmony could be a lot better in our world than what it is right now. Even being here at school I still see racism frequently and quite frankly I wish it would end. For example, telling someone not to let one of my friends in a party because black people are anthrax, enough said. Also, I think to myself why wasn’t the Asian mans’ head cut out. Asians are minorities just as blacks are and I know that they don’t consider themselves to be white. Asians look nothing like white people, so his head should have been cut out as well. In saying that, racism towards black people is still alive in society. Nonetheless, I have learned to deal with such ignorance that continues to plague our society. After reading this article, it just lets me know that no matter what, racism will continue to exist until people in general come to their senses and realize that the world would be a better place if racism were to end.
I am writing about the article about the issue with the photoshopping of the black man out with the white guy. There are many opinions that can be brought out about this. Some would think this is racist, and some would not. I can see the idea that just because it was for a polish community, then all of the people in there should be white. The analogy by Sam was that if it was a Memphis, a black person would be there, or if it was Miami, then it would be a Hispanic. I understand that point of view, but as he stated, it would be better to switch the person, instead of the head. But what makes it worse is that anyone can tell the difference between the two pictures like the old school puzzles or the ones in the newspaper. They just switched the head
Now clearly in the pictures on the site, there is a white woman on the right, and it looks to me, an asian on the left. Why is there no concern for that man? If the black man was to be edited out, then why not the asian? To me, it seems as if, it was polish, then it should have been all polish. That is not fair at all that the asian is there, but the black man can not be there. And would the same situation come out if it was a Hispanic person in that seat? I wonder what the conclusion would be from that.
I mean, there are some situations where the ad has to get the point across. Like for LGBT people, the ad can’t show straight people because the whole concept of the ad is not found. But this was an ad from Microsoft to the public in Poland. Why can’t there be a black man there, especially if Microsoft is used by everyone? Now I think they didn’t want to take the asian out because if it was all whites to the polish public, then they would really look racist. But cropping out a head of a photo still makes the whole situation wrong.
Now the ad itself is wrong already. Who made the decision for this to be done in it? Microsoft has the ability to do whatever it wants in its ads because it is their company. So was it up to Microsoft to make the decision? Or the head boss? Is there just one certain person that is racist or is it the company? Bill Gates by any chance? Microsoft is used by many people of race and color, basically saying it is universal. So why can’t there be mixed races in the ad? I don’t think this right at all, and that is not a good thing for Microsoft to do. They took a risk with this, and they are going to get a shot of retaliation from it.
I chose to present my opinion on the blog entry entitled “Political Correctness or Blatant Racism.” I can find arguments to support both sides of the debate. On one hand, I can understand why Microsoft would want to edit the photo because of the target audience and their respective culture. Contrarily, the way Microsoft went about photo shopping the picture was completely inappropriate, and I’m sure they will pay because of their choice. The side presented in the blog defending Microsoft’s advertisement alteration made logical business sense. No smart company would advertise in a way that would be anything less than ideal for the particular product they were selling to that specific audience. An African-American in an advertisement directed towards a Polish audience is probably not the most effective option for that particular situation. With that simple fact stated, it should not be offensive or inappropriate that the African-American in the advertisement was replaced with a more culturally appropriate model for the Polish version of the advertisement. It is the goal of the business to maximize value and profit for the shareholders and if being especially politically correct interferes with that goal then obviously certain steps would be taken to pursue profits over political correctness, all other things being equal. However, Microsoft took a cheap and easy way out, which is probably the most telling reason why people are so fired up about the altered advertisement. The fact that they only photo shopped the head of the African-American model doesn’t present Microsoft in a positive light. If they would have done an alternate photo shoot for the Polish version, it would have been much more appropriate and showed some thought and common sense on behalf of Microsoft. The fact that they probably took a small fraction of time to just photo shop the head of the model shows that Microsoft is lazy and not overly concerned about their image, or that they just made a severely poor judgment call. Again, I cannot fault them for trying to adjust the advertisement because they are marketing towards a different crowd than the one the original advertisement was intended for. The thing that is most bothersome is the way they went about changing the advertisement so carelessly and unprofessionally. One last point, not to be insensitive, but I feel that if any Caucasian had been substituted out for a minority there would not be a big issue, regardless of the intended audience. I think that the particular models that were substituted in and for whom they were substituted in for make this issue appear to be larger than it really is. In conclusion, I think that the model substitution and photo shop was extremely poorly done; however, I can justify the reasons behind Microsoft’s intent. While a company still has to be responsible for its actions, if its any consolation, I do not believe that Microsoft intended their advertisement to be as hurtful as some have taken it.
The decision to alter the head of the black man in the Microsoft Ad initially seems like a blatantly racist move, one that must have been at the hands of corporate America. Let’s be frank – it was corporate America who made the decision. It’s interesting to see that those here in America are furious about the decision; has anyone asked how the Polish feel about the chage?
Had an ad for a large company like Microsoft been presented of only white people in America, there would have uproar due to the lack of racial sensitivity. If a man of color had not been included, Microsoft would have been slapped with a lawsuit and criticized all over the media for not being sensitive enough to the market their advertising in.
But isn’t that exactly what they’re doing for the Polish market? Poland is a largely white country; 96% according to the 2002 Census. In that culture, the inclusion of someone of color would look odd and out of place. Microsoft was simply doing the same thing they do here, but for a less diverse demographic. Can they really be slandered for doing what they do here? It’s a bit hypocritical.
That being said, I don’t think Microsoft handled this decision to display altered advertisements for the same product in the best way. This isn’t the first ad to be shown in Poland, so they should have some experience in what ads work best. This includes the type of models to use and in what situations. As such, they should have shot an entirely different picture for the Polish market. In doing so, they would not have had the scandal associated with a poor Photoshop job. On a side note: Microsoft has some of the smartest and best computer engineers in the world, and they couldn’t correct the color of a hand?
Ultimately, Microsoft can’t be criticized for trying to please all the markets they cater too; they’re too diverse. When a company reaches the size of such a large corporation, there are going to be differing markets, markets that will be drastically different. As such, the ad that works in one location isn’t guaranteed to work in another. While America is racially diverse and a mixing pot of ethnic cultures, Poland isn’t. To display the same ad that was prepared for the U.S. would be a stupid business move.
In my opinion, Microsoft had the right idea in changing an ad for the market, but it was poorly executed. If they could afford to take another picture of another man and edit his head into the original, the definitely could afford to shoot another picture. If for some reason this isn’t the case with one of the largest companies in existence, they can at least fire their Photoshop tech and hire someone worthwhile. Someone who would change the skin color entirely.
I have taken an advertising class in which one the most essential things when it comes to selling a product or a service is keeping in mind the targeted population of who the product is being sold to. One of the tactics to sell the product or service is pleasing the population the service or product is being sold to. I do understand that Microsoft was only trying to reach the targeted population, in this case, the polish. However, this brings up a red flag. This simple error makes me think that there are still individuals or organizations (for example Microsoft in this case) that are still stuck with past notions. I do not consider it racism, but I believe that they are contributing in a negative way to society. I think Microsoft without unintentionally wanting to just pointed out that in the market certain races have preferences over other races. I think that with this strategic marketing idea they are still stuck in the past. Microsoft is not progressing along with the idea that is time for a change. They still believe that the polish pupation are still selecting individual over others. In this case, that a black person would be less pleasing to the targeted population and therefore lets include the white individual instead.
As the article states a strategy use by companies to appeal to different markets is by using different tactics. For example, the ad for buses in San Francisco might have an Asian woman, while the exact same advertisement for Miami would replace the woman for a Hispanic. I think that this type of advertisement only affects our society in a negative way because it binds them to their race and their beliefs. This type of advertising does not let the individuals know more than what they are expose to. This whole article and the error that Microsoft made makes only reiterates how powerful the media is and how they have an effect on how things work around people in this case the race issue. I am not against the action that Microsoft did. I understand that this is the way that we as a society have stated the rules, that we prefer certain things over other things and that surely certain things attract more our attention over others. Certain bloggers thought that this was not in any way a racist remark by Microsoft and I do think that to, however, I also think that such a big corporation should be more careful not to make such errors. Other bloggers also thought that that Microsoft was just simply trying to “please all markets,” however I think that this was clearly an error made by them.
Companies are known for developing advertising campaigns in order to appeal to either a wider audience or at times, a targeted audience. It comes to no surprise that Microsoft was trying to assimilate into the Polish economy in order to get more business from that economy. For example, in Puerto Rico, Burger King has commercials in Spanish, with Puerto Rican actors, and at times displaying a sports team that is sponsored by Burger King; normally they present sports that are popular on the island, like volleyball or basketball. Also, French fries can be changed for onion rings and “tostones” (fried plantains). Puerto Rico is known for having pork roasts all over the island, especially in the Christmas season. It was because of this that Subway restaurants began selling pulled pork sandwiches. However, replacing the head of a black man with one of a white man is an example of a company’s marketing scheme taken too far. Never have I seen any company bluntly replace a person because for their race in order to acquire more profit in a country, at least not in the twenty-first century and with a black president. I wonder how is it possible that in this day and age, corporate companies have to advertise to not only to differing nationalities but to races as well. What if these things happen every day and no one notices? For example, today I was on the White Loop and I looked at an advertisement for AT&T Wireless that said something like: “Penn State students use AT&T” and there was a picture of a blond white girl. I thought: “Is that what a typical Penn State student is?” I am neither a female nor am I white, so I was surprised to see that AT&T made an advertisement with person on only one racial group and to top it all off it was the dominant one. I also began to think if that is what a typical Penn State student is to AT&T. Even though Caucasians make up most of the campus, there is a diverse minority group; including Africans, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. If I worked in the marketing department of AT&T, I would have gone the extra mile and make the same advertisement with different pictures. In Microsoft’s case there is no political correctness, I believe it is just blatant racism. To change a person’s picture because of their ethnicity and skin tone is clearly a discriminatory action. I believe that the way the black man was replaced is also symbolic; his head was replaced, decapitated. How is it possible that Microsoft, a company that is owned by the multi-billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates, commits such a despicable act? This situation is clear evidence that racism still exists, not only in America, but globally as well.
My initial reaction to this article was that I was extremely surprised to reading about something like this. In America, we are used to seeing people who are different from us on television, in advertisements and all around us. It seems to be that most advertisements in America are purposely filled with diverse people so as to please all audiences. Because of this, this article took me by surprise. I was also pretty surprised that a company like Microsoft could make such a silly mistake by not changing the hand of the black man along with replacing the face. If that mistake had been avoided, I think this whole problem would have been avoided more than likely. This mistake, made by Microsoft, definitely brings race and racism up as a large issue that Microsoft will now have to deal with.
It just seems so strange that Microsoft would have to worry about an advertisement using a black man. Although I cannot really know because I have never been to Poland myself, it is safe to say the population there is mostly made up of white people and that their advertisements are probably not usually as diverse as the ones we see every day in America. However, I do not see the need to change the ad around and replace the black man with a white man. While the Polish people may not be used seeing black men around, Microsoft is obviously a company that works throughout the world and therefore, should not have to be changing its ads from country to country based on the people in the ads. I don’t think the people viewing the ad in Poland would really be that against an ad with a black man in it. I understand that they want to make the ad more relatable to the audience viewing it, but it really does not seem to be that big of a deal to me. Whether the man in the ad is white or black, the same message about the product should be able to reach the people watching.
According to the article, one blogger wrote, “the white head and black hand actually symbolize interracial harmony.” I have to disagree with whoever this was. That is completely ridiculous. If Microsoft wanted to symbolize racial harmony within their ads, wouldn’t they simply have left the black man, Asian man, and white woman together as in the original ad? That would seem the more logical option. In response to that blogger, I have to say that his or her idea was not very well thought out. Clearly this was just a mistake made by Microsoft that they are now going to have to deal with controversy for. This blogger’s idea was an interesting way to try and cover a mistake, but honestly that’s all it was, a mistake For that matter, it was a mistake that could have been avoided if the ad did not have to be changed in the first place.
Microsoft did make huge mistake by changing a black man face into white man face instead. It’s hard to believe that a big company like this would do such a thing, or at least they could’ve done a better job with photoshop. I didn’t notice that the white man’s hand is black until I read this article. First thought that came to my head was that this is racist and why big company like Microsoft would do something like this. It will definitely affect their reputation. Then after I read through the article, my thought started to change. Since my major is marketing, it’s totally understandable if the reason Microsoft changed the face of the two men are for advertising. Population in Poland is mostly white and it would be better for marketing if the people in commercial would be all white too. It seems more realistic. Moreover, not only Microsoft did this. Other companies also did the same thing. For example, McDonald’s commercials in Asia are full with Asians. However in their case, they did not just change the face of the person to different race but they have totally different commercial for it.
If you look at it in business point of view, it makes more sense if Microsoft changes from white man to black man. Of course profit is the most important thing. All businesses want to make profit. When it’s about money, people tend to care less about morality. Most humans, especially businessman, would do whatever they can to get most profit out of something. I would do the same thing as Microsoft if that will help me earn more money and I’m not being racist. It’s all about business and marketing. It’s about how do I plan to make money for my company. I might do it differently from how Microsoft did it because it’s a bit too obvious. Microsoft could’ve found a different way to do this or at least do a better job. I’m extremely disappointed to know that the big software like Microsoft made a mistake and forgot to change the color of the man’s hand to match with his face.
After all, I do not think what Microsoft did is racist. They did it for marketing and for advertisement. Totally understandable, at least to me. If you look at it in business point of view, there’s nothing wrong with doing such a thing, However, if u look it the moral side, it’s wrong. Black man has the same right as white man to be on commercial. It depends on how you look at the issue. Everyone has different opinion and of course, no one is write or no on is wrong.
I understand both sides to this argument, but I am torn on what side I stand on. I do not believe that Microsoft’s intentions can be considered completely racist. I just think this ad became over analyzed because of the world we live in today. Yes, the company came across as being racist, but because of their stupidity.
I would like to see the process behind this advertisement campaign, and more specifically the discussions among the associates. The marketing and advertising departments must be very complex at Microsoft, and they most likely spent a lot of money and time on this advertisement campaign. I do not believe that this was a decision of one Microsoft associate, therefore it had to of been approved at many different levels of management. Therefore, numerous people in the approval process had to agree with the decision to remove the black male. However, I think major companies who produce countless advertisements, have a branding department to regulate advertising. Therefore, it does surprise me that they missed the black hand and I find this very embarrassing.
I believe that Microsoft changed this advertisement to satisfy Poland’s market, or else they would not have changed it in the first place if the market were consistent around the world. If they felt the Polish consumers would not relate well to the advertisement and that as a result this would negatively affect their sales, then this makes business sense. However, I highly doubt that there is research to prove that Poland consumers are less likely to respond to an ad with a black male, considering there are black males in Poland.
The first example that came to my mind is the doll market. Most little girls want either the Barbie dolls or American Girl dolls that look most like them. Why would they have created the “Just Like You” American Girl Doll product line, if the consumers did not show an interest in this? It is just a natural desire to have what looks like you, and I do not see anything wrong with Microsoft’s thought process behind changing the advertisement. I am sure numerous companies are guilty of this; they just are not careless enough to be caught in the act.
If a global company is advertising the same product internationally, they should have a different advertisement campaign all together, to avoid such a controversial issue. However if this is not an option, I think that they could have avoided this if they had changed the models in the advertisement from American models to Polish models. However since Microsoft is a global company, I would like to know their decision process to keep the Asian male in the advertisement, and why this would be seen as more acceptable to the Polish consumers.
The only thing that really annoys me about this advertisement is the lack of professionalism on behalf of the Microsoft marketing team. If you’re going to make that significant of a change in the ad, they should have made sure to do it thoroughly and correctly. The lack of detail portrays laziness to the work ethic of Microsoft employees. The sole existence of the question about race ethics annoys me as well. It is clearly a business decision and not a racist motivated decision.
With that being said, there is nothing wrong with swapping a white guy for a black guy. This is a staged photo that has a specific goal: to attract customers. If the picture were a real life snap shot into a regular business meeting at Microsoft then I believe there would be a problem. However, in the advertisement the models are portraying a role of a business team. If a black businessman does not resonate in a Polish, white dominated society, then the advertisement is not going to achieve its goal.
Although most of the fuss is about his hands not being airbrushed as well, I doubt how many viewers would actually notice. It’s not like this black man has a very dark toned skin. As a business minded person, I view this as changing a detail for a rhetorical purpose. Just as they chose to dress models in professional clothing because of social norms, they chose to not include a black man because of Polish social norms.
To be completely objective, however, I do believe it is awkward that they replaced the black man but not the Asian man. Maybe Polish people do not have the same uneasiness towards the Asian race but it seems odd that the company would take the risk of leaving in another minority race but not willing to risk the black man. Also, Polish people seem to be a people of a very traditional nature and yet they also chose to keep the woman as well; a progressive move in my eyes.
I believe a big problem here, as well as within race relations, is how people use their own morals and opinions to judge members of other cultures. Although that sounds like a broad statement, it is pointless to use American views on race and business ethics to judge how a company operates in a foreign market. Over the past century Poland has been invaded, dominated, erased from the map, purged, divided, and put back together. Their citizens do not have the same expectations for people and businesses as we do. Therefore, I think Microsoft was making a savvy business decision that unfortunately turned controversial due to lack of responsibility.
I’m going to have to disagree with what I believe will be the popular opinion here. I don’t think the Microsoft advertisement is racist in any way. The major issue I have with the ad is the lackluster editing performance. In simple terms, advertising is a business—a huge one. The purpose of this advertisement (and every other ad ever created) is to sell a product. Businesses sell products by presenting them in a fashion deemed desirable by their target audiences. So if a black man does not appeal to a Polish audience, then why should Microsoft use one? It would be the same situation if a white man did not appeal to a primarily black population. Therefore, this advertisement isn’t racist, but instead, a clever marketing strategy. As mentioned in the initial blog post, companies take advantage of this interesting technique all the time. I don’t see the problem with putting an Asian woman on a bus advertisement in San Francisco and replacing her with a Hispanic woman in the same ad in Miami. These businesses are only trying to “get the most bang for the buck”. I think people, even in this modern age, are more likely to buy something if they see someone like them using it (whether this thought is conscious or not). However, Microsoft should’ve taken an entirely new photo for the Polish ad. There was no reason whatsoever to paste a white man’s head onto the picture. I laughed when BBC News reported that several bloggers suggested that the photo represents “interracial harmony”. The only thing this photo represents is a rookie mistake.
It would be a completely different story if the real black man in the picture lost his job to the white man. But this is just an ad! It’s not real life. Some may argue that the advertisement is supposed to reflect real life, but honestly, if we depend on advertising to shape our thoughts on society, we would be a total mess. Ads create some of the most distorted perceptions in the world. People are smearing “Perfect White” cream all over their faces to lighten their skin, women are barfing up their guts to look like models, and men are buying magic abs machines that get you ripped while you eat potato chips on the sofa. Advertisers will do whatever they can to convince you to buy whatever it may be. In this particular case, that meant using a less diverse ad in a less diverse nation. I think people should stop concerning themselves with a meaningless advertisement and focus on real life. Shouldn’t we be trying to help the real black guy that just lost his job to a white man?
This article is about Microsoft putting out an advertisement in the United States, and then altering it to be run in Poland. The advertisement contains a Caucasian woman, an Asian man, and a Black man, most would concur that the ad contained a fairly diverse group. When the ad was seen in Poland, the black man’s face had been photo shopped and replaced with that of a white man. The mysterious thing about it is that in the Polish version of the ad, the man’s hand remained black. The ad was obviously altered but why did the company still run it?
Some might say that it was a wise choice on behalf of the Microsoft advertising and marketing divisions to alter the ad in order to find more appeal in different countries around the world. The true reason for the photo shopping of this ad is that there is a very minimal black population in Poland. People like to see people similar to them using something. Possibly, if someone from Poland saw the ad before it had been photo shopped, they would be less inclined or have less of a desire to purchase and use the product. In the marketing and advertising world, this may have seemed like a good idea and a way to get more response out of the advertisement. However, on a moral level, in my opinion, this was somewhat not right.
I find it hilarious that some bloggers were poking fun at the ad by saying that in the Polish version of the ad, Microsoft wanted to show even more diversity, so they kept the black man’s real hands and meshed them with a white man’s head. This of course is a ruse. This occurrence can also show us something about our own culture and attitudes here in the United States. Most Americans think of diversity as a good thing. In some cases, if the Microsoft advertisement had only one race, then some people would be angered by it. In contrast to the views, or at least the supposed views, of the poles, who would rather see people most similar to themselves in advertisements. Many Americans would accuse Microsoft of being racist or something of that sort if the ad had only been representative of one race or ethnicity. The differences in our culture are apparent through decisions made by our advertisers.
The Microsoft advertising shown in this article seems somewhat unimportant to some and extremely controversial to others. Changing an ad in order for it to be more effective in different countries seems like a good marketing strategy. The Microsoft advertisers should have been more through in their photo shopping if they insisted on even photo shopping at all.
This was the first I had heard of the Microsoft adventure into the world of racism. Well at least that’s what most people would consider what they have done. Racism though? I feel more as though it is a businesses job to narrowcast and wad every possible angle to target to most precise audience. Therefore although some people may consider what Microsoft has done here to be unethical, I believe it’s just one powerhouses attempt to target the right community. In this case, Poland. Sam said it himself, “Poland is clearly the ‘whitest’ locale I’ve ever visited.” I’m sure that public relations managers and the marketing team over at Microsoft didn’t even think twice to change the black guys head to a white guy. The worst part about all of this is that one innocent Microsoft employee is going to get fired for something his boss told him to do. Had they not missed the man’s hand in the photo, this might all have been over looked. I stick to the fact that they were just doing their jobs, trying to promote their products to the people where the product would be sold.
Being a Penn State student, you don’t see many advertisements for the school being predominantly white, or any race for that matter. That’s only because universities thrive on diversity. They try to attract people from every ethnicity and background and religion and basically touch on ever type of person there is. Let’s say that hypothetically Penn State could target ONLY white students. Now obviously this would never happen, but if it were this way, I’m sure there wouldn’t be a single brochure with a black guy or Asian chick. It’s as simple as that. Microsoft realized that there are basically no darker skinned people to target in Poland, so they stick to targeting white people. Maybe not the most ethical of choices and I’m sure there are many people in Microsoft getting the heat for it and having to answer hundreds of questions a day about the topic, but in my eyes, they made the best choice for their business.
In no means whatsoever do I support racism; it’s just that I don’t see any racism in this situation. Maybe some people do, but if you think about it and it was YOUR business, you’d probably make the same decision. I know that if it were my business I’d be going directly after a feasible audience. I’m sure they are sorry for anyone they have offended, but people need to look past it and realize that they were targeting their feasible audience, in this case white people. Basically I feel like the people at Microsoft were just doing their job.
All the fuss about this Microsoft ad published in Poland was actually quite unnecessary; they are just simply trying to sell their product. Why must everyone make such a big deal about the ad? I think that it is just for attention and to cause avoidable drama. The discrepancies caused are pointless. Yes, it was a stupid mistake for the photoshop editors of Microsoft to screw up and not change the color of the black male's hand, but come on, give them a break. I do not believe, in any way, that Microsoft should be blamed for being "racists." I feel that a good laugh should have came from this, then maybe jokes about how "sloppy" Microsoft happens to be, then everyone should have moved past it. If they were trying to please all markets, then kudos to Microsoft for knowing how to run their business well!
Other bloggers keep mentioning how this situation is so "touchy", but I do not see how people can be so sensitive. Let me say again, Microsoft is simply trying to sell their product in Poland and they obviously feel that they cannot do that with a black male in the ad. Maybe being that I am a white female, I do not see the wrong in this, but let me say that if this situation were the other way around I would feel the same way. Get over it!
People want to bring up politcal and social correctness? Really? Why is everyone so stuck on the negative aspects that come from this? Honestly, I would like to suggest that everyone take a minute and really think about why they feel this is such a controversial subject. It really isn't! Let us all laugh about the mistake, and move on! To bring up political and social correctness was ridiculous.
Now let's sit here and switch this situation around. What if this ad was published in an area where the people that resided there were predominantly black, and the white female was switched to a black female and they forgot to changed her hands? What then? How much fuss would be caused from all of this? Or the same situation with the asian? See, it is not really that big of a deal. I highly doubt that the issue of racism had ever crossed Microsoft's mind, but more simply how their sales would increase if their ad was more appealing to the Polish viewers.
So let's stop all this fuss about racism, and thinking that the world is out to get another race or whatever it may be that crosses the minds of those who are bothered by simple things such as what is presented here, and move on!
When I first looked at the picture relating to this blog I was rather uncertain as to why a black man was removed from the first photo and a white man replaced him in the second yet I feel as if Microsoft only did this to try and help advertising products in Poland. At first glace it seemed as if this would be morally wrong and racist to remove the head of a black man and replace it with a white man, but all that I see is an advertising of people who look familiar to the Polish.
In the United States it is considered rather unethical to only direct an advertisement towards a certain race, primarily white men due to the fact that we are a country of extremely mixed races. We look at any kind of advertising situation to be racist if a variety of races are not intervened but companies are only trying to boost their sales towards particular races. Microsoft was only trying to pinpoint their products towards the Polish and people that looked similar to them because they would probably have an easier time imagining if it was right for them or not. It may sound rather unethical to think that someone may not purchase or even take an interest in a product just because a different race (such as a black man) was being used as the person on the commercials attempting to display the product. It was only a way to boost their sales towards the Polish because of how “white” they all are known to be. It’s not that the Polish are considered to be “racist,” but it is rather obvious that they are not as familiar with a variety of races that we are, here in the United States.
I feel as if I would still be interested in a product no matter what race was advertising it yet not everyone in the world thinks like I do. I believe that the people of Poland never even thought twice about how it would only be “morally correct” to have different races put into advertising. We do these types of things all the time to try and advertise towards to particular section of the United States because of how some races seem to be grouped together. We find it to be fine in these situations so why would it be so wrong to do the same thing in a different country? I understand that blacks may feel as if it was wrong for Microsoft to do because they just cut out some mans head and put some other white man in it to make the advertisement better but at the same time it probably does boost the sales in Poland because of what is familiar to them. Most people would believe that this was blatant racism because of how Microsoft acted as if blacks did not even matter and a white man was above them, yet it was just a way to sell a product and it should not even be thought twice about. I feel as if it was complete political correctness due to the fact that Microsoft was only making the Polish feel comfortable because of how “white” of a country they really are.
Obviously in the business world a company has to do what it can to draw in customers. It must prove to the public that although tough and powerful on the outside, on the inside are people like you and me working together to uphold the exterior. A company that is relatable to its public will be the one that the public chooses when it comes to whatever needs are being provided. However, in this case, the company at the center of all of this, Microsoft, got caught in what I would say was a scandal that was a bit over the top
When it comes to advertising, people want to choose companies that they can best relate to. In the US, we have come so far through race relations that I would say, for the most part, our culture is fine with what we see in advertising in terms of race or background. After all, we are just one giant melting pot of a nation. For instance, this advertisement depicts a white woman, an Asian man, and a black man sitting at a table together. All that I personally see is a group of colleagues who work together, nothing more. The basic idea of people of different races and religions working together is not out of the ordinary like it once was in our history’s past. Here, Microsoft is just aiming to try and appeal to what the US as a melting pot will see in response; nothing out of the ordinary.
In terms of the Polish ad that photoshopped out the black man for a white man, I can't really tell if I belive it's racist. That’s just me, though; I mean, I’ve never been to other countries around the world and only know what racism really is from the news, movies, history classes, and television. I mean, why just the black man? Is it targeted against blacks? I don’t think so at all. Although I feel that it was a mistake on their part, I also feel they are just doing what I talked about earlier on; trying to draw in the public through their advertising. If they felt that a white man would work out better for the response to the ad over a black man, than they are doing what they should as a company in terms of reaching out and gaining business. But the fact that they changed the ad and photoshopped the black man out was wrongfully committed. If anything, why not just create a different ad? Why alter one and stupidly get caught when another ad could have been created that would have flown right under the radar?
All in all, it was just a bad idea on their part to do what they did. Making another ad would have been just fine and would not have caused such a stir. Although good for the initial marketing campaign, perhaps not so well for the actual response they receive from the public. The photoshop job? A bit over the top.
What the Microsoft Company did in this ad was not only extremely racist, but regardless of how many people were actually involved, it made the entire company appear naive and untrustworthy. As a company, especially one as thriving as the Microsoft Corporation, it is vital to be successful in advertising. Now, while they definitely made an attempt at doing such that by appealing more to a “whiter” race of people in Poland, it does not excuse the racism behind the choice they made to create the photo-shopped advertisement.
There is no question that Poland is almost entirely composed of white people, but the fact that Microsoft actually went out of their way to reprint an advertisement and replace the black man with a white man in hopes of attracting more Polish customers is purely nonsense. It truly shows how naïve the makers of this ad really are. Multiculturalism is becoming more and more widely accepted throughout the globe; at least majority would say so. Therefore, while there will most likely be a number of “racist” citizens of Poland, it is stupid of Microsoft to think that the fate of their sales relies on whether a black or white man is featured in one of their ads. Does Microsoft truly believe that a single black man will discourage an entire race of white people from purchasing their products? Do they have no confidence whatsoever in mankind to be accepting of different races? What Microsoft should be more concerned with is the intelligence of their own workers. If they absolutely feel the need to make such a drastic change, they could at least do it right and not forget to include the hands of the black man in the photo-shopping process. All of this bad publicity could have been avoided. This brings me to my next point; the ability to trust companies like Microsoft.
If companies are going out of their way to reproduce advertisements in hopes of luring different groups of people, who’s to say they are not falsifying anything else they produce. This ad is a perfect example of how Microsoft is willing to do whatever it takes to get products sold. With that being said, how are people supposed to trust these companies such as Microsoft? Obviously there will still be people left unaffected by this incident who will brush it off and continue to trust what the company has to say. As far as I am concerned, I know that I can no longer fully trust Microsoft and their ads, and I most likely do not stand alone with that opinion. This incident also makes one wonder, how many times as Microsoft actually done this? It is highly likely that this is not the first time Microsoft has modified an ad, this is just the first time they were caught.
It will be interesting to see if Microsoft or any other famous corporation will ever attempt at doing this again. It’s hard to believe that they won’t, but apparently they would rather be racist in hopes of not getting caught then MAYBE not selling a couple products to already racist people. The fact that Microsoft is willing to stoop down to the level of a racist thinker is sickening, and I hope repercussions are in order.
Microsoft is a respectable company that has no room to make mistakes. As one of the largest monopolies in the world (one in which makes millions of dollars a day), it does not make sense as to why their advertising is so off. I can safely assume that Microsoft pays their chief advertiser tons upon tons of money to do their job. Why would someone with this job title in such a large company make the mistake of poor advertising? This is not so much a question of political correctness; it is more a question of why do people care? To me, it would not make one difference in the world whether or not there was a white person in an ad. If an ad consisted of all black people or all Asian people I would not think twice about it. I feel that this “switching of the face” is a slap in the face to all Polish people. This “switching” truly portrays Polish people as racist to anyone whom sees this article. People really should stop caring about race and what people are going to think when they look at something. As Sam taught us on Thursday’s class, we are all 99.9% the same (genetically speaking). It should not matter whether a black guy or a white guy is sitting at that corporate table. What should matter is how captivating the words in the advertisement are and how well the product is being sold. I am aware of the fact that Corporate America is made up of a lot of white males, but the truth is, some of the most powerful people in the world are black. Every nation should recognize that the color of our skin is a means merely nothing in retrospect. As cliché as it sounds, what really matters is who we are on the inside, how our minds work and the strength of our character. Do polish people really care whether a white man or a black man shows up in their Microsoft advertisements? I think we need to ask them that question. Even though Poland is a predominantly white country, there should be no assuming that they are racist. Our world today is really messed up. People are always concerned with the skin color of everyone around them. Some people assume that if they are in the city and they see someone of color that they might get robbed. They may feel the need to hold their purse tighter, or walk faster. There truly is so much racism in the world. This article encapsulates the feelings of many people. My hope is that we can start getting over all of this and start caring about the more important things that are going on.
After seeing these ads and reading the article, I couldn’t help but laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. People are OBSESSED with keeping everything diverse nowadays. Sam Richards states, “We can’t have a photo without at least one woman and one person of color, after all.” I think America, as a whole, has become so cautious to be “politically correct” that purposely including someone because of their gender or race has actually backfired and had an opposite effect – it is racist.
Ads featuring people of color are striving for political correctness and diversity, when all they’re really doing is emphasizing the need to have a token minority in every advertisement...which can, in turn, become blatant racism. That Asian guy is included in the ad for the sole reason that he is Asian. That black guy is pictured just because he’s black. The first ad seems like such a staged conference room. There’s an Asian guy, a Black guy, and a White woman…check, check, and check. Ten points for diversity! As an American, I was offended by the replacement of the black guy’s face with a white one at first, because we as a nation have become so cautious and aware of racial differences that we are conditioned into jumping the gun and automatically labeling Microsoft as “racist.” We are so careful to include that token black guy, because if we don’t, people will accuse us of being racist. Because such emphasis is put on incorporating token minorities in the media, replacing one with “just another white dude” is bound to cause an uproar, not just within the black community. As a country where “all men are created equal” and all races are supposedly embraced, there is absolutely no need for the black guy to be changed to a white guy. We are all the same, so why does skin color matter at all?!
However, after reading some other comments and taking the Polish population into consideration, I can understand (to some extent) why Microsoft felt the need to alter the ad to better appeal to the Polish market. I suppose in a country where cultural diversity is still being explored, mixing people of different color together in one setting may still be a foreign concept. People are more prone to trust and buy products from individuals that resemble them. It is more familiar. Thus, Microsoft may have chosen to replace the black man with a white man to better reach and earn the trust of the Polish people. There would have been much less controversy over this ad if the guy in charge of swapping the black and white man had not neglected to swap their hands as well though! However, from the images presented, the unchanged hand fits with both the black and white man’s face. This can be symbolically interpreted to show that there really is no difference between whether Microsoft features a black man or a white man on their ad. I wish race wasn’t still an issue in many parts of the world, and people could just see people as people. I agree with what Sam says at the end of his post, “And maybe, just maybe, all of those people sitting around the table in that photo represent one single culture – the corporate culture.”
The main problem with what Microsoft did wasn’t that they tried to put ads out for specific group of consumers, it was the way that they tried to do it. The fact they were trying to direct advertisements towards specific audiences is not wrong to do. Every company will do that with almost every ad, it is just the way businesses are run. They try and use specific advertisements to get different groups of people to buy their products. They try and show them that people like them also use and like the product in the hopes that they will then be willing to buy the product or use the service. The way Microsoft tried to do this though is why they are going to have some problems.
If Microsoft had shot a completely different ad and used that in Poland I don’t think that they would be dealing with these problems right now. Instead they tried to photoshop the head of a white guy on to the body of a black guy, and it really was a poor effort. They also forgot to change the hand so that just made it that much worse. The picture came out looking worse then most photoshops that I have seen done by people just for fun, and this picture was meant to be used in an international ad. There is no way that this scenario can play out well for Microsoft. The fact that someone who controls the advertisement department looked at this picture and then gave it the green light is a more pressing problem for the company. Someone in that department is going to find themselves looking for a new job pretty soon.
This is a situation though that is going to end up being a big deal for a week or two and then it will blow over. I am a bit confused as to how to classify the situation though. I don’t know if this is quite heartless enough for me to want to classify this as being a racist act. I do know that I would classify this as one of the dumber things I have ever heard of a major company doing, but to call them racist over it would be too harsh I think. They were trying to bring in more customers in a country and thought that by showing a person that resembles most of the people in that country they would be able to bring in more customers. I don’t feel that they were doing this to try and hurt or lower another race of people, which is what I usually think of when I think of a racist act. Why they weren’t trying to do it though they very well could have and for that they will most likely need to put out an apology. So I don’t feel that this was meant to be intentionally racist, but because of the way that they did went about doing it, it became may have became racist.
When I look at this situation and what Microsoft did with their advertising, I see the wrong, but at the same time, I can see what the advertising team at Microsoft is trying to do. The advertising team cut out the face of a black man and replaced it with a white man so that the Polish community could relate better to their advertisement. It has nothing to do with being racist and everything to do with trying to appeal to a specific market. The advertising team should not have to worry about people writing articles on them and criticizing their decision when all they are simply trying to do is make money. They are trying to persuade people from a certain geographic area where black people are not commonly found. That is not a racist. It is just the truth. People from Poland are not as familiar with people of color. People of color from an all colored neighborhood would probably rather watch an advertisement with a black man in it than a Polish man. It has nothing to do with being racist. People just usually feel more comfortable being around and watching people of their own specific race. I can’t sit here and criticize the Microsoft advertising team for trying to maximize their profit by changing the black man to a white man so that the Polish community feels more comfortable.
On the other hand, I can see where some black people would be upset if they were to find out what happened. Even if the decision was made and had nothing to do with race or ethnicity, it still falls into the category of the black man being put down. Through out the history of the world, people of color have been put down and I can understand and see why a black person would be upset to find out that the advertising team at Microsoft decided to switch the face of a black man with the face of a white man. This could be seen as just another example of black people being thrown under the table by the white man.
Conflicts with different people from different races have been around since the beginning of time. They will most likely continue to be an issue. In this situation, I believe that the Microsoft advertising team was not out to put down the black man, but instead they were simply just trying to do their job to the best of their ability and make their company the most money possible. Their plans were not to be racist and the fact that they have to take into account whether the public will criticize them and call them racist during their decisions is ridiculous in my opinion. They should be able to do whatever they have to do to do their job as well as they possibly can.
There are a million different ways to define the word racism. Everyone probably has a different take on racism and the way they see racism in a society. Some people will go an entire lifetime and live blindly to the fact that racism is happening all around them. Well this Microsoft ad would be one of those times where people who screen racism have it sitting right in front of them. Microsoft probably did not have the intentions of this being racist they were obviously doing this to just pull in more consumers in a different country, but still, no matter what place or time, this is not acceptable. I would also think that the mass majority in Poland would not even notice the black guy in the picture. I know when I look at an ad for something I am not zoning in on the skin color of the people in the ad, so it probably made it a bigger deal to change it than keeping it the same. I don’t understand what the idea behind changing skin color in different ads makes a big deal, if a poll was taken I would bet people do not even pay attention to skin color, and if Poland does why would they keep the Asian in the picture and not make the entire cast in the ad white? That is like Poland doing the reverse in one of their ads here in the states. Putting a black man purposely over a white man, which I would have to ask again, would we notice that in one ad everyone was white? Or for that fact if everyone in the ad was Asian? Or black? No, probably not. We are blind to the fact of what companies due that is racism in our society. There are ads and commercials that are always swayed to one race trying to draw in that certain culture. I think that all companies promoting to the mainstream need to be punished for this kind of discrimination, which is illegal in this country. These high profile companies think they can get away with any type of promotional ads they do but really they are putting down a lot of people when they pull of these stunts. So when we ask if Microsoft really did a screw up here, yes, they did. I am sure that a majority of the black people who would find out about this ad and what they did switching out the faces, would be extremely pissed off. I know I would be, down playing my race in the corporate culture of society. I bet the guy who was photoshopped out of this picture was extremely upset with Microsoft and the person who decided that they need to “whiten” up the ad for Poland.
I’ve read the other comments made by other students and some takes this issue too seriously. I think that this advertisement was simply to satisfy every race. Yes, it was wrong to Photoshop the picture and replace a black man’s head with a white man’s head without changing the color of the hands. I found it quite humorous how the person who Photoshopped it didn’t even notice that. Or maybe he/she did it on purpose? When I read the article on BBC, it stated “the white head and black hand actually symbolizes interracial harmony”. That might be true and it was probably subliminal to others trying to tell people that every race did take part in the advertisement and its fine. There were many students that said that Microsoft have so much money and they couldn’t get a better graphic designer to do the job right and change the color of the hand. Maybe, Microsoft left the black man’s hand in the ad on purpose.
I didn’t find it to be a real big racial issue. This ad was changed to target the Polish and being that there aren’t much black people there, it was pointless to leave him in the advertisement anyway. However, if they left the advertisement the way it was, would it really affect the company anyway? I don’t think they would’ve lost money if they kept the same ad with the black person in it. It could’ve made consumers more aware that Microsoft wanted to be diverse and target everyone no matter what race they were or whoever is in the advertisement. If Microsoft’s intentions were to be racist, why not change the Asian man to a white man also? I don’t know if I would be offended if Microsoft decided to crop the Asian’s man head off. I might feel some type a way being that I’m Asian also and singling him out being the only Asian in the ad with two other white people, I consider it kind of odd. I grew up learning that we all should accept each other, no matter what race or the color of their skin. However, there are certain reputations of other races that I grew up to avoid also. People don’t try to be racist on purpose but sometimes it just slips out because of what you grew up seeing in your life and it kind of develops a schema in your mind to not get to close to a particular race that represents all.
Changing the ad wasn’t a smart move for Microsoft. In addition, they now have a bigger problem in their hands. There are many people that might take this over board and this might affect Microsoft’s business and consumer’s trust in the company.
After reading this article, it strikes me as a little ridiculous. First of all, I agree with saying Microsoft made a very careless mistake with their ad. Microsoft is one of the more prestigious companies in the world and with their experience and abilities, the mistake related to changing the man’s skin color should never happen. I also saw the photo shopping method to change the man’s skin color as very sloppy. Microsoft has PLENTY of money to take the picture again with a completely different guy in the chair. Now to the bigger issues… I’m pretty sure Microsoft isn’t racist and/or trying to be. I see the act as strictly money driven even if it was a little careless and insensitive; I am able to understand their motive a little bit. I don’t know much about Polish society and how mulit-racial Poland is, but from what Sam said, the country must be mostly white-dominated. Taking this into account, Microsoft was obviously targeting the dominantly white population in Poland where other races may not be as openly accepted. I trust Microsoft’s advertising people to have a legitimate reason behind photo shopping the white man into the ad. This reason is most likely to generate the highest possible profit. Advertising is all about making people feel comfortable with buying and using your product and obviously they are assuming the presence of three light skinned people in their ad will make Polish consumers comfortable. I highly doubt Microsoft would pull such a controversial and sloppy act if they thought it would make no difference in business. One thing people should realize is the United States is one of the more multi-racial societies in the world, which means ads have a broader audience to try to appeal to. So, even though a picture with three white or light skinned people would not fly in the United States, it doesn’t mean it can’t be accepted in all societies. The fact that this type of ad is acceptable in the Polish society may just prove that the United States is way more advanced in their societal thinking especially in regards to accepting other races, cultures, and backgrounds. We spend a lot of time in the United States worrying about political correctness and what is right and wrong. Being one of the most multi racial countries in the world, I feel we are becoming more and more open to new cultures, beliefs, religions, etc each and every day. With that said, there are still signs and acts of racism everywhere, but maybe more in other countries than ours. Maybe finally we can have a point of pride for racial issues. Is it possible that we can look at this example and pat ourselves on the back for once?
When I first read this article I got the impression that this was just another racism situation being blown out of proportion. In today’s society so many problems or mistakes are made out to be racists. Racism in definition is the hatred or intolerance of another race, but in today’s world is any word, action, or now picture that some person can twist and pick apart until it seems offensive to a racial group. Racism is on the decline in America, not to say that it still is not a problem, but does not need to be used as an excuse to every issue in our society.
I understand that companies have target audiences for certain ads, that is business. Certain ads draw in African American buyers, others will draw in Asians, while others are aimed at the white population. This is not racism; it is a business tool that has been used by millions of companies for as long as we can remember. One thing that bothers me more then anything is when people think that because of their skin color that they are being attacked or hated on through certain ads. These types of beliefs are in these people’s heads. First off these ads go through hours and hours of screening before they can be published to the people. Secondly, it is up to the individual to react to these so-called racists ads. If you do not take offense to them and try to understand that it is just an ad and not a direct hit at one’s personality, then it will eliminate the racist title that many ads are given.
With regards to the Microsoft ad it is nothing more then a mistake. If the person in charge of the photo shopping had been more careful then this would be a non-issue. I am sure that almost all companies use the same ads in different areas of the world and change the ethnical characteristics in the ad to grab different types of people for their products. It is a common tool used to save money for big corporations who have international branches throughout the world. Microsoft made a mistake, they did not screen their ad carefully enough, and most likely rushed it in production for the Polish community. In no way was this ad an attack at African Americans or other racial groups. It is simply a mistake in photo shopping and something in sure Microsoft is regretful of.
While reading this article, it opened my eyes a little bit. Advertisements like this occur often to please the eye of the consumer. Since most of the population in Poland is white, Microsoft probably thought advertising would be more appealing if all of the people in the advertisement were white. However, they still included the Asian man. If Poland’s population is mainly white, why would they have an Asian man in their advertisement if the case was to appeal to the population? To me, this does come off as raciest. The example of putting a Latino woman on a bus in Miami is an instance of appealing to the surrounding population. The Microsoft advertisement is different. If they took out the black man, they should have taken out the Asian man too if they were going for that effect. The article states that bloggers suggesting Microsoft was attempting to please all markets by having a man with both a white face and a black hand. It was said that it symbolizes interracial harmony. I completely disagree with that. If that was the case, they could have left the black man in the advertisement and that would have been shown by having a white woman, an Asian man, and a black man.
If a company was selling a children’s toy, they would not use the elderly to market their product. Same goes for other products. For example, the company who produces Apple Bottom Jeans would not use a skinny white girl with no “booty” to advertise their jeans. This product is specifically made for a certain race with different body shapes. There are certain products that appeal to different populations. If different races are used in that sense it is not considered raciest in my eyes. But this does not answer why Microsoft would use a white man instead of a black man and keep the Asian man there to advertise a product that many types of races use on a daily basis. Yes, the advertisement is specifically for consumers in Poland, but that should not matter. Black, white, yellow, red, or whatever color, it should not matter. I know when I look at an advertisement; I do not really pay attention to who is in the advertisement. It is the product I am interested in, not the models for any specific product. That is just me though. Others may look into who is sitting around a table. If the original photo was not shown, people may not have noticed that the white man was initially a black man. Why Microsoft did not change the color of his hand is beyond me. It interests me to know the true reasoning behind why they chose to replace the black man with a white man since Microsoft is a product used by so many different races.
I feel as though Microsoft’s “photoshopping” of its advertisement neither constitutes blatant racism or an attempt to be politically correct. Even though I am a white person (which I can see people viewing as a bias), I only see Microsoft’s choice to edit the original picture from the black man’s head to that of the white man’s as an effort to make some money. Microsoft is a business, and as a business, its only goal is to increase the value of the company for its investors.
One of the key reasons that Microsoft’s actions do not come across as racist is that the ad was still released in the United States where blacks make up a large portion of the population. Microsoft did not review the ad everywhere and say “Hmmm, that black guy really doesn’t look good in our advertisement, let’s replace his head with that of a white guy’s.” Microsoft only edited the ad in Poland, where a white man would probably appeal more to the population than a black man. Poland is almost entirely a white country (97% of Poles identified themselves as Polish, so there are very little other minorities), and so it makes sense that Microsoft would attempt to attract white Poles with a white man. We touched on this in class the other day when we talked about Jesus becoming white over time as Christianity spread through Europe and the West (which is predominantly white), even though he probably looked like Saddam Hussein. People are drawn to things that are familiar to them.
Another reason that I cannot see Microsoft as dipping into racism is the fact that Microsoft is a multibillion dollar company. Like Bill Gates could probably go swimming around in gold like Scrooge McDuck from DuckTales. This brings up two important points. First, as a billion dollar company, I’m sure Microsoft has several law firms and multiple PR and marketing teams looking over every decision they make several times to avoid these things. If Microsoft goes around looking like the board of directors are a part of Ku Klux Klan, odds they are going to stop being a multibillion dollar company. Secondly this photoshop idea was probably a way for Microsoft to make a quick buck. Microsoft spends a large amount of its funds on advertising, and if they really had a problem with the original advertisement, they could have easily just reshot the advertisement. A couple thousand dollars later, here’s the new advertisement. But Microsoft did not have a problem with the original advertisement or the black man: they just simply wanted to adapt it to the Polish market. So they spend $40 to crop out a black head and crop in a white one and probably increase sales (assuming this bad public image does not come about.) As a business major, I see where Microsoft is coming from: increase sales and decrease costs. The business aspect of Microsoft requires it to constantly be making money for its investors. They just probably did not account for this.
--Follow your nose...
In my opinion, Microsoft made a huge mistake by changing the face of the photograph. Not really because of what they did, but because it was unnecessary as to why they did it. Microsoft changed something that probably wouldn’t have bothered anyone in Poland in the first place. After all, it is only an ad. I don’t know about everyone else, but I really don’t pay attention to the kinds of people that businesses use in their ads. All I care about is the content. If this same Ad had a bunch of gothic people sitting around the table, it still would not affect my judgment, mostly because I probably wouldn’t even notice it in the first place. If someone in Poland really looked at this picture, and seeing a black man really affected their opinion/stance on this product, then Microsoft is better off not dealing with that kind of low-level scum to begin with. I believe that this country is trying so hard to avoid racism that it, in fact, is making it worse. I don’t believe we are moving in the right direction if every little aspect of this world (like the color of someone’s head in an Ad) must be reviewed in a racial aspect. Microsoft took something harmless, and let it backfire on them. Also, I have noticed that some people believe that the reason the hands are still white is to convey some sort of racial unity. The thought of this is mind boggling. THEY SIMPLY FORGOT TO CHANGE THE COLOR OF THE HANDS! Even if they did realize this I’m sure they still wouldn’t have changed seeing how it is totally irrelevant to anything. In addition, it is really proven that a simple “change of face” on an ad could affect someone’s decision to use a product? That still sounds astounding to me. After saying all of this, my next point is…are people really THAT offended by the changing of a picture? I think a lot of times nowadays people freak out too much over things that really have no impact in their lives. They do it just because they feel they can. If a black person saw this photo change, does it REALLY hurt his feelings, and should there REALLY be an outcry over something so harmless. After all, it is just a harmless picture of 3 people smiling. It’s not like it has a derogatory racial term stamped across the middle of it. If Microsoft thinks that their strategy would work, no matter how pointless I feel it may be, then let them go about their business. People need to start lightening up, as well as control the urge to make a big deal over something that isn’t directly hurting anyone.
I understand that Microsoft is trying to appeal to Polish people, but photoshopping a white man’s face onto a black man’s body is wrong. If they were trying to target a white polish market, they could have handled this better. I realize that trying to make a new advertisement would not be cheap, but Microsoft is a major company and for them to make a mistake like this certainly hurts their image. I agree with several of the other comments people have made about the United Stated becoming very multi-cultural. We live in a world where racial intolerance is unacceptable. Microsoft is a major corporation and I really don’t understand how they could have thought that photoshopping this image would be acceptable. Why couldn’t they have created a couple different advertisements made for different regions of the world? Instead they feel that photoshop was the right way to go with this ad and now Microsoft has created a negative image for itself. Microsoft is an American company and the Polish probably do know that as well. So by photoshopping this image, is Microsoft trying to imply that Polish people can’t relate with black people? It’s absurd to think that Microsoft should change this advertisement because they feel that a white male would be more appealing.
One part of this story that I found really interesting was where people were blogging about how this advertisement was purposely created to show a unity. The article stated “…with some (bloggers) suggesting Microsoft was attempting to please all markets by having a man with both a white face and a black hand.” This statement just seems ridiculous to me. I think that the creator of the advertisement clearly meant to photoshop the black man’s face and just forgot to photoshop his hands. There is no way that the creator was trying to create an image of unity in the market place. I also think that it is interesting that out of all of the races omitted from the ad, the one they chose was a black man. Once again it is somewhat implying that Microsoft believed that Polish people would not identify with the advertisement if a black person was in it. I understand that Microsoft is trying to represent the local demographic, but by photoshopping an image of a white man onto a black man’s body is just plain wrong and racist.
Also, the goal of a company is usually to reflect how internationally diverse it is. By doing this, Microsoft has created an image that they think not all parts of the world are going to relate with their ad if a black person is in it. If people around the world really have a problem if there is a black person in an ad, then they are ignorant and a company should not have to change an ad due to someone’s skin color. I definitely think Microsoft needs to fire whoever was responsible for the error and fix this mistake quickly.
I’m going to be honest, after reading this article I chuckled a little. I don’t know if it was because a corporation made a crucial mistake or because we see advertisements altered to “fit” with the demographic of a particular area. I understand that different cities/countries use the same advertisements but change the actors they use because they think that using actors of the same race as the area will make the advertisement more successful. This doesn’t make it right or wrong, it’s just what has become accepted in our culture and it just is. Although this is accepted, making a huge photo shop error, like the one in this advertisement where they use the body of a white man and the head of a black man, I find unacceptable.
On the side of the Polish making their advertisement strictly white, I understand why they did that. But the US’s part of Microsoft not realizing that they didn’t completely photo shop a black man into their ad is just negligence. If anything, it makes the US look worse then the Polish. I’ve been to other countries and have been able to compare advertisements from companies to the ones we have here. The only differences between the two would be the language and the race or ethnicity of the people in the photos. I don’t think that makes them racist in anyway, I don’t look into it as deeply as “relinquishing his seat at the table because of his race,” it’s just an advertisement to sell people something. It makes the ad more relatable to the people who live in that area. The more relatable the company is, the more they are going to sell, and I get that. But I feel like it almost comes off as insulting to people in the US to see the carelessness of Microsoft.
I agree with the other posts on this page, the US advertisement comes off as offensive for its carelessness. You would think that the proofreader would have caught such a huge mistake, I’m sure the guy who created this ad is no longer with the company, but because of his rather large mistake, he has stirred up all kinds of negative publicity towards Microsoft. While some people think that it’s wrong to take off the black man’s head and just put a white man’s on the body instead, without even taking a new picture, I think it was the other way around. The black man’s hands were white. To me, it makes it seem like they took the Polish ad and took off the man’s head and replaced it with the head of a white man. No matter what way you look at it, Microsoft was wrong in more ways then one and because of one man’s mistake, people may not see this company the same way again.
Is this racism?
Well as a marketing major, it’s hard for me to deny the marketing techniques used by the advertisers. You have to sell to your public and you have to identify with your audience. An all white audience is not going to be as affected by and all black scene as well as an all white scenario would affect them. Similarly, if advertisers were trying to reach a young black audience, an all white old male conference room wouldn’t be the appropriate personnel or scene to reach them. Advertisers and marketers know that an audience best connects with people who look like themselves. This is especially true in the clothing industry. It is easier for consumers to see themselves in clothes that are on models who look like themselves… But back to the conference room, am I upset that they switched up the black guy with a white guy and forgot to switch his hands?.. Yeah.. If you’re going to try and be slick at least be slick thoroughly. Make sure you cover all of your bases. Furthermore, if you want a white man represented, hire a white actor.
But again from the advertiser’s point of view, if I wanted an ad in a boardroom, would I be wrong to have an all white male representation present in the ad even if statistics verify the fact that most board rooms are full of all white males? Would I be seen as racist if I was simply representing the current make-up of the business culture? Even when I do see scenes sprinkled with a black guy here or an Asian woman there. It is always still perceived as the “token minority representation”. It’s a catch 22. It truly is. If you include a black woman in the boardroom and an Asian woman, it looks like a phony attempt to make up scene so that no minority group is under-represented and so that no one gets mad. Our culture can sometimes be too sensitive to the scenes placed in front of us, and at times the racial make-up of the scene makes us overlook the original message intended for us to receive. If my goal is to get a financial company positive exposure, why is it that you can’t remember the name of the firm but you do remember that there was no Hispanic representation in the boardroom. Sometimes, too much focus is placed on race.
Unfortunately, it IS the job of the suppliers to make consumers feel comfortable with the advertisements they see, however, shouldn’t America at least be accepting enough of all races that changing one person in the board shouldn’t matter? …I guess we as a nation aren’t there yet.
I initially want apologize for this writing because I am inept at the art of blogging. However, I will try to articulate my thoughts on the Microsoft Marketing Blunder in a most proficient matter.
When I first noticed the photos of issue I laughed. How can Microsoft allow such a mishap to happen? If they’re going to take the black man out of an advertisement to appeal to the white populous of Poland, then they at least should have changed his hands. I mean they literally put the most cheesy, happy-go-lucky, 21st century Brawny man (you know the one without the beard---the “metro” one) to replace the face of the old black fellow, and although I am black, I wouldn’t have a problem with them doing it, as long as they didn’t mess it up.
I must immediately defend my position, because, again I am a black man. I don’t want to sound apathetic to the black plight and the continuing matter of racism across the globe today, because I will most readily state that it does exist and that it is a problem. Notwithstanding the injustice of this reality, it is in fact a reality we all must deal with; therefore, I don’t see the need to complain about such, but simply to accept it, and through my own works, overcome it.
I will agree with Dr. Richards with his assertion that it would be reversed if it had happened in America, and the different ethnicities which would be substituted across different demographics based on region. This is the purpose and practice of every marketing team, to manipulate the dumb flock of sheep which is the consumer.
I, at this time, must digress to express my concerns or doubts about what may seem frivolous, but is of relevance in the context of race and ethnic relations which this course revolves around, because we do not live in a vacuum and my blog cannot simply state the simple facts of a Microsoft mistake, which, with all honesty, I could care less about.
Today I received a haircut today for the first time in State College. For my whole life I’ve only gotten a haircut from two barbers. I’m not sure if I am falling victim to stereotypes or not, but it appears to not only be a difference in technique in the cutting of the hair of blacks and whites, but also a cultural aspect. Although I won’t digress any further into the cultural aspects which revolve around the urban black barbershops, I will simply point out the difference in cutting shorter coarser hair, and longer finer hair.
I, so worried about receiving a satisfactory haircut, called the salon to see if they had barbers capable of cutting African-American hair. They replied that they had one barber who would be capable of such a feat. This call was of such hilarity to my roommate (who happens to be white) that he questioned why would I asked such a simple question. He argued that it would be racist if they only knew how to cut white hair, I argued, in rebuttal, that it has nothing to do with race, but simple facts: it is a different technique in the cutting of each race’s hair; nevertheless, I received my haircut, which my roommate claims looks fine, however it is one that I found multiple faults with.
I can’t help but wonder if it is a matter of race that makes me more paranoid about the look of my haircut, or if it is (more logically) that my barber, who primarily cuts black people’s hair, is more adept at cutting my hair?
Despite my digression, the matter of photo shopping a black man’s face off of an advertisement for the purpose of getting a better response from a select demographic boils down to what Dr. Richards stated so simply: “No one can offend you, you choose to be offended.” I would assume that the majority of blacks are unaware of this mistake, and I choose not to be offended so that is all that matters.
I initially want apologize for this writing because I am inept at the art of blogging. However, I will try to articulate my thoughts on the Microsoft Marketing Blunder in a most proficient matter.
When I first noticed the photos of issue I laughed. How can Microsoft allow such a mishap to happen? If they’re going to take the black man out of an advertisement to appeal to the white populous of Poland, then they at least should have changed his hands. I mean they literally put the most cheesy, happy-go-lucky, 21st century Brawny man (you know the one without the beard---the “metro” one) to replace the face of the old black fellow, and although I am black, I wouldn’t have a problem with them doing it, as long as they didn’t mess it up.
I must immediately defend my position, because, again I am a black man. I don’t want to sound apathetic to the black plight and the continuing matter of racism across the globe today, because I will most readily state that it does exist and that it is a problem. Notwithstanding the injustice of this reality, it is in fact a reality we all must deal with; therefore, I don’t see the need to complain about such, but simply to accept it, and through my own works, overcome it.
I will agree with Dr. Richards with his assertion that it would be reversed if it had happened in America, and the different ethnicities which would be substituted across different demographics based on region. This is the purpose and practice of every marketing team, to manipulate the dumb flock of sheep which is the consumer.
I, at this time, must digress to express my concerns or doubts about what may seem frivolous, but is of relevance in the context of race and ethnic relations which this course revolves around, because we do not live in a vacuum and my blog cannot simply state the simple facts of a Microsoft mistake, which, with all honesty, I could care less about.
Today I received a haircut today for the first time in State College. For my whole life I’ve only gotten a haircut from two barbers. I’m not sure if I am falling victim to stereotypes or not, but it appears to not only be a difference in technique in the cutting of the hair of blacks and whites, but also a cultural aspect. Although I won’t digress any further into the cultural aspects which revolve around the urban black barbershops, I will simply point out the difference in cutting shorter coarser hair, and longer finer hair.
I, so worried about receiving a satisfactory haircut, called the salon to see if they had barbers capable of cutting African-American hair. They replied that they had one barber who would be capable of such a feat. This call was of such hilarity to my roommate (who happens to be white) that he questioned why would I asked such a simple question. He argued that it would be racist if they only knew how to cut white hair, I argued, in rebuttal, that it has nothing to do with race, but simple facts: it is a different technique in the cutting of each race’s hair; nevertheless, I received my haircut, which my roommate claims looks fine, however it is one that I found multiple faults with.
I can’t help but wonder if it is a matter of race that makes me more paranoid about the look of my haircut, or if it is (more logically) that my barber, who primarily cuts black people’s hair, is more adept at cutting my hair?
Despite my digression, the matter of photo shopping a black man’s face off of an advertisement for the purpose of getting a better response from a select demographic boils down to what Dr. Richards stated so simply: “No one can offend you, you choose to be offended.” I would assume that the majority of blacks are unaware of this mistake, and I choose not to be offended so that is all that matters.
Advertising and marketing are businesses in themselves. Targeting audiences is a prevalent practice with pretty much every company looking to sell goods and services. Making changes in their ads occur all the time in order to appeal to different consumers. Microsoft’s “photoshop” farce happened because people on the executive level in Microsoft felt that it would result in more sales, which is ultimately the goal of any business, the color of money trumps the color of skin. Speaking rationally and taking emotions out of the conversation, if it resulted in more sales then it was a good move; however, emotions are rarely taken out conversation. This is where Microsoft runs the risk of attaining the reputation of being manipulative corporation.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that a company with the caliber of Microsoft let such a mistake fall through their fingers. The projected cost of reshooting the photo is definitely less than what they incurred upon themselves with the fiasco of the Internet circulation of this photo. But what happened has happened and now Microsoft has to appease all people that feel somewhat offended by the Photoshop. But the people offended by the photoshop are just as bad as Microsoft to being with. Not that I’m condoning Microsoft’s actions but in a perfect world everyone would look beyond race and gender and coexist. So people getting fired up about this “issue” would only add fuel to the flame.
Following this train of thought, it’s hard to blame a specific contingent of people because everyone is to blame. Microsoft, as a company, does well including their advertising and marketing. So it’s safe to say they know what they are doing (except when it comes to Photoshop). So they know that this targeted advertising technique works. So then you got to look at the audience that were more comfortable with a white guy then a black guy. The Polish. From Microsoft’s research the polish were more likely to buy their product because of a white guy in place of a black guy. That’s a serious assumption on Microsoft’s part but their track record in the corporate world says they know what they are doing. Then there’s the media who makes money out of exploiting companies’ mistakes and especially when race and or gender are involved because they usually hit home for many of the viewers.
So from my extensive experience of 19 years on this earth, I would say that Microsoft made a mistake and apologized accordingly for it. For them it was strictly a business decision in order to up their profits. The majority of the blame should be the media and the audience’s insatiable appetite for controversy and gossip.
I see no problems with the article's argument. There are two types of targeted audiences that advertisers are trying to reach. There are demographics as well as psychographics. Depending on the area in which one is trying to market a product, they have to address these aspects of a society. I think calling it racist is not only over thinking it, but it is creating a negative attitude against advertising and society as a whole. If you ask any person of any race or ethnicity if they would be uncomfortable seeing a billboard with people who look like them in their city or neighborhood they would say no. If I were trying to sell computers in Iran, I would have Iranians modeling with the picture as opposed to white models because that is the demographic to which I am selling the product. I don’t see how Microsoft “slipped” in any way. I assumed that society would understand that advertisers need to sell to their appropriate audience. As long as the advertisement itself is not racist, for example, insinuating racial stereotypes using different races, then it should be socially acceptable. I think Microsoft pad perfect attention. They obviously y have a very skilled advertising staff that works 24/7 doing research on different areas and their corresponding demographics and psychographics. People are more comfortable when they are presented with familiar surroundings. Therefore, when it comes to advertising, people want to look at something they are comfortable with. Microsoft was merely addressing the needs of the consumers.
One could apply this same argument to any advertisement. Why do Venus razors only have western women in their ad? As far as I am concerned I have never seen an ad for razors using a Muslim women. I have also never seen a Hasidic Jew eating a big Mac. Why is this? Because Muslim women keep their legs covered as a social institution and Hasidic Jews do not eat meat they haven’t prepared in a kosher manner. There is no need to overanalyze this issue. It all comes down to the demographic of the consumer. In this instance, it is such an insignificant difference. So in the United States there are more black people who work white-collar jobs than in Poland. This doesn’t lead to suppression. This doesn’t defy the universal morals of the world. It’s an exaggerated issue. Perhaps the percentage of black white collard workers is so slim, it would confuse consumers to see one in a Microsoft ad. It’s as simple as that. There is no need to point these things out because they really don’t affect the subconscious as much as bloggers may imply. In fact, by drawing attention to it for a reason I feel is unnecessary, we are only further perpetrating racism.
Honestly, when I first saw this blog I was not really shocked about what I saw because in the world we live in today operates in what they think would be the best choice for the crowd of people that they are trying to target. Even though sometimes what they think is right might not be in the best interest of the people or the company. I do not really think that it was done in a racist way, but they should have thought this thoroughly before they made this decision because of the type of reactions they will receive from the public. As you can see there is a lot of attention being brought to this article because of the actions taken. Now Microsoft is in a lot of trouble because of the way they switched the heads on the advertisements that were shown in the United States and Poland. At the end of the day there was not any need to switch up the race of the person and at that leave the hands of the person the same. That was a very careless mistake on their part and just because of that move that had the public to question if they are really racist in thinking that changing the race of that specific person was really a necessity. It just shows how important it is to them to change the face of the person since the hand s were still left black. One thing I really do not understand is why Microsoft did not change the faces of the Asian man and the white woman??? That is kind of disturbing because as I think about it Poland is not a country of Asians, so how come the Asian man was left unaltered since Microsoft is trying to give the country an image of what represents them. There are numerous ways that anyone can look at this situation. It is sad to say that this is a problem that persists in the world today of how a group of people think that they know what is in the best interest of the public, while in reality they do not really know. To the comment that Capone wrote “I don’t believe the Polish, nor anybody else in the world would be turned away from buying a Microsoft product that they needed for their company just because of the skin color of a man in an advertisement”, I would like to say that he or she made a very remarking comment and I agree with it because it will be ignorant of any human being to not purchase anything because they saw someone other than their race advertising/ representing it to the public. The lesson learned here is that it does not matter what race you are and who is advertising what, so hopefully for future references this mistake will not be made again being an individual or a large company.
As a business major with lots of experience sitting through boring marketing lectures, I like to think that I know very little about marketing. However I do know that companies will go to all ends of the earth to push their product into the right hands, that being everybody. I think this episode which has apparently blown up on internet blogs is a little absurd due to the exaggerative nature of bloggers, and can’t help but feel some sympathy for the monopolistic giant Microsoft.
Microsoft was trying to appeal to the target audience where the ad was being run and it turns out that the target was primarily white in Poland. A company like Microsoft would not be lackadaisical in their market research so I’m sure they are aware of the respective demographics of these areas. Sure, maybe instead of just plopping a white head on a black guys body they could have hired another person to do a photo shoot, but I don’t think it should be that big of a deal that they changed the race of the person in the picture. I actually think it’s pretty good marketing. Maybe from their research they found that people in Poland have distrust of black people due to their withdrawal from sufficient interaction with them. It shouldn’t reflect negatively on Microsoft that they were just giving the Polish what they wanted.
It seems to me that black people are the most ready to be offended at the first inkling of any pseudo-racist activity. If this were to happen in the opposite direction, I’m not sure it would receive any speculation, especially not from the almighty internet bloggers. I think that since racism has calmed down so much over the past decades, minorities are searching high and low for something that will offend them. They must love the sound of somebody apologizing to them because it seems as though millions of white people have had to shell out sorry’s for accidental, and many times intentional, racist remarks or actions. I can’t ever remember hearing in the news about a white man demanding an apology from the black community for being oppressed due to the color of their skin even though it happens all the time. It seems even popular for black people to make fun of white people in movies and TV shows, calling them honkies and crackers, yet rarely is the white person ever offended by it.
Finally, the fact that in the article they say that the black hand and the white head could symbolize different races living harmoniously in accord, is full-blown malarkey. There is no chance that the advertising directors at Microsoft attempted to create a Michael Jackson-esque(RIP) hybrid white and black peace creature. They simply paid poor attention to their photoshopping technique and forgot to paint the hand white.
I don’t blame Microsoft for trying to gain the maximum amount of consumer interest in their company. They should just use different methods next time.
Upon looking over this article on Microsoft’s “advertisement blunder,“ I could not help but think that there was definitely some racism involved with their methods. The original ad was ‘textbook American’, with an asian guy, a black dude and a white woman, representing different races and opposite sexes which has come to be accepted and expected in the United States. I can understand that Microsoft is an international corporation and therefore have many consumers from many countries. I can also understand that different advertisements will be more or less effective depending on who the target is so they should be adapted accordingly. However, I do not think that the black man’s head in their ad should have been taken out of the photo and then a white guy’s head put in its place. Although it is kind of funny that this bigshot, worldwide company does not create original ads instead of just photo shopping, it just seems wrong that they HAD to take the black dude out of the picture. Did they really not think anyone would notice? The implications here are that someone from Microsoft thought the black man in the advertisement would not work out because the majority of the Polish population was white. The point in made by one of the bloggers in the article that stated Microsoft was trying to please everyone with a white face and black hand just struck me as ignorant. And if the logic of whoever Microsoft’s advertisement person was that they were trying to target white people, why was the asian guy not replaced as well? Maybe it just proves more racism toward black people? I mean, at least the hands would have been a closer match in skin tone if they had taken the asian dude‘s head out and put the white guy‘s head on his body. I personally do not think that the people of Poland, along with the people from pretty much every other country in the world today, would be so un-accepting of this ad just because of the skin color of the people in it. Even more so if what they are trying to sell is a good quality product, which Microsoft generally does. OR they could have just photo shopped a white guy in between the asian guy and black guy or to the right of the woman. Then everyone would be happy, Microsoft would not be accused of racism here in the good ole U.S. and it would also appeal to the occasional black and asian polish people. It just seems like they made a big deal out of nothing by trying to change their ad in the first place and then had to take some heat for it.
To be completely honest, when I first looked at the differences between the two ads, without reading Sam’s commentary or the article, I laughed. It seemed like any another racist act, this time by a huge company, or whoever digitally changed the advertisement. However, in taking this class, I needed to sit back and think.
Altogether, this blunder Microsoft so clearly made brings up many issues at once. As a student in marketing and advertising, Microsoft may have actually had reason to make the changes they saw fit for the ad; perhaps switching a the black man for a white one would have been more beneficial and profitable for the company. However, to allow the advertisement to be seen without fully cropping out the black man, and leaving his hand in the picture, as a company it is opened up for the harshest of criticisms to be made I personally believe it’s also against Microsoft for them to have comments being left on blogs saying that a white man’s face and a black man’s hand symbolizes “interracially harmony.” When I read this, I chuckled to myself. Although Microsoft cannot monitor what is being said by the people who are viewing this advertisement, it’s clearly not the smartest to have these loose interpretations of what strangers think Microsoft may or may not have meant to do. This makes a mockery of such an influential and well known company. Perhaps Microsoft should have come out with a statement about the ad to clear up the misunderstandings. They did so in retracting the advertisement, however, I think they should have kept the ad and had reasoning for why they think their changes were what was necessary. By retracting it, once again Microsoft opened itself up for interpretations by people who may think that the creators of the advertisement always thought it was going to be seen as a racist act.
After this happening, I believe Microsoft should have a talk with all of their company and employees about this careless act. The marketing team should have been more careful with their changes as their job is to assist the company in being viewed in a positive light. Also, perhaps after a slip up like this, Microsoft’s advertising department should review what really is at stake. Perhaps ads with certain races of people may be somewhat detrimental to the sales, but I don’t think the amount of sales lost would be as negative as the slip up they just had. Maybe introducing the public and Microsoft consumers to differences in race would allow for the company to be seen in a better light by pioneering the way for more integration and less “closet” racism in business, for lack of a better term. Although companies do have equal opportunity clauses, this would show that Microsoft is completely comfortable and successful in many places in the world even with advertisements like this.
It seems to me that Microsoft has gotten them self into a pretty sticky situation. You can approach this issue at a few different angles which makes it difficult to determine whether it’s right or wrong. First of all, it is important to look at this from the media’s perspective. The main objective of any advertisement is to promote your product towards the specific demographic that you expect to purchase the item(s) that you are selling. If you look at any product, take for example children’s clothing the main focus of their advertisements will be children. If you want the specified kid’s age group to purchase the clothes your selling, your commercials are going to be kid friendly, which wouldn’t necessarily be appealing to their grandparents. Therefore, since Poland is mostly inhabited by “white” people it would make sense to aim the advertisement towards that specific race since they will be the anticipated Microsoft consumers. Look at it this way also- When we travel anywhere in the world it is obvious that each and every country has their own unique way of life, with specific standards and cultural norms. As a visitor in any country it is important to show respect and follow these guidelines as we would want them to do for us, so shouldn’t advertisements be the same way? Shouldn’t we specify the advertisements to fit within each countries social norms? At the same time its crucial to decide whether or not having a black man in the photograph will really have that strong of an impact on the sales for the company in Poland. Although they make up a small percentage of the population in Poland, are the people of this country really that ignorant to not buy a product just because of the man in the picture? There is also an Asian man photographed in the picture as well. I’m pretty sure that Asians aren’t very well represented in Poland’s population, but there isn’t a photo shopping issue with having that race represented. A final way to view this scenario is that keeping the black man in the image could be beneficial to the company’s advertisement campaign. If the country of Poland is so used to seeing a similar type of advertisement for all of their different products using the standard white models it could be time for a change. Having something out of the ordinary for them like the image of a black man in an ad could make the advertisement more appealing and draw in more attention. I know from experience when I see a billboard or something that is unfamiliar or strange it is a guarantee that I will take extra time to look into that specific product they are promoting.
After reading the article, “Political Correctness or Blatant Racism?”, I was not surprised with the actions of a corporate company such as Microsoft. Also I did not believe that altering a photo by replacing a black man with a white man was significant enough to be defined as racism, but rather a smart marketing move. Corporations possess a resposibility to appeal to their marketing population. In the corporate world numerous actions can be defined as racism; however, their main focus is on selling their products and reaching the largest market. If the simple action of photoshopping a person’s face comes off as racism, then I blame our culture rather than wrongs by a corporation. We witness stronger examples of racism in our lives on a daily basis than an example of a marketing scheme. The advertisers of a company have a responsibility to the company and their stockholders to understand and reach out to an audience. If your audience leans towards one side then you heavily lean to that side.
Once again, I do not define the actions of Microsoft, as an act of racism. Even within the United States, we witness companies altering their advertisements, in order to appeal to a certain demographic. For example, magazine covers tend to differ from state to state, in order to suit the culture and demographics of a certain state. Like you said you would not put pictures of straight couples in a LGBT magazine because it is unfamiliar to the readers and does not suit their interest. Also if corporations wanted to sell products in China, they would display advertisements of black people who are almost non-existent in the country. The same goes for a country like Poland. If Poland is clearly dominated by white people, as you said they are then, advertisements will try to relate to the demographics of their consumers. However, in the United States, we witness a balance in our demographics, which explains the appeal for a balance of races in an advertisement.
Racism is a controversial issue and term in the United States that people continue to use loosely. Rather than crediting Microsoft for a smart marketing scheme, we find is easier to explain an alteration of race as a significant example of racism. What if the original advertisement displayed the white man instead of a black man; however, Microsoft decided to photoshop the white man with a black man because they thought he better fit the demographic to a certain area? I am pretty sure that in this case, racism would not be a significant issue because we overlook problems of race when it is against black people. I understand that racism is a critical issue in our lives; however, sometimes we need to think beyond the realm and look at the bigger picture.
After reading the article, “Political Correctness or Blatant Racism?”, I was not surprised with the actions of a corporate company such as Microsoft. Also I did not believe that altering a photo by replacing a black man with a white man was significant enough to be defined as racism, but rather a smart marketing move. Corporations possess a resposibility to appeal to their marketing population. In the corporate world numerous actions can be defined as racism; however, their main focus is on selling their products and reaching the largest market. If the simple action of photoshopping a person’s face comes off as racism, then I blame our culture rather than wrongs by a corporation. We witness stronger examples of racism in our lives on a daily basis than an example of a marketing scheme. The advertisers of a company have a responsibility to the company and their stockholders to understand and reach out to an audience. If your audience leans towards one side then you heavily lean to that side.
Once again, I do not define the actions of Microsoft, as an act of racism. Even within the United States, we witness companies altering their advertisements, in order to appeal to a certain demographic. For example, magazine covers tend to differ from state to state, in order to suit the culture and demographics of a certain state. Like you said you would not put pictures of straight couples in a LGBT magazine because it is unfamiliar to the readers and does not suit their interest. Also if corporations wanted to sell products in China, they would display advertisements of black people who are almost non-existent in the country. The same goes for a country like Poland. If Poland is clearly dominated by white people, as you said they are then, advertisements will try to relate to the demographics of their consumers. However, in the United States, we witness a balance in our demographics, which explains the appeal for a balance of races in an advertisement.
Racism is a controversial issue and term in the United States that people continue to use loosely. Rather than crediting Microsoft for a smart marketing scheme, we find is easier to explain an alteration of race as a significant example of racism. What if the original advertisement displayed the white man instead of a black man; however, Microsoft decided to photoshop the white man with a black man because they thought he better fit the demographic to a certain area? I am pretty sure that in this case, racism would not be a significant issue because we overlook problems of race when it is against black people. I understand that racism is a critical issue in our lives; however, sometimes we need to think beyond the realm and look at the bigger picture.
The advertising world revolves around the customers and the demographic that the company is trying to reach. How is a customer supposed to relate to the ad when the people in the ad are not of his demographic? Advertisement agencies research every aspect of their target customers and put out an ad that would appeal to them.
The example with the Microsoft ad is a perfect example of this, and I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of other examples that are identical to the Microsoft one. The United States has a very diverse demographic which is why Microsoft included three completely different groups of people (one white male, one black male, and one white female). However the makeup of Poland’s population is much different than ours. The fact is only 1.1% of Poland’s population is black and Microsoft knew that. It would not make sense to put a black person in an ad when there is such a small percentage of that race in the country it’s targeting. Is it racist, no, and anyone that thinks it is, is in fact entitled to his or her own opinion but in reality they are just being naïve. If advertisement agencies were not “racist” than they would never be able to get their message across.
Every ad, magazine, commercial, etc… targets a specific group of people (whether large or small). For example, the Playboy magazine targets men by featuring pictures of naked women. If Playboy introduced naked men into their magazine than most likely the men would stop buying the magazine. I don’t know about you but if I see an ad where there is an Afghani male wearing a turban, and he’s holding up a bottle of Sunny D, my first instinct will not be, “HEY!! I’m thirsty lets go grab a Sunny D.” I’m sorry, but my reaction will more likely be, “What the f*** were they thinking. Maybe that makes me a bad person and some people would call me racist, but I stand by my position and I’m sure the majority of the country would also. That’s not to say that if the same ad aired in Afghanistan, the reaction that people would have there would be closer to the opposite of mine. And advertisement agencies know this, which is what makes them successful.
On the other side, people can argue that advertisements should be trying to sell the product and not manipulate the consumer. This is a valid point, why try and sell a product if you do not believe it is good enough with out manipulating its audience? Shouldn’t the best product be able to be sold under any condition? Yes. But aren’t the most successful companies, organizations, and people the ones with a competitive advantage. That’s what ads try and obtain, a competitive advantage. And one way to do this is by showing the audience that people in their demographic use the product.
The reality is that Microsoft is not the only company that has different ads for different populations, its smart business, and that’s you need to be to sell a product effectively.
I am astonished that racism is still such a big issue in today's society. I know that racism has never disappeared but it was never in my face. I grew up in a very cultured white area, so I never seen any acts of racism. I had no idea to the extent in which black people have to deal day to day. People are all equal; it is written in our constitution. I do not comprehend then why people have such a problem with skin color. A person is a person regardless of gender, race, or religion. Microsoft’s incident proved how much people and especially advertisers take into race into consideration. I think that Microsoft made a huge mistake by cutting out the black man in general and then just putting his hand in. I believe that advertisers should trying to direct their advertisements to not one race and make their advertisements more universal. However, I think that they should have just did two different ads if they thought that putting a black man in the advertisement would make their product less appealing to white people. In this case, the advertisers could have made one ad for white people and one for black; or even better they should just put a black and white man in it together that way they get their message across to both races. I also find it interesting how careless Microsoft was leaving in the man’s black hand. It is extremely easy to use Photoshop and could have been dealt with in minutes. I understand that the advertisers were trying to appeal to a certain demographic area; Poland has a very white population. However, we now live in a multi-cultural society. I am sure that there are many people from different races in Poland. Directing the ad to one race was a mistake and I am sure they will lose money because of it. I do not think that directing an advertisement to one race is ever a good idea especially in today’s society. As someone recently posted it is not who is in the commercial that grabs my attention, it is the product or good that is being presented.
It’s hard for me to say what I really feel about this. In my gut, I know it’s not right, but I’m unsure where racism ends and simply appealing to a different demographic begins. Some would say that this ad was a mistake, but it seems impossible to believe that Microsoft, as successful as they are would let this ‘slip by.’ Major companies use racist advertising all the time, but they just say that they are appealing to a different crowd. So the question arises again. Why is it racist to replace one black man, but okay to advertise the same product with people of different colors in different countries or cities. To me, it’s hard to justify my upset since it’s common practice to do this. Thinking about how advertisement shifts makes me wonder how people feel like they need their “own kind” to be sporting a product in order to buy it. Is it automatically racist of me if I don’t want to buy a product with people who aren’t my color in the advertisement. There isn’t a clear way to ascertain what makes a product appealing to someone, and there is no way to determine the levels of racism in one’s mind. What if someone doesn’t want to be racist, yet allows themselves to play into racist advertising. I guess you could be racist by accident, but what does it really mean if you have no deep-seated hostility behind your preferences. The big problem with this ad is that they didn’t use a different body, just a different head; not to mention the fact that they left the hands as is. The way they “fixed” the ad was done in a shoddy manner that reminds me of someone bent over a desk hastily photoshopping the black away. The ad was almost perfect, it just needed a few touch ups, apparently. There are other white people in the photo, so they’ve already targeted their key demographic (their population is predominantly white). Why, then, did they feel the need to eliminate the black guy? It’s strange that Microsoft felt their product wouldn’t sell as well with a black man in the ad. Is it true that Poles are more racist than Americans? And is it really racist to assume that psychologically white people will relate better to a “white ad.” Perhaps the brain is more perceptive to these kind of ads and people can’t even help it. I guess there is a broad scope of political correctness to consider. Would this story have been as offensive if it had been a man of a different race? Or what if they had used two separate models instead of just replacing the head? It’s hard to really say but in the end, advertisers are looking to sell as much as possible, and they believe this is how you do it.
I think that the altered advertisement occurrence is acceptable in the sense that a business wants to appeal to its consumer, and clearly the polish population would relate more to an advertisement featuring a white man as appose to a black man. I guess the greater issue is how you define business ethics, which I think is redundant anyway as it all seems to have a Machiavellian undertone. Whoever photoshopped the image simply forgot to change the hand. If the hand had been changed and maybe the other faces in the ad it may have gone unnoticed, and referring to the other faces in the ad, for me, it begs the question what about the Asian guy? Why wasn’t his face changed to that of a white man’s as well? Are polish people simply more accustomed to Asians then blacks? Maybe since they already had a white woman they decided they just needed a white man to compliment her, but wanted to maintain a theme of diversity or globalization by keeping the Asian man. Or maybe, since the polish population is vastly white the bulk of the images they receive and interpret of black people are that of the gangster rap culture through MTV and whatnot, which leads them to believe that most, if not all black people, must be like this. I bring this up in this sense because my friend hosted a foreign exchange student from Azerbaijan who I am now very good friends with, and when I first met him he was a little hesitant toward me (I’m black), but when we actually started talking he explained to me that there are basically like 3 black people in Azerbaijan who are all athletes, and he said the only image they get of black people is through sports, the rap culture, and gangster movies so people stay away from the black athletes in his country. However, he said visiting the United States completely changed his view and he said himself that black people are nicer than white people, which we all got a laugh out of, but back to the hand in the advertisement. The reason why I chose to write this journal, the comment by the one blogger who states, “The white head and black hand actually symbolize interracial harmony. It is supposed to show that a person can be white and black, old and young at the same time.” This is the biggest load of delusional bull shit I have heard in a while for so many reasons. First of all we’re referring to Microsoft, not the Peace Corps. I seriously doubt one of their primary concerns in advertising is interracial harmony. Second, if it were, pasting a white man’s head and leaving a black man’s hand would be such an elementary attempt at expressing said topic. This statement just shows the drastic lengths some people will go to maintain political correctness. You can’t deny the fact that it was simply a marketing technique that was executed poorly.
I am very surprised to see that Microsoft, of all international companies, would be the next to face the on-going issue of racism in their advertisements. Microsoft’s products should not be aimed towards any type of market at all, considering a person of any race or gender uses a computer in the exact same way. A black man and a white man do not need to be marketed towards in different ways for these products. I think it can be justified to market towards different audiences for certain industries, such as fashion, food, etc., but the technology industry is universal and excludes vast cultural differences, therefore the market should be homogeneous. Society has become so desensitized to issues of race that a white man replacing a black man in this Polish advertisement just seems like a waste of time. No consumer, American or Polish, should be turned away from buying a Microsoft product because of the race of the people sitting around the desk. Although I think it was waste for Microsoft to even change this advertisement in the first place, I think it was completely careless of them to mess up in Photoshop. If they changed the color of this man’s hand this whole issue may have gone unnoticed or at least with much less controversy. Replacing a black man with a white man does make Microsoft seem like they favor white consumers more than black, which comes off racist. I understand that Microsoft wants to target the Polish market, which is extremely white, but as I previously stated I don’t believe the Polish consumers would refuse to purchase Microsoft products because there is one black man in the ad. This became a race issue for basically no reason. The other interesting fact is that there is an Asian man present that went completely unchanged. Does Microsoft honestly think that it is going to make a difference to any market that there are no black people in this advertisement but there is an Asian, which apparently is okay? Microsoft is trying to tiptoe around the race issue by keeping the Asian man in the photo but they couldn’t even avoid it because of a technological error. Next time, they need to be more careful. They could have avoided it completely by just keeping the original advertisement. So many ads today diversify their models even when they don’t have to. Almost every American ad has one white person, one black person, and someone of another race, but ads that don’t diversify their models don’t seem to be getting in trouble. Most people don’t even care about ads they see in magazines or on billboards. Most consumers look at ads without even thinking about racism but it keeps coming up because companies, like Microsoft, screw up.
I am very surprised to see that Microsoft, of all international companies, would be the next to face the on-going issue of racism in their advertisements. Microsoft’s products should not be aimed towards any type of market at all, considering a person of any race or gender uses a computer in the exact same way. A black man and a white man do not need to be marketed towards in different ways for these products. I think it can be justified to market towards different audiences for certain industries, such as fashion, food, etc., but the technology industry is universal and excludes vast cultural differences, therefore the market should be homogeneous. Society has become so desensitized to issues of race that a white man replacing a black man in this Polish advertisement just seems like a waste of time. No consumer, American or Polish, should be turned away from buying a Microsoft product because of the race of the people sitting around the desk. Although I think it was waste for Microsoft to even change this advertisement in the first place, I think it was completely careless of them to mess up in Photoshop. If they changed the color of this man’s hand this whole issue may have gone unnoticed or at least with much less controversy. Replacing a black man with a white man does make Microsoft seem like they favor white consumers more than black, which comes off racist. I understand that Microsoft wants to target the Polish market, which is extremely white, but as I previously stated I don’t believe the Polish consumers would refuse to purchase Microsoft products because there is one black man in the ad. This became a race issue for basically no reason. The other interesting fact is that there is an Asian man present that went completely unchanged. Does Microsoft honestly think that it is going to make a difference to any market that there are no black people in this advertisement but there is an Asian, which apparently is okay? Microsoft is trying to tiptoe around the race issue by keeping the Asian man in the photo but they couldn’t even avoid it because of a technological error. Next time, they need to be more careful. They could have avoided it completely by just keeping the original advertisement. So many ads today diversify their models even when they don’t have to. Almost every American ad has one white person, one black person, and someone of another race, but ads that don’t diversify their models don’t seem to be getting in trouble. Most people don’t even care about ads they see in magazines or on billboards. Most consumers look at ads without even thinking about racism but it keeps coming up because companies, like Microsoft, screw up.
I am not surprised that Microsoft changed their advertisement from a black man to a white man’s head. Yes, I believe that it is a small form racism but racism still exists today. If the advertisement was directed at Polish customers then it made sense that they changed the picture. Although, I do believe it was morally wrong to photo shop in a new head and that they should have used a different picture or took a new one that targeted the Polish consumers. I guarantee other companies in corporate America change or photo shop advertisements all the time to appeal to different customers but that does not make it right. I find it almost comical that the world has made such a big deal about different races and religions that picking out “what types of people” can be in company adds is something that is addressed in the media.
I am currently an elementary education major and at the beginning of every year when I buy a textbook for one of my education courses the cover has a picture of children on it. It’s not surprising that these children are specifically and purposely from different backgrounds and cultures to make the cover of the book look “diverse”. When I see this I usually just laugh to myself because in reality I will not be teaching a classroom of diverse students. Say I end up teaching in the suburbs. Almost every child who attends the school will have similar family incomes and similar backgrounds. It is just a common fact that most economically “well off” families will live in the same neighborhood and therefore go to the same school. Most of these children will be Caucasian. When textbooks advertise with diverse children it just makes me think that political correctness in America has come to an unnecessary level.
Because of racism and the way people see or think about each other, advertising to appeal to different races is something we must do. If I wanted to buy a product and I saw someone like me modeling it I would be more likely to buy it then if someone who looked very different from me was modeling it. I believe most people would agree with me and they would do the same thing. It is simply how society operates nowadays.
This topic is something difficult to discuss because some people feel so strongly about it while other people (like myself) believe it’s an issue that we have all seen before. Maybe we all have to sit back and realize that racism does exits and the way we perceive race will not change unless every single person in the world stopped putting pressure on appearance.
Signs of racism are evident every day in all corners of the world. From education, to occupations, to advertising, racism, however subtle it may be, still exists in many capacities. That is why it is not very surprising to read about the advertising technique that Microsoft used in targeting their Polish demographic. Microsoft made a huge gaff in changing the face of a black man to the face of a white man but forgetting to change the hands. Now that their mistake has been exposed to the American public, they appear to be racist. Their intention was most likely to appeal to the Polish population, which is overwhelmingly white. It was probably Microsoft’s thinking that a mostly white demographic would rather buy from a company whose advertisements depict people that look like them. Microsoft assumed that it would not be smart to show a black man in a country with very few black people. Would it really make a difference in sales in Poland if Microsoft had kept the black man in their ad? Shouldn’t their product be able to sell itself? Microsoft is a mega corporation. They should not have to racially target their demographic in different countries. The quality of their product should speak for itself. No one can ultimately be sure whether switching the race of the people in their ads make any difference to Microsoft’s sales. However, one can be sure that their blunder caused them embarrassment and made them appear racist, at least to the American public.
Racially motivated advertising probably occurs more often than anyone is aware. Companies definitely use techniques similar to the one Microsoft used but they are more careful to cover their tracks to avoid embarrassment. Corporations and companies must use any method necessary to sell their products. That is why companies should not be blamed for using racist advertising techniques. They are just trying to gain an advantage in selling their product. Whether these techniques work or not is up for debate. The world in which we live in is what is to blame for controversies like this. The fact that companies feel that adjusting the race of their ad to fit a specific audience will help them sell better is disappointing. Similar controversies to racially motivated advertising will always be in existence. Although progress has been made on racial issues, no one will ever be color blind. There will never be a single race of people and there will always be certain individuals who have prejudices and those prejudices may go as far as to not buying a particular product that depicts a black man in its advertisement. It is a shame that companies must think about race so much in their ads, but it is something that will probably never change.
I am not surprised that Microsoft changed their advertisement from a black man to a white man’s head. Yes, I believe that it is a small form racism but racism still exists today. If the advertisement was directed at Polish customers then it made sense that they changed the picture. Although, I do believe it was morally wrong to photo shop in a new head and that they should have used a different picture or took a new one that targeted the Polish consumers. I guarantee other companies in corporate America change or photo shop advertisements all the time to appeal to different customers but that does not make it right. I find it almost comical that the world has made such a big deal about different races and religions that picking out “what types of people” can be in company adds is something that is addressed in the media.
I am currently an elementary education major and at the beginning of every year when I buy a textbook for one of my education courses the cover has a picture of children on it. It’s not surprising that these children are specifically and purposely from different backgrounds and cultures to make the cover of the book look “diverse”. When I see this I usually just laugh to myself because in reality I will not be teaching a classroom of diverse students. Say I end up teaching in the suburbs. Almost every child who attends the school will have similar family incomes and similar backgrounds. It is just a common fact that most economically “well off” families will live in the same neighborhood and therefore go to the same school. Most of these children will be Caucasian. When textbooks advertise with diverse children it just makes me think that political correctness in America has come to an unnecessary level.
Because of racism and the way people see or think about each other, advertising to appeal to different races is something we must do. If I wanted to buy a product and I saw someone like me modeling it I would be more likely to buy it then if someone who looked very different from me was modeling it. I believe most people would agree with me and they would do the same thing. It is simply how society operates nowadays.
This topic is something difficult to discuss because some people feel so strongly about it while other people (like myself) believe it’s an issue that we have all seen before. Maybe we all have to sit back and realize that racism does exits and the way we perceive race will not change unless every single person in the world stopped putting pressure on appearance.
Initiallly, when I read the article and some of the responding blogs, my first reaction was “relax people, it is no big deal.” Microsoft is a huge international business coorporation. As everybody else, they want to make money, and they were just targeting their Polish audience to enlarge their profits, and share on the Polish Market. However, this coldheartet approach was soon questioned, when I came to think about the signals that their little retouch is sending to us.
What strikes me the most is not what this add tells us about how microsoft is being politically uncorrect by replacing black with white. Being an European exchange student here at Penn State University, I am much more focused on how Microsoft presents us Europeans, well the Polish, as being too narrowminded to accept a black man in an add. We do watch Oprah Winfrey over there, okay! I do understand why they were inspired and hit by the idea though. Coming from the “white” Europe, where most black men are pimps, who makes it dangerous to go out at night, I can honestly but not proudly say that I have never shaked a black man’s hand before coming to the United States, just about 3 weeks ago. However, I do also consider myself as being an educated and openminded person, and I do know that this is not a representative picture of real world realities. Being a senior student in the field of international business communication, I am very much aware of the inter -and multicultural business areana that we are all a part of, a place where we, across country boundaries, nationalities, languages, etc, are meeting and communication with people of different race, color and standpoints, everyday.
From my perspective, The Microsoft coorporation would have absolutely no gains out of making a discriminating campaign, so of course that was not the intention behind it. Anyone who is into Business knows that advertisement is regularily modified to appeal more to the target customers. The only reason why this is any different than other advertisments is because it touches upon the very sensitive and uncomfortable subject of race.
I do recommend that in the future, if any big companies, such as Microsoft, decide to make a similar stunt, please do not make the mistake that obviously.
About the hand, I think its just hilarious that the mistake could even occur for a giant as Microsoft. However, we are only humans, or Monkeys, as Sam would probably say. Let us celebrate that the Civil Rights Movement did a good job back in the days. Let us stop being oversensitive and move on – Because sooner or later, people, we are all going to die!
As taboo as we may think changing the color of someone's skin in an advertisement may be, Microsoft's actions are not as uncommon as we would like to believe they are in the world today. The US prides itself on being a progressive nation in all facets, especially in terms of diversity. They see diversity as a positive thing, and in some cases, even a marketing gimmick. In many advertisements and commercials in the US, we often see the "token Asian girl" or the "token black guy" to appeal to a broader audience. Universities flaunt their diverse campuses, companies brag about the relations they have with various countries; The US welcomes diversity with open arms. Similar to what Microsoft did, these are institutions and organizations making sure to please the public. The masses in Poland, on the other hand, perhaps might value less racially integrated situations or another possibility could be that the majority of the population in Poland is made up of predominantly white people. Now when marketing a good, the company wants to target a population they are selling their product to. The target population in Poland, in this case, would be primarily white people. While some may call Microsoft’s alterations in Poland racist, others would see it as sensible.
The US is gung-ho about being accepting of all races and integration of race. So from our point of view, the US may applaud the meshing of races and condemn using only one race as the face of a product as racist; however conversely, people in Poland may not see anything wrong with only seeing white people in the media.
We can find this "marketing technique" in use in our everyday life. Why do places like Chopstick Express, Maki Yaki, or Hunan Wok, here in State College, tend to have only Asian employees? An Asian restaurant worked by Asians produces an environment fitting for their “product” and creates the perception that the food served there is authentic. "I saw a lot of Chinese people eating at that Chinese restaurant. It must be good,” quoted by Rachel in Friends, this could be tied similarly to the Microsoft situation. We purposely, carefully choose who we want to represent and be associated with the product we are trying to sell, ultimately trying to appeal to the target audience and successfully convey their desired message.
What I don’t understand is why the company in Poland failed to change the color of the model’s hand. I don’t think that was meant to symbolize anything in particular. I think it was a simple careless miss on behalf of the company.
As ridiculous as we may find Microsoft's actions, we, the US, are just as guilty in making sure the public agrees with who we choose to be the face of products. I don’t see it as a racist act but instead a simple marketing tool.
It actually shocked me quite a bit that Microsoft would do something like this. I believe that it was very racist on their part. What really made it a huge deal is the fact that they did not change the hands as well, and even if they did just change the hands, I still think it is wrong. If I were in charge of this specific advertisement in the Microsoft Marketing Department, I would have either tried to take a risk and use the original image or just take another damn picture. Is it really that hard for a Fortune 500 company to hire another photographer for another picture? I don’t think so. I would have been ok with the whole situation if they would have just taken another picture that had different people and at a totally different place. Another thing about the article that should be cleared up is that the different color hand and head DOES NOT symbolize interracial harmony. The whole purpose of their actions to begin with was to make sure a Black man was not seen by their Polish customers. Also, what if that Black man was actually mostly white anyway? He would be pissed.
This is just something very unprofessional that Microsoft messed up on. It is a very cheap way of going about doing this. I understand when others comment on how advertising is directed to a certain race, age, gender, etc., but it was still unacceptable on Microsoft’s part. What if what Microsoft did is just reinforcing the problem more? Since advertisers do target ads to certain races most the time I feel like it just makes people think the same way. If they were to break that racial boundary and take a risk by releasing the original photo to their Polish consumers, it could cause good press instead of bad press. They could get a story in the New York Times saying, “Microsoft Takes a Chance with Race” and it could explain all about how Microsoft does not discriminate based on race. This could give them a huge competitive advantage in the worldwide technology market. Now I doubt an article would be written if they actually did it because it may not have been even a problem at all. Polish communities are mostly all whites; however, some may take into consideration that the ad is coming from a country with a Black president. I wonder what Obama thought of all this. A major corporation, representing the USA takes out the Black man. One day we will be able to put anyone in pictures no matter what country it is going to. It is just so hard to see it happening anywhere in the near future. It is a shame that after years of battling race issues, we monkeys just can’t figure it out.
I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s some racism behind the reason for this photo change. And it was a terrible job by Microsoft. How could they forget to change his hand? And the head looks like it’s an uncomfortable position the way they cropped it on the other man’s body. I understand some people may say that it was changed because Poland is mostly white so Microsoft wanted it to apply to them, but honestly isn’t Microsoft a global corporation? Why should they change their adds to fit certain populations instead of represent all of the populations they reach? Whoever “fixed” the ad did a very sloppy job. And I love how Microsoft said they pulled the ad and were going to investigate who made the changes. Wouldn’t they be aware of the ad since they’re company made it and put it out in public to advertise for them? I don’t think it would’ve been a big deal if both ads were the same – if the one for the US as well as Poland had a white woman, white man, and Asian man. I think our country is over the whole “there’s no black man in here – what’s up with that?” – at least for the most part. But don’t change the ad because Poland’s mostly white. Why not replace the Asian man with a white man? Oh yeah – because white people seem “more comfortable” around other races when they’re more “white.” I don’t even know what that means sometimes but it seems to be true for a large population of our country, and I’m sure for others as well. But I think Microsoft should grow some and leave the black man in next time. What’s wrong with a black man in the corporate world? People around the world seem to respect Obama so why pull black men out of ads?
I have mixed feelings about this image and I'm not yet sure which position I will be taking. As I write I will decide. I must admit that I am a little desensitized to this image because I have seen this done in a different form, a college “Come to OUR school” ad. In that instance the original picture showed all white students sporting their team’s colors and cheering. Then, right below it, the “doctored” photo showed one black student replacing a white student that was in the background. At the time, I just got a cheap laugh at it because I thought it was funny and didn’t really think much more about it, until taking this class.
I can see how this Microsoft image could be offensive to some viewers; however, I can also see the intelligent marketing idea. I can understand how a black person would take offense to this, thinking things such as “Are black people not good enough? What the fuck? Who do they think they are?” I don’t think that they were trying to be racist but they were insensitive to the black population. I'm sure that although there may very well be a only a small black population in that country, it would have made that minority demographic feel proud that they were represented.
How do I feel about this? Well, to be honest I would not get offended if they turned a white guy to a black guy; if it makes sense, do it. On this issue I take the position that this was just an intelligent marketing decision. Professor Richards even mentioned how “white” Poland is. I think that someone somewhere decided that the picture in question was just a “good picture”. Would it make sense to reassemble those men and retake the picture? Of course not, rather it would be more efficient not only financially but also in life’s most precious commodity, time.
What I don’t understand is why they did not also edit the color of the man’s hands to match his face. One would think that the richest company in the world would have editors for that. Even the people that did the original photo shopping would have realized that they forgot something. So what does this tell us? It tells us that they were left that way for a reason. What is that reason? I have no idea. I have thought about this for the past 20 minutes and the only real reason that I can come up with is that someone didn’t do their job and likely has since lost their job. Maybe I'm a bad person but I think that if someone took offense to this I would tell them to grow up and enjoy life.
Reading this article, I thought how could someone change the head of black man to that of a white man, and not think that is racist? Though one could say they are attempting to reach a, “target audience,” we are living in a racially mixed world. Though the ad was for the Polish population, I strongly doubt that the people of Poland would be confused or offended by the picture of a black man. Also, it seems bizarre to me that a company as big and as well known as Microsoft would make such an obvious racist action. Microsoft is trying to sell their product to all people of all races, so by replacing a black man with a white man, they are probably going to lose many of their black customers, which surely make up a large percentage of their total consumers. It really just seems pointless to change the ad. If Microsoft was so concerned with not reaching the Polish consumers, they should have just created an entirely new ad. Changing the old ad was just a slap in the face to the black community. I do not believe that Microsoft’s attempt was to come off as racist, it is clearly not in their best interest to appear so; however, millions of people are going to see these ads and make the connection. When a company is as publicized as Microsoft, they must be extremely careful of how they appear to the general public. Though their intent was probably not to be racist, that is how they appear and they definitely offended people in doing so. This change to the ad probably did more harm than good since everyone jumped down Microsoft’s throat. It is interesting however, that if this were to occur in the U.S. it would have created pandemonium. Our nation has become obsessed with not appearing racist, that it has become comical. One cannot look at an advertisement for a business or company and only see the norm or stereotype. They are too afraid of offending someone somewhere, so they put in a representation of all the “major” races. This in some way appears as more racist, the fact that this still needs to be considered when creating an advertisement. In the end, there really is no way that Microsoft can make an excuse for how their ad made people feel offended or uncomfortable. Sure, they may claim that they are trying to target a certain audience and relate to them better, but there is no way that they can get around how the whole situation looks. It looks insensitive and racist, and Microsoft is going to have to do a great deal of damage control because of this stupid mistake.
Aside from the poor Photoshop skill displayed in the Polish ad (the head is too small and the lighting is atrociously inconsistent with the rest of the photo), it is really poor judgment shown my whoever created and approved the alteration made to the ad specifically for the Polish audience. I can understand the need for certain parts of the world where racial relations aren’t equal to avoid depicting certain races or ethnicities in advertisements. But if it is determined by the “color calculators” that an ad needs more or less diversity, they should create an entirely new ad instead of blatantly altering an existing ad. It just feels like they don’t care enough about the market, Polish in this case, to make an ad specifically targeted for them. Microsoft, especially with their large advertising funds, should be avoiding the image-altering process completely.
Altering an image for racial reasons creates a reaction for all parties involved. First of all, people of the race that is removed probably don’t like it. They’re pretty much saying, “We care about you Mr. Black Corporate Man so be in our ad. But we don’t care enough so we’ll photoshop a white head on your body or crop you out for a different market.” That’s just pure discrimination based on nothing but his skin color. It’s not like they photoshopped Lil’ Wayne out of the picture because he didn’t fit the theme of the ad, which could be understandable because Weezy’s appearance doesn’t exactly fit the corporate culture. However, the black man in the ad fits the message of the ad. He shouldn’t have to worry about being covered up by a white face.
As a white guy (although not Polish), I’m extremely irked that they had to disrespect the black man in the ad and other blacks just to appeal more towards white people. If I’m a member of a corporate environment, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest bit if there were two black men and an Asian woman at the table as long as they appear representative of a corporate environment. However, changing the face of the black man, who I have no issues with in this picture, to a white face feels like a cheap attempt by Microsoft to get my attention. I would notice the ad because it appeals to my culture, a corporate culture for example, and not the races of the people depicted. I would pass by the ad if it featured the three wiggers sitting at the table, even though they’re white, because they don’t fit the corporate environment. The corporate culture is what makes the ad seem realistic, not an extra white face or one less black face.
Another thing that makes this even more reprehensible is that these two ads were Internet ads. They weren’t in magazines where the only access would be in the intended markets. The internet is available for all to see. For the ad creators to believe that no one would ever come across both ads is extremely thoughtless, but not as much as blatantly changing a black man into a white man.
So this will sound nice and racist I think, but:
I understand why there was somewhat of an uproar about what Microsoft did in their advertisement; they seemed to be making a blatant statement of what/who would look more appealing in that specific ad – in this case, a white person instead of a black person. It seems on the surface totally racist and inappropriate. That said, some of the bloggers have emphasized a point with which I agree: this is advertising – it’s business, and they were making a business decision. The act was essentially the same as when businesses choose one model over the other for any other physical feature simply because it suits the product or it will appeal more to the projected audience. A woman with thick, gorgeous hair will obviously be chosen over a thinned-out, over-bleached head of hair for an Herbal Essences ad. A toned, healthy-looking person will obviously be chosen for a home gym equipment ad over a fat, greasy person who looks like they eat McDonald’s all day and has never been to the gym once in their life. Businesses choose the appropriate persons who look right for the product or are more relatable to the consumer.
That the Microsoft ad was not altered for its publishing in the U.S. is crucial to this whole story; there are more black people here than in Poland, and therefore the ad is relatable to more people here than it would have been in Poland. Someone who lives in an entirely white culture just doesn’t relate himself as well to someone of another race than he does to one of his own race. I suppose the only really tricky part of this is the fact that I’m white, so I’ve (almost) always been more attracted to ads with white people. I don’t know if it’s the exact same for other races in a white supremacy society. Sam started to talk about the look of the ideal white person and how some people of other races try to strive for that ideal…I can’t say that I think this is what Microsoft was doing, though. Perhaps they didn’t go about the cutting and pasting as smoothly as they could have (I agree that it seemed raw), but they weren’t trying to make some statement about race. They chose to edit the ad because of where it was going to be published. Yes, the people at Microsoft switched the face because of race, but I just don’t see how this could be classified as racist. Is using a man for a mens deodorant commercial sexist? Or a fit person for an exercise ad…weightist?
Upon first inspection of the photographs used in the Microsoft advertisement, I must say, they are startling at the very least. To see a white man’s head imposed to the top of a black man’s body is almost comical- did Microsoft not think anyone would find this? In yet another case of “political correctness” backfiring on itself…it raises the question, how much can you toe the line of ethics?
Since the advent of the politically correct generation, the principle has driven advertising campaigns, dictated social mores, and fueled much debate amongst people as they wonder how much good it really is doing for our society and social conduct.
Logically, advertisers seek to market to the specific demographic they feel will buy and use their product the most. In Sam’s example about the portrayal of gay couples in advertisements found in gay magazines, I feel that this practice is both practical and justified. And yet, by the same token, take a step back and look at what is really happening here- one social group of individuals are being singled out, and used to market a product.
When looked at through that lens, we can compare that example to the advertisement used by Microsoft. A black man was removed from an advertisement, and semi replaced by a white man. In other words, a member of one racial group was replaced by another in order to better sell a product. When framed that way- how could anyone find this ethical or reasonable? The fact that the original body belonging to a black man was replaced by a white man’s head simply adds insult to injury – perhaps more so than if the black man was replaced altogether.
Further still, it is interesting to note that while the black man was removed, the Asian man remains. In Microsoft’s eyes, is it socially acceptable to have only one non-caucasian person per advertisement? Or does the actual shade of skin darkness denote whether or not one can be in an ad? I would be interested to hear what Microsoft (and Bill Gates) would have to say for themselves after taking a slam like this. It would be pretty hard to talk yourself out of this one (“Well, we must have accidentally forgotten to replace his body, so we just replaced his head…”).
Another aspect of this advertisement I find funny is the fact that the slogan is “Empower your people.” (At least that’s what it says in the English version… I don’t read much Polish.) The phrase “your people” puts me in the mind of segregation in the first place. As in, “My people can use this water fountain, but YOUR people need to use that one.” This slogan, coupled with the ridiculous photoshopped person really puts Microsoft on my sh*t list (more so than they already were, that is.)
When I first saw the picture for this article, I was utterly confused. Not only was there a difference in color with the face and hands, but the head to body proportion looked awkward. My initial question was why?! Why was it necessary to Photoshop a different face? And if they were to make this action, why weren’t they more professional and alert of their actions. I mean Microsoft makes a lot of money, I am sure they could have spared some so they could properly cut and paste the different body. In advertising/marketing I thought it was always important to pay attention to detail because you are promoting a product and want all of your viewers to buy the product. With this advertisement, I lose interest as to what it is trying to sell, which also convinces me not to buy it. I now begin to question if Microsoft is a racist company. It is completely understandable how they wanted to change the race in the advertisement for Poland because due to it being the whitest areas in the country. It is probably the most effective key to marketing and selling more of their product. I am sure every global business change their ad’s based on the area so they can strategically make the largest profit. However, I personally think that regardless of where you advertise products, all different races should be enforced. The world is used to their own culture and understandings, which makes them unaware of others. Everyone needs to broaden their horizons and be more appreciative of others. Therefore, even though Poland consists of predominantly white residents, that does not need to stop them from advertising other races in their advertisements. In this case, Poland is exposed to ‘making the familiar strange and the strange familiar.‘ They are so used to viewing things from one perspective and if they are to see different races the automatically judge the advertisement in a negative way. From what I see, other races/cultures are finally getting recognize and spreading throughout the country. I feel like the world is always looked upon a Westernized (Caucasian) view, but now I feel like I slowly see it changing by different races becoming successful and making a good name for their selves For example: Asians, Hispanics and African Americans. In the United States, this would automatically be politically incorrect and I would find it racist. I would be offended because I would think Microsoft is stating African Americans are not ‘good enough’ or ‘intelligent enough’ to be advertised on a high level and well known company. In Poland, they probably would not make such a big deal about this advertisement because they are not used to other races which would not make them as offended about it. However they would possibly look at it negatively because they are not used to seeing other races. Overall, I would say regardless of where Microsoft was advertising, they made a careless yet huge error and now many people, especially minorities may have a different outlook on this company along with all of the other companies out there. This was not a bad look for just Microsoft, it made all of the other companies look bad because now everyone may be thinking of how other global companies advertise their products in different parts of the country and if they are also sending wrong or perhaps racist messages.
I want to start off by saying that I do not think that the Microsoft advertisement was rasctist. Although I do not think the photo shopping was necessary, I understand the fact that Microsoft was trying to appeal to a certain audience which is the main goal of advertising. The advertisement would have been fine if they had left it in its original state. If they had done so, Microsoft would have been able to avoid this whole dilema. Clearly Microsoft made a mistake by photoshopping the advertisement. In the article, one blogger stated that the white face and black hands were a symbol of unity amongst the races. I do not buy this opinion for a second, it was obviously a mistake and someone forgot to edit the hands as well as the head.
I think that it is understandable that Microsoft would try to appeal more to consumers. In essence, Microsoft was just trying to achieve its main marketing objective of reaching out to more consumers by protraying a certain ethinicity in thier advertisement. Companies must change advertisements all the time to appeal to different parts of the world. While I do not think it was neccessary to edit the man's head, I do not believe it was rascist. Microsoft was simply trying to appeal to a mostly white, Polish population. Im not sure in this case how much of a difference it would have made whether they had kept the original advertisement or not, but it makes sense to depict the people that your marketing your products toward in your advertisement. For example, in Apple's MacBook advertisements it would not be advantageous to depict video gamers using their computers because that is not one of the MacBook's strong points.
Today people are overly sensitive to issues such as this one. Microsoft was not trying to be racist, their intentions were to put out the best advertisement to their target market. Their target market includes a country were the ethnic background of its people is not as diverse as it is here in America. Over 96% of Poland's population is Polish, ethnically speaking. Thus they do not have to be as concerned as Americans are with being politically correct. Sometimes in America, people are far too concerned with political correctness. Im not saying that people should be racist, but I feel that political correctness can sometimes hinder our freedom of speech. Too often people are forced to watch what they say for fear of offending any other ethnic or racial groups. While it may have been in Microsoft's best interests to keep their original advertisement, they should not be considered racist for trying to appeal to their target market.
Personally, I agree with the idea that corporations should focus, and obviously sometimes shift, their marketing towards their consumers. It’s only good business. The reason such an incident gets this much press is because people tend to point out the very things they are afraid of – race and how to avoid offending others. Anytime an advertisement is thought up there is always an underlying idea on how to make the advertisement “racially sound.” In reality, businesses should be able to freely advertise the way they please. That’s not to say that businesses should intentionally use racism in their marketing, but a quick photo edit doesn’t hurt anybody. Of course, it would probably be a good idea to make sure you photo edit the entire photo before you put it out to the public. At any rate, the idea still exists that a corporation should be able to advertise to the consumers necessary to make money. It’s the same theory that a corporation would use when deciding whom to advertise to based on the product they are producing. For example, a company that solely produces winter jackets would not choose to run the majority of its marketing campaign in Tuscan, Arizona. They would advertise in much colder regions. So why would corporations not adjust their marketing to certain consumers in a specific region? Granted, this becomes a much larger issue when race is involved. Unfortunately, if this were to happen in the United States of America, then someone would be paying the price. But would they deserve it? And although I do not see a problem with the Polish ad, I do believe that someone would need to be punished in this country. With the record and reputation that the United States has built over history with how we have treated people of different color, any business caught producing such an error would be followed by an extreme amount of lawsuits and with good reason. Another dent in the already thin armor of the American racism prevention would only taint further the view of us by others throughout the world – although some of their histories are as equally unacceptable. All in all, this idea that there is a “corporate culture” is real and is in full effect. We will continue to see ads that are manipulated and changed to fit and match what each corporation wants. In the end, it all just comes down to money. The decisions that corporations make, whether they be bad or good, are all based purely on how much money they will make in the end. Whether or not that is acceptable, both constitutionally and ethically, comes down to the opinions that people make. We cannot always draw conclusions on life from the actions that corporations make.
While deciding how to start this journal, I skimmed through some of the previous posts and found that “Capone” had a great point worth discussing. His or her post read, “Race is not as big of a deal as people believe it is. Whether you are black or white doesn’t dictate how you will act and whether someone is white or black in a Microsoft ad should not dictate whether or not you buy the product.” This comes after proving that even though companies like Tommy Hilfiger and FUBU direct their merchandise towards whites and blacks, respectively; it does not stop the other race from buying their products. I agree with Capone 100%. Expanding upon that, think about Wheaties or Life cereal, both of which have individuals’ pictures printed on the boxes. When a black child is on the front of a cereal box, do white people stop buying that cereal? I highly doubt it. People buy products for their enjoyment, or personal style, not because of the box or a billboard ad.
Microsoft is neither a predominately “white” product nor a “black” product so why should the races in an advertisement even be an issue? Shouldn’t the company be more concerned with the portrayal of the product in the ad rather than the people using it? I personally believe that the advertisement should have stayed the same. If it had to change, why not include more people of varying races other than the ones already pictured. Adding more people, and therefore more races, may have cost the company more money for the advertisement, but it would have been less controversial in the end.
Speaking of controversy, the fact that one blogger in the article concluded that the white head and black hand represented “interracial harmony” is completely and utterly ridiculous. I would rate it with my top ten worst excuses for doing something wrong. How can someone be so naïve? I believe that with a black man present instead of “Mr. Mixed Race” the races would symbolize interracial harmony a lot better. Honestly, I feel that even if this comment were true (that the mixed race individual denotes interracial harmony), blacks would still be underrepresented in the advertisement.
Looking from a white person’s perspective, I feel ashamed that someone, most likely of my color, could, more or less, stoop to that level of racism. Regardless of whether or not Poland is a predominately white area, the advertisement should not have to change depending on the target audience. As I think about this, could you imagine someone of color allowing that to happen? If I were black and saw the two different ads, I would feel discriminated against. If I were black and worked for Microsoft, I would feel even worse.
To come out right away calling Microsoft’s decision to replace a black man’s face with a white man’s an example of “blatant racism” is most likely going a bit too far. I can see how on first glance, some people’s knee-jerk reaction would be to say that racism was a factor, but upon closer examination that may not appear to be the case. Microsoft, like every other company out there, is trying their best to turn sales around and survive in this economic climate. They are looking for any way to gain an advantage, and if their team of consultants in Europe recommends that making an adjustment to a photo on their Polish website version, then the company has to decide where to go from there.
According to dictionary.com racism is defined as “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.” Using that definition, I am not sure that anybody out there can definitively prove that Microsoft is guilty of blatant racism. I am not saying Microsoft went about this maneuver in the correct manner, they certainly could have hired a better “photo-shopper “ or editor that would have caught this mistake before the media did. I believe that “photoshopping” the original picture was a shrewd move, that if done correctly would have saved Microsoft a few thousand dollars by not having to hire more models, photographers and the like for a new photo shoot.
Of course, Microsoft is not the first company to do something like this, and I can confidently say that they will not be the last either. Back when I was in high school, I was invited to partake in a photo shoot for a new brochure for the school to distribute to prospective students (it was a private school). When the new brochure came out, I decided to see how it turned out. Lo and behold, my picture did not even make the final cut. Maybe the school, like Microsoft, decided that a different picture would be more enticing to possible clients and went in the other direction. The leaders of each have to make tough decisions every day, and not all of those decisions are going to be the most popular nor are they going to be able to satisfy everybody out there.
I just believe that we as Americans are starting to become more cynical as a nation. It seems as if we are always looking for a negative motive when we come across something that we do not completely understand or have the entire set of facts before us. Maybe if we weren’t so quick to jump down people’s throats when we noticed something we didn’t like, people would be more open to discussing their reasoning when it comes to touchy subjects such as race.
This article doesn’t surprise me; companies want to be able to sell their products and people want to see the products on people that have the same cultural background as them. I think it was a little extreme for Microsoft to go try and change the color of a persons skin, however it was a mistake and they were just trying to incorporate diversity into their advertisement. It’s disappointing that for their lousy error that they are coming off racists to the public, but in all actuality it’s just a strategy to keep the customers content. All around the world corporations of course are going to advertise their products with models of the same ethnicity.
I can believe that Poland is a majority of a white population but I can’t see why skin color was such a big issue with sales. I can understand if advertisements have different ethnic models but why does skin color matter so much. Advertisers have a hard job because it is exceedingly important to think about how a person looks in the ad and what they are going to give or take away from the ad. Just think about this, if you are white and are surrounded by ads that are only featuring black people and you see an ad advertising clothes with white models it could possibly catch your eye. This might get you more interested in the clothing line and would make it more appealing for you to buy it. I’m not saying what Microsoft did was ethically the right thing to do, but who is not to say that they made this fault on purpose. A circumstance like this one makes me wonder if the public is criticizing Microsoft’s ad because they truly suppose that replacing a black man with a white man is downright unprincipled. In all, Race is an extremely sensitive subject. Microsoft is a wealthy and global business that doesn’t need to be worrying about minor details to their ads. If a citizen from Poland were interested in buying a computer, they are going to go buy it no matter who or what is in the advertisement trying to sell the computer. So what I am trying to conclude is that consumers are not as aware of the skin colors in an advertisement as the actual advertiser is. There's no need to put people in an ad or not put people in an ad based on their race. This day in age we have grown far from being racially prejudiced, I think people are now embracing diversity and like to see different cultures come together. In the Microsoft article, the one blog on the Photoshop Disasters, the writer completely mislead his justification with the statement about “interracial harmony,” which was humorous. Consequently it is not okay to portray racism in advertisements, but in reality it is always all about the consumer.
Microsoft, racist?
So I read the blog and article based on the Microsoft race mistake. After reading both, it was really hard to decide whether they were being racist. I think because they did not change the hand in the picture it seemed to be very bad, but in reality they were just trying to make there ad appeal to a different crowd. Advertisers will do anything to sell the product!
This may seem like I am being racist but since I am a communications major my thought process is that within the realm of smart advertising. So them not changing the hand just seems completely dumb on there part and is not smart at all. But for them changing the person, they probably did not need to but had decided it would just be a better choice to attract the population in Poland, which is like 96% white (little exaggeration, but remember the skin color map shown in class). Anyhow I agree that changing the person is not a big deal, but accidentally only changing the face is completely bad for their reputation. I wonder what will happen to the person that made the change, since Microsoft has pulled the picture and is now investigating.
On the BBC website with the article it said that a blogger said "The white head and black hand actually symbolize interracial harmony. It is supposed to show that a person can be white and black, old and young at the same time.” I think this blogger is just bullshiting to make them have an excuse and it is a very poor one.
Yes they could have meant to do that, but it is not going to work with this advertisement when there is an exact one with the actual person. If this ad was in China they would not have all black people they would more than likely have all Asian, or in North Korea they would not have an ad with all white people. So it makes sense they changed the races for an ad that was in a different culture. In America that would be completely racist but since it is in a different country with a different culture it would be accepted.
When I read the article I was very surprised that Microsoft would make such a blunder. At first glance I thought it was racist for Microsoft to replace the head of an African American man with the head of a Caucasian person. I also assumed that this incident occurred in the United States. As I continued it read the article I found out that the photo was used in Poland, which is a predominately white country. That really got me thinking and then I thought that the ad wasn’t racist.
I began to pander that Microsoft’s decision to photo shop the picture was a marketing decision and not a racist one. Poland is a predominately white nation and to appeal to the white people in Poland most of the advertisements will probably include white people in them. If I wanted to advertise to an African American crowd in Brooklyn New York I would probably use an ad with people of African American descent. I think Microsoft was looking at the ad from a marketing perspective and not from a racist one. Another example to support this claim would be how people of different races envision Jesus. In America most Caucasian people think Jesus is a white man with long hair. Most African Americans believe that Jesus is a black man. In reality Jesus would have probably looked like a person of Middle Eastern descent. Most people tend to follow people that look like them or follow trends that people of their respective skin color follow. I probably wouldn’t advertise to a predominately Oriental audience using people of Middle Eastern descent.
However I found it quite comical that Microsoft made a mistake while using photo shop. Microsoft should have been thorough in the editing of the photo. It is kind of ironic that the ad states “empower your people with the IT tools they need”, and they made a mistake in photo shop. I totally disagree with the statement that “the white head and black hand actually symbolize interracial harmony.” If there was interracial harmony there would be no need to photo shop the black man’s head out of the photo for a white man’s. Someone made a mistake while photo shopping the portrait and Microsoft missed the error. I hope that Microsoft would not purposefully publish an advertisement with a white man that has a black hand.
Looking at this problem from an American standpoint I think that if this would have happened in the United States it would have been a bigger issue. In America we preach integration and equality. Like Dr. Richards said 99.9% of the human genome is the same in everyone. Hopefully one day in the future we won’t have to change an advertisement because it includes someone of a different color.
Along with the vast majority of the posters on the topic of Microsoft’s advertisement, I find the idea that they were “attempting to please all markets by having a man with both a white face and a black hand” outrageous. I would even go as far as to say that theory is offensive. Perhaps that would be a realistic point of view if the person was rainbow and really could not be tied to any race whatsoever. Maybe, just maybe, that theory could hold any water under those circumstances. While I understand that that would never be done, I feel like it is just as likely as the idea that by edited the black man’s head out and replacing it with a white man’s they were trying to “symbolize interracial harmony,” as the blogger mentioned in the BBC article suggested.
In all reality, I think that it was blatant racism. To change something in an advertisement as extreme as someone’s race with the belief that it will appeal to costumers more is racist. By making that change one is assuming that people will get a different feeling than is the intent of the advertisement if someone with, in this case, black skin is present. For me, the substitution greatly changed the feeling of the advertisement all together in a negative way. I feel like it became less powerful, because it no longer showed Microsoft as a way to bring people from different places together.
I understand the rationale that perhaps the switch was made just because the people are predominantly white in Poland. That reason does make the substitution less offensive. This would be a feasible conclusion to draw from the substitution of the white man’s head for the black man’s head if the Asian woman’s head had been swapped for a white woman’s head as well. The fact that it was just the black man’s head makes me wonder why the people who decided to make the switch felt that the Polish people could handle the appearance of an Asian woman but would be so put off by that of a black man. Is it something to do with the fact that Asians are lighter and closer in color to the white as snow Poles, perhaps?
The message that Microsoft was sending by making the substitution is one that discourages integration and the coming together of people with different backgrounds. I think it is important for large corporations like Microsoft to set a good example and would even go as far as to say it is a part of the corporate social responsibility of those companies to promote global living and racial integration. I’m shocked that such a successful monopoly would make such a blunder. If companies that have such immense power like Microsoft don’t take the lead in heading the change to make a truly racially integrated globe, than who is going to?
In this day and age, no matter where you are or where you are from, racism is still existent. Everyone would like to think that the world has become a more accepting place, but in reality, I don’t think it has. In all honesty, this article isn’t the least bit shocking. Just like we Americans try to make a big deal about “not being racist,” the polish are simply just doing what everyone used to do. People in Poland are obviously just more attracted and responsive to ads with white people. It is the dominant skin color of that region, therefore a majority of consumers are white. They wanted to sell their products and they believed that doing this would be easier if the people were displayed using/buying the product were similar to consumers. More disappointing than the fact that a multi million dollar corporation like Microsoft felt the need to change their ad with blatant racism is the fact that they truly believed if a black man was shown supportive of their product that a white person wouldn’t be. Isn’t that the most obvious part? Marketing and advertisements are used to sell the product, right? So aren’t they just saying that a white polish person is not going to buy from Microsoft, or at least less likely to, if a black man stays in the ad?
Another aspect of this article, and to be quite frank, the responses, that really bothered me was the talk of photoshop. Yes, this whole issue could have been avoided if someone had remembered to change the hands, but does that really change the issue, well, at hand? No. Absolutely not. This is of course being discussed because they got caught but it still happened either way. A black man was replaced with a white man, bottom line. We all try and say we’re not racist, but how can anyone pretend that the world is changing when stuff like this probably goes unnoticed on a daily basis. This time they just slipped.
As a white American, I can’t help but try and correlate this topic with some of our country’s own issues. Sam Richard’s said “if this had happened in the United States, I think it's probably more likely that the "photoshopping" would have occurred in the opposite direction--a white guy would have been replaced by a black guy.” Isn’t this racist as well? Aren’t we trying to fill some kind of quota that says America is diverse and not racist? Making a big deal about skin color, no matter what the issue, proves to be racist. If we were really all accepting, it would never be the topic of conversation. It would just be.
I don’t believe Microsoft has done anything wrong in making this ad. To begin with, the ad was targeted towards Polish people, not Americans. Personally, I’ve never been to Poland or know what it’s like but I can’t imagine too many people of color living there. I’m certain that Microsoft being a billion dollar company knows how to handle their advertising. Photo shopping the colored man out and a white man in was uncalled for but still isn’t such a big deal. Companies do it all the time to appeal to their audience. How often have you ever seen a sun screen commercial where a black man tells you how well the product works? Or a video game commercial where a ninety year old man is having a blast playing Mario cart, almost never right? This is because it simply wouldn't be appropriate and it definitely wouldn't get the point across. Microsoft has used the same technique that every other big company today is using, which is, trying to appeal to their potential customers. Appealing to ones audience isn't only recommended in the advertising business but also in schools everyday when writing a paper or giving a speech. It's a tried and tested way of marketing.
On the other hand, if this ad was created for the American public it would be offensive to some. America is a country with many different races and ethnicities, and excluding one would be seen as discrimination. It's not often we even go to a store without walking past or seeing people of various other races. In America we basically preach equality in every aspect of our lives, we even have laws delegating what can and can't be done in regards to race. An American would most definitely argue, well If Microsoft thought they were advertising to only a white community, why not take out the Asian guy also? I don’t know of any Asian people living in Poland, so why only the colored man? That just makes them seem unjust and racist, the American public would be outraged if such an ad was created here. We find the fact that they photoshoped over the black person instead of just taking another picture is a little disrespectful, even if it was just so they could save some money. Then again I'm not in the advertising business so what would I know about what saves money or what people in Poland think is normal and acceptable. This whole situation not only makes Microsoft look unprofessional but also makes Poland look bad, it suggests that they're racist and not open minded. Therefore Microsoft is unintentionally getting both the company and all Poland a bad rep.
Journal 1 (Sept. 3)
Amanda Annas (aea5030)
I am choosing to respond to the first blog. It was called, “Political Correctness or Blatant Racism?” In many aspects this is so true. The number one thing in marketing is advertise to people in segments. That can include culture, age, race, ethnicity, etc. People won’t pay attention to things unless it catches their attention. For instance the example of the LGBT magazines; regardless of what they look like none of them want to see non gay people in a gay magazine. This is not going to attract people who are gay to read this because they are not like them. Wedding magazines are mostly geared towards people women who are getting married not men because they could careless about what kind of cake is going to be served or the color flowers. What people are going to pay attention to and how they are lured into the marketing & sales is based on what kind of lifestyle they live, their age, color, gender, religion, etc. So when asked if it’s racist to chop the black man out of the advertisement in Poland in a way no because they black ratio there is slim to none. They probably very rarely have seen a black person there because very few live there. So if anything they will look at it & think they’re targeting the wrong person this product doesn’t, “look,” like it’s for me. I could say the same thing if I looked at a magazine of all inner city clothes. It wouldn’t interest me because I don’t wear that type of clothing. On the other hand I’m sure people in Poland are racist because they haven’t been introduced to people of color that often. If they only needed the black man to be photo chopped because of what he looked like than yes that it racist. Unfortunately, there is no diversity in that country and many others so people dislike people who look different than them. Everyone needs to somehow learn to get past color and accept that they are the same. It has been a battle that has existed since the beginning of time but for some reason people can’t get past it. Does it make sense to advertise magazines in Miami with a Latina girl in the ad, or a black woman in commercial in Memphis of course it does because realistically there are very few Latina women in Miami vice versa. I don’t think the problem is targeting certain people in certain cultures or areas but I think it’s the fact that people have a problem with other people of color being advertised in their area. Or should I say people they’re not used to seeing. It’s a very simple yet hard issue to fix but hopefully someday it can.
I found this Microsoft controversy to be very eye-opening and also slightly saddening. I believe that this photo shopping of removing a black man’s head reflects many of the racial attitudes that people have today. Advertisers believe that all people are more receptive and accepting of people who look like them. Because Poland is a predominately “white” environment, it was assumed by Microsoft that Polish people would be more likely to buy the product if white people were representing it. This misconception feeds into possibly already existing racist attitudes. The photo shopping that Microsoft constructed is, in itself, a discriminatory action in that the photo was altered simply due to race. I also find it very interesting that the opposite actions would be taken in the United States. Microsoft advertisements in Poland are discouraging diversity, while in the United States, there is a concerted effort to promote diversity. Overall, I find that this photo shopping controversy is a step backward in the road to equality, and the photo should never have been altered initially.
This article doesn’t seem to be all that truthful to me while reading it. Microsoft is a huge company, which brings in a lot of revenue. Mistakes such as putting a white persons head on an African American’s doesn’t just happen. Someone did it, and it couldn’t have been a mistake. However, when making advertisements, companies do what they think is best for the target audience. So, changing the face to a white one was clearly in their best interested to draw the Polish audience to Microsoft. Because they changed the race of a man to appeal to a certain demographic makes the whole situation tricky. If they had changed something different such as the gender, or ages that would have been different. However, changing the race makes people think of racism and racial slurs get thrown out when they shouldn’t be. It was a mistake to change the face of the advertisement, however I don’t think Microsoft did it in a malicious way.
Something that stuck out at me though was the white face and black Hand. When Microsoft does that, it just seems like they were too lazy to change it and got sloppy. I don’t think it represents both cultures and how the races can be intermixed, I think that’s just a cover up. That doesn’t make sense and I really don’t think the public is stupid enough to buy that as their way of making the situation better. It makes sense that they have a woman, and an Asian in the picture to represent different genders and races, but making a man two different races by changing parts of his body to different colors is just ridiculous.
Advertisers are hired to do a certain job. They want to create advertisements that will appeal to their target audience in the best way, and if they do not do that, then the ad needs to be changed. So much money is spent on advertisements per year that they need to be good. A bad ad can cost millions of dollars. And it’s true, we judge advertisements the second we see them and subconsciously decide if we like them or not in that instant. So when advertising companies are hired to make advertisements, especially for a huge company such as Microsoft, they’re expected to make the best advertisement for the demographic it’s going to be shown to, or else their job is done wrong.
All in all, I think what Microsoft did could have been easily avoided. What happened is unfortunate and shouldn’t have happened. However, I understand their motivations in doing what they did because they wanted to appeal not upset anyone. Clearly enough thought wasn’t put into this major change, and it’s unfortunate that they did this because it does not look good and it did cause an up stir which they did not want, especially in this economy.
I believe that the reasoning behind the rendering of the photo was rather simple. People want to relate to the people they see in advertisements. If this ad were to air in Poland as it were recorded originally, only one of the three people in the ad are “white”. Statistics show that much of the population of Poland is indeed “white”. So the exec’s decided that the ad would make a larger impact, resulting in more profit for their company, if the ad appealed to the majority of the Poland population. I feel that this is not a racist issue at all; it is purely a product of a company searching for profit.
The only problem I see in this ordeal is a bad Photoshop job. As an experienced user in Photoshop, it would take less than 30 seconds to lighten the color of the man’s hands in the photo. It is only an overlooked mistake by the author that the hands don’t closely match the face. It surprises me that the article actually looks into the fact that there is some meaning in the fact that Microsoft actually chose to only replace the man’s face and not his hands. I am even more shocked that someone actually came to the conclusion that “The white head and black hand actually symbolise interracial harmony”. In my opinion this makes no logical sense, and the fact that this statement contains grammar errors reinforces the fact that this is a person of lower intelligence.
In summary, I feel that this is not a pertinent issue, and was blown up by the media. It is only a case of the author feeling as though no one would notice that the face does not exactly match the hands. A stupid mistake, yes, but I feel it is not racist to replace a person in an advertisement to appeal to a specified audience.
The great beer summit had no purpose. The Harvard professor only got arrested because he was of color no questions asked. The professors neighbor, white of course thought that someone was robbing the house just because it was a person of color. This case only got famous because it was about someone known and famous, if not no one would have known about it. The professor had some guilt because he was breaking into his own house but was not enough to send him to jail. I have forgotten my keys before and I've "broken" into my house too but I've never gotten arrested for it. Fact that police man was white really hurt the professor because racism still exists to some levels. All the charges were dropped because there was no reason for it. The president sat with the policeman and the professor to have a beer apparently to clear up the whole situation and have a beer. The great beer summit as its called was not appropriately carried out. So both of the parties agreed to go and have a beer and talk about the issue that they had. It was going to be an uncomfortable situation and Mr. president was supposed to be mediator and helper of some sort. The main issue that they had to deal with was racial discrimination and how it still affects us today. The president was supposed to be in the Professors side because he was the affected person but he was indifferent and careless. The president did not want to take a side because he is half white and that's why he didn't support the professor. The president was not raised as a children of color, he was raised as a white person that's why he didn't take a favorite. Actually no one took the whole thing seriously, they were just having a good time with president. I think that the incident shows that there are still some racism towards people of color. I think that a lot of things can be done to fix this issue. Police man that do this kind of behavior for no reason should be sanctioned and or fired. The rights of the professor were clearly violated. Someone should take responsibility for what happened. The major points that had to be discussed in the great beer summit were overlooked. They let the "past" behind because they didn't want to talk about in part because the president knew that there was racism. This event shows us that there is racism, even though we have a black president. The president is an exception to the rule because he is not completely black and he does not know what it's like to live in the hood.
Why is it that whenever we refer to race us either play the black card or the white card? It is as of none of the others races even exist. Yes, there was an Asian man present in the Microsoft photo but there are only arguments when there is no black person in photos, not any other race. I could say that I became aggravated with this photo because there was no one of Hispanic descent present.
I do understand that the uproar of this photo was caused because the black man was covered with a white man’s face, but his hand was kept. There was a quote in the article referring to interracial harmony and I truly do agree with that. Sure they could have changed the hand to a white hand and kept the face, but wither way it was done, is someone who could possibly be trying to change the views of people and see black and white and just a skin tone and not a way to categories someone.
Stretching a bit far with my reaction to this argument, the person who did edit this photo could say that the man was of Jewish decent. Because doesn’t the agreement with white and blacks always come back to the fact that the “white man” enslaved the “black man”. But, what about the “white man” murdering off the Jews. Unfortunally the “white man” never looks good either way you turn back into history, whether it been from the holocaust or took taking the land from the Native Americans.
This true point is that yes this photo was edited in a way that shows racism, but why cant we just see it as people sitting at a table advertising Microsoft? Why must we only see the colors of people’s skin? Microsoft is not bought because Bill Gates is white, or because the races in the advertisements. Microsoft is purchased by the consumer because they enjoy the product, because it is less than apple, is more comprehendible than Linux and everything in compatible to is. There is nothing that has to do with race. So cause uproar about a Photoshop advertisement would be just as unesasaracy and me protesting against this ad because there are no Hispanic women.
The race card is a powerful this in this country, it can shut people up in seconds if brought up in conversation, such as this ad. It can cause ridiculous fights, and arguments, but this ad is just that an ad. It’s understandable to feel outraged and upset and if I were African American I would feel even worse, it is a horrible thing that happened, but it is only horrible because we let it be. I’m not letting myself feel discriminated against because there is no Hispanic female, isn’t is techniqually that we are not present at all, I mean at least the blacks have a hand.
The Microsoft ad could bring about a lot of controversy. The ad simply replaced the black man’s head instead of the whole person just to appeal to a different market. Even though I am black I do not find this offensive. I believe the company was adjusting their ad for the different market structures. This semester I am taking a marketing class and I am becoming submersed in the world of marketing. I think different areas call for a different way to advertise in order to produce sales. If the company wouldn’t have done this they probably wouldn’t have made as much money as they forecasted. The company was simply trying to make the adjustment to increase their sales in that area. I do like the fact that in the USA an ad has to evolve a person of color and a female because I am both. In the USA we are very open minded about these subjects. Companies can’t be close minded any more, that way of thinking will just hurt their business. Even if someone is not in either of those classifications they would still like to see diversity in an advertisement. We have social activists that fight for the rights of others all the time in this country and the industry of marketing is no different.
The ad has more to do with profitability than it does racism. When ads are made the companies aren’t thinking “let’s make this racist”, they are thinking “how can we make more money”. Profitability is how the world operates. That is the sole goal of a company. As far as corporate culture, I think it changes so often that it doesn’t exist anymore. Corporate culture used to be all white males then white woman progressed into the scene. After some years black men then black woman also entered the corporate world. The dynamic really changed when affirmative action was put in effect. Now anyone who is qualified will enter the workforce. Therefore, there isn’t a set corporate culture because all of those cultures are different in themselves. To lump all the cultures into one culture would be impossible even if it’s called corporate culture.
If I was advertising in a LGBT area I would not use straight couples in my advertisement. Simply because by doing so I would make more in sales. The LGBT community is growing and by advertising to them you are only going to help yourself and your company. Plus the LGBT community is one of the trendiest communities I know. They are a special clientele and could make a company very profitable by advertising especially to them. In summary, Microsoft is very market friendly. They know their clients and how to market to each of them.
First of all, I do not think what Microsoft did was racist. I think it was a way to effectively reach their target audience. Microsoft probably wouldn’t have manipulated the ad if their research showed that Polish consumers would react the same way towards a white and black person. I think the real issue with the ad is the fact that advertisers manipulate their pictures to lie to consumers.
Microsoft and other companies promote their products to people using what they find appeals to them. Because the Polish consumers react more positively to a white man than a black man in an ad, Microsoft manipulated the picture to show a white man.
Although I don’t think this is a problem with racism, it does bring up the issue of the media and advertisements pushing their beliefs and thoughts to society. By editing a white man into the picture, Microsoft is promoting that the ideal man is white. They are trying to create a perfect scene to sell their company, and to them that is obviously a white man.
This is no different than any other advertisement except that they got caught manipulating a photo and taking the easy way out to reach their target audience. All ads are planned out to the smallest detail, choosing the objects, placements and people that will appeal to the majority of the public. For America, Microsoft thought that meant a diverse group of people in the ad, and for Poland, they thought that meant white and Asian people.
It’s not Microsoft’s job to promote diversity, although they were obviously trying to do so in the American version of the ad. They are being hypocritical, though, as their corporate website promises to "promote and integrate diversity and inclusion at every level within our organization and in everything we do."
This mistake and taking the easy way out is just unfortunate for Microsoft because they definitely come off as racist when they were just trying to appeal to a certain culture. It is not right to choose one person over another because of their race, but companies do it for advertising purposes in every single ad that they make. Microsoft just made a careless mistake and showed the world their advertising methods.
The big problem with this ad is that advertisers are getting away with manipulating their pictures to portray the ideal image. This is becoming a problem with women’s body image problems and magazine ads. Ads and the media show the world what is supposedly beautiful and ideal. Some people may interpret the incident as Microsoft being racist and choosing a white society over a diverse or black society. However, they were simply appealing to their Polish market that is a white society.
I would like to break this situation down and make a difference between what is ethical and what is “real”. When I say “real” I mean regardless of the ethics of the situation, what is the real world impact given people’s emotional tendencies to a situation like this. When it comes down to the ethics of this situation I don’t see a problem. When it comes down to the real pressure from people around the world about racism, I can sum up the actions of Microsoft in one word, “Stupid.” Could not one person in the multi-billion dollar corporation look at this situation and find a solution to the bad publicity that this photo created.
I am going to assume that the original unedited photograph was not intended for the Polish public and that the photo edit was a cost-saving way to get the photo that they wanted without having to do another expensive photo shoot. If it makes business sense it will be good for the company and the transaction would create value for society as a whole. We can assume that Microsoft feels that a white person appeals better to the Polish people than a black person, and will therefore sell better to them, and therefore produce more value (more dollars) for the company.
Let’s look at another scenario and assume that you own a company with a similar investment, but your company is on the verge of bankruptcy. You gathered information that if you publish the photo with a black man your customer will not accept the deal and your company will go bankrupt. Jobs will be lost and the economy will suffer. Now your decision is to make a decision that may be considered racist or make a decision that will leave the people you are responsible for cold and hungry.
While Microsoft probably doesn’t have to worry about going bankrupt due to the result of one business transaction, the fact that it is a large corporation means that it relies on its many sectors making smart decisions to ensure the health of the company. A bad decision could cost the company millions of dollars and lead to layoffs.
I’m not trying to say what is wrong or right, I am just trying to see it how it is. If we said “well maybe there is value lost in the project, but is there value gained in by promoting black importance to the Polish people,” then this too would be a good cause. But in order for this to work in a competitive business world, companies would need to get together and establish a mandate that required all companies to do this. If only one company was doing it then it would lose a competitive edge in business. In summary: Microsoft, you did not make an unethical decision, but come on, you’re a software company, and you own a search engine. Could you really not see this getting leaked out to the public and turning into an issue? Maybe you could find another photo to use.
I do not know anything about the color, race, or ethnicity of the residents of Poland, but from the blog I ascertained that it is mostly white. This almost helps me understand why Microsoft would feel the need to change the image of a black man in their advertisement to a white man, but to me it raises even more questions than it answers. Why would you change the image of the black man but not the Asian in the same exact image if you are worried about appearing to diverse and ethnic? Also, instead of putting a man who is clearly an American in the photo, why not at least put a Polish man if you are pandering to the Polish demographic? It just does not make sense to me and overall seems quite ridiculous.
For me, the main issue this blog and the accompanying article raise is the problems associated with the advertising agency. Why do advertisers feel they have to show a business meeting composed of people of different colors and genders? I understand the need to show that your company is not completely white or completely male dominated, but it seems dishonest and false to me. The odds of walking into an office and finding an Asian man, a black man, and a white woman working with no white man there as well seem astronomical.
At the same time though, I realize that most women we see in magazines and advertisements are photo shopped and airbrushed to look skinnier and more attractive than they are in real life. I do not see that much of a difference between modifying women in these advertisements and changing the face of one man in Microsoft’s advertisement. Both are equally dishonest and manipulative, but at the same time are attempting to achieve the same goal: appealing to as many consumers as possible. This is just the way the advertising industry works I suppose.
Microsoft seems like too large and influential industry to let something like this slip through the cracks and go unnoticed. Since they only changed the head of the man in the photo rather than doing two photo shoots with a white and black man, leads me to believe that this was the work of only a few workers rather than the advertising department as a whole. The blog does go on to say that this is not uncommon and that in certain areas a Hispanic woman in an advertisement may be changed to an Asian woman instead. I hope the readers of this blog do not hold a grudge against Microsoft for this advertisement, because they most certainly are not the only company to do such an act, but still in the end, the change was silly and unnecessary.
I understand that Poland is a predominately white population and I can see the reason for making the ad with three white people. What I am not so sure about is that if the ad was published and then changed after it was out in the public. If this is the case than I find it extremely wrong and embarrassing for Microsoft. They should not have had this picture out in the public eye and then changed because they realized that their target audience is primarily white. Especially since the man’s hand was kept black?? Microsoft is a huge well known worldwide company and not one person caught on to the fact that the hand no where near matched the color of his face? It is either an act of ignorance or pure sloppiness. Just because the picture had a picture of a black man does not mean that the audience they are trying to reach will be affected. Does this mean that there is not one black person in Poland? Why can’t the few people that are of color be reached as well? If I saw an add for my favorite clothing store and I saw a black woman wearing the clothes that I would be interested in purchasing, I would not think twice about it. But if I saw that the black woman in the picture had a white hand I would think, “what the hell?”. This incident automatically makes me think that Poland is a racist country that they have to actually go a head and change the head of a black man to a white face which clearly looks photo shopped. I understand that billions of dollars go into advertising each year and the goal is trying to get the biggest bang for their buck. Advertisers will do anything to generate revenue for their company so they try to appeal to the people that will purchase the product. The fact that it was changed stirred up controversy instead the promotion of a product. I interned in the marketing department for a well known magazine in Philadelphia this summer and I was constantly checking ads before they were published. I as well as three interns checked and rechecked everything. Any person looking hard enough would see that something was not matching with the picture. I think its wrong what they did and I feel as though it was not a malicious intent but once the ad was out it should not have been changed. It either should have been changed before it came out in the first place or not changed at all. After this occurrence I am sure Microsoft will be extra careful the next time they
My reaction to the Microsoft advertisement was very double sided. On one hand, I feel that the decision to have to change the race of one of the people in the ad should not have even come up; however, since Microsoft obviously felt the need to do so, I do not exactly believe that the issue should have been thought of as blatant racism. I highly doubt that Microsoft was trying to deliberately offend any group by changing the race of an individual but rather trying to have the specific demographic, Polish citizens, be able to associate themselves with the characters in the ad. One of the main purposes of an advertisement is to appeal to a specific demographic and while assuming that a Polish audience generally is not racist, there still may be a sense of “comfort” when the audience can associate and familiarize with the people in the advertisement. Most likely, the ad in its original form would not take away from Microsoft’s sales; however, if the adjustment was supposed to increase sales by a certain number, would it make up enough extra revenue to make a new advertisement through more careful means rather than by just photo shopping someone’s face and replacing it with another. To be completely fair, Microsoft should have just re-taped the advertisement with a different group of people. In order to create the same effect, Microsoft should have chosen ideally people from Poland. This same advertising strategy is used by many other companies in many other countries. Would a McDonald’s commercial in Japan most likely feature two white people and a black person? No, the ad would feature Japanese people because the target demographic would better associate with them rather than with three Americans for example. Hypothetically, if the ad were taped with Americans, I doubt that the Japanese consumers would avoid purchasing food from McDonald’s due to racism; however, I feel that they would be more inclined to purchase food if the characters in the commercial were also Japanese. Although making a separate advertisement would probably be expensive, the major expense would be the airtime and not the actual taping of a separate ad so the airtime would have to be paid for regardless of which ad version they showed and as mentioned before if Microsoft predicted a large enough increase in sales with their photo shopped version, could they not have been able to afford a new taping? But when analyzing the bigger picture, specifically the purpose of the advertisement, the advertisement itself is not trying to sell what people are using the product, the advertisement is only trying to sell the product, and by making the viewers feel familiar with the people in the advertisement, they can more easily see themselves using the product.
While I was looking at the article written by the BBC news correspondent, I noticed there was a reference to the fact that the hands of the man who had been photo-shopped over had not been changed and that there was actually a small debate about the hands themselves. Honestly, it shocked me that the hands, being unchanged, had been given so much attention, rather than just being proof that this thing had been done. According to the article, the debate included someone who thought that the head had been changed but the hands had been left on purpose, symbolizing some sort of feeling of “interracial-ness.” If the latter were true, I would say that political correctness has gone way too far. But, I highly doubt that this advertisement was really made like that under any such intentions.
So my thought, is yes, it is incredibly horrible that someone pasted a “white” male’s head on to a “black” male’s body… and did not even have the decency to remember his hands. But, just as horrible, are the companies who remember the hands. I have to admit that I am slightly torn in this situation. It makes sense to advertise to your audience, increasing your profits. There does not seem to be a lot of people in Poland who would describe themselves as not being white, then I do not think that they should have people who are not white in their advertisements just for the sake of political correctness.
I think that this situation is representative of a large problem with the advertising industry. There are these ads that seem to be trying to be politically correct, but then there are other ads that I have seen that seem to be blatantly going in the opposite direction. For instance, take fast food commercials. A couple of months ago, I was watching television when a McDonald’s commercial came on. The commercial contained a rap that was basically a remix of “Baby Got Back.” I began to wonder who exactly McDonald’s was marketing to. Then another commercial came on. This next commercial was for checkers and it also contained a rap, but not to a well known song… because Checkers usually has their own little jingle/rap type thing. And, I am not saying that rap should not be used in commercials. In fact, I am a fan of rap. But, it feels to me like the people who put the advertisements together are targeting what they consider to be the audience that would buy fast food. And, despite the fact that I buy fast food sometimes, this advertising is not directed at me. The advertising is targeting the ‘black’ community.
Ultimately, I realize that I have very unfocused thoughts here. I am not sure whether political correctness is a good thing nor whether blatantly trying to get the ‘black’ community is the most wrong thing I have ever seen in advertisements. I think that there has to be a balance. I also wonder to myself whether political correctness is a form of racism in itself.
I’m actually surprised that a commercial flub like this has not happened sooner. In today’s society, everyone (mostly white people) is afraid of offending someone of a different color. In America, it is almost standard to have at least a white person, an asian person, a black person, and a woman in a commercial targeting businesses or a large audience. Although, I can see why Microsoft wanted to put people of different colors in their ad, to appeal to a variety of people. However, It is difficult to appeal to a variety of people without having a reputation of being racist. How is a company supposed to appeal to all people without putting people of different races in their ad? America is a melting pot of all different races, religions, colors, backgrounds, and if a company wants to target all of these people, they try to put different people in their commercial.
European countries, Poland specifically, are not as racially diverse as America, and therefore they do not have to appeal to all different colors and races of people. Microsoft was trying to appeal to their Polish customers, but they went about it in a very wrong way. If a company wants to ad a variety of people in their ad, then they should feel comfortable with having the ad with the mixed races being shown in all places around the world. And Microsoft should have known that if they were going to change the ad, that it was going to be brought up to the public’s attention. And if they still decided to change the people to all white then they could have least photo shopped the hands, like really?
After reading through some of the other comments I found one that I agreed with. Microsoft is a huge company who not only caters to the US but too many other places as well and for them to make a racial comment is way beyond right and could get them into a lot of trouble. They were clearly discriminating against the advertisement. The fact that they would photo shop a white person in place of a black person to cater to a specific culture clearly means that they do not care about their black consumers. Another question I have is did Microsoft know for a fact that the ad offended the polish consumers or did they get the idea to switch the ad based of an assumption. Because the controversy was publicized, I feel as though Microsoft could lose a lot of customers. I am sure many people would not mind switching to another product.
I recently took a culture survey in my International Human Resource Management class and one of the questions was do you feel comfortable interacting with people from a different culture or would you rather be around people who are similar to yourself and your culture. This question made me think that maybe not all people are comfortable in different cultural settings.
I wonder if Microsoft even thought about what they were doing when they decided to change the ad. Did they think they would not sell enough of their product if they had a black man advertising to a relatively white area? I think what Microsoft did was morally wrong. They are a company where everyone uses their product whether they are black, brown, Latino, white, etc… and if the Polish consumers feel threatened or offended, then they should be the ones to ban the advertisement instead of Microsoft. Even though race can still be a touchy subject in today’s world, taking someone out of an ad and photo shopping someone else in is just wrong. What I do find to be interesting is the fact that because a white person was photo shopped to cover a black man, the people to take offense to it is both white and black people, whereas if a black man was put into to cover a white man I do not think anyone would care enough to make an big deal about it.
America is so diverse that it is very normal to have minorities in ad and so forth, so I do not understand why they could not just keep the diversity policy instead of creating a national stir. Unless there was a huge issue regarding the ad such as a protest, then the is absolutely no reason to change it.
As for the article about the Microsoft debacle, this seems to be racist to me. However if you look at it from the marketing and company’s perspective they are just trying to appeal to the correct groups of people. Advertisements do this all of the time no matter if it is Microsoft or not. I do strongly believe what Microsoft did was very wrong and especially the way that they handled it. Let’s think about L’Oreal ads or Covergirl ads on the television: these ads often have people of different races and ethnicities in them. But I pose to you this question: which ads do they show most in Europe? Do they specifically target certain racial groups depending on where they are advertising? I guarantee that this happens all of the time. Although we might not notice what we are doing this definitely happens. It is unfortunate because in a way these big corporations should be out to set an example for the consumers, the example that even as a people from all over the world we should be treating everyone equally and accepting people of every race, and ethnicity. Again, from the perspective of the companies, should they take the chance and be diverse if they thought it was to help their sales? Isn’t the point for them to “sell” things? How do we sell things other than targeting them and appealing to a specific type of people and what they like or what they want. You might see it the other way around and say that the companies should be setting an example for society by being diverse but their sales might lower. I am just posing these questions to you to get your mind going. I don’t know the right answer but I know what I think. And personally I think that the companies should be setting an example for the society they are selling for. If every company worked this way, people would be forced to buy things and not even think of who and what people of race are selling the product. It is sad and absolutely ridiculous to think that society is like that and that some people actually would resort to NOT buying a product because someone of another race was in the advertisement. There are still people today who are extremely racist, especially in places other than the United States. Ask yourself this as well; in all honesty would you be turned off of buying a product if it was only targeted to one racial group? I don’t think that anyone can say this honestly. This is also a representation of how different companies make different products specifically for one racial group. For example, skin whitening cream which we talked about in class is obviously not targeting white people. Would the skin whitening cream commercials have white people advertising them? No. This is a controversial subject. I think that we realize this now especially after reading an article like this with one of the biggest companies around that slip ups like this happen but that is because we haven’t been brought up in the way that we actually should act!
First of all, I can’t believe in order to change the races in this picture Microsoft literally just pasted a smiling white-guy face on top of the black guy’s body. This strikes me as a little humorous. I mean look at the face. Okay in all seriousness though, even though the target Polish audience is predominantly white, I’d have to agree that yeah, replacing one race with another is pretty textbook racist. How offensive this is from a marketing standpoint I really don’t know. I wonder what the people in Poland would say.
This brings up a pretty good point about the United States though. It’s so true that our advertisements try to bring out the diversity in everything! I absolutely think that’s a good thing. Maybe that’s why I find it so much more distasteful and just strange to replace a black person with a white person in an advertisement about technology. It totally would be the other way around in the United States, but our country is also much more diverse than Poland apparently is. So I guess maybe you could say that having the guy be white instead of black is more appealing to Polish people just because that’s what they’re more familiar with? I mean yes now it correctly reflects the mode race in Poland.
I guess it just “rubs me the wrong way” because they felt it was critical to actually change the initial picture. I sort of think it wouldn’t even have been an issue if for Poland the ad had just started out with the white guy there. The fact that it was deliberately altered is what makes it controversial. DUR guess I just stated the complete obvious.
Back to the “correctness” of tweeking an advertisement to represent the majority of what the country really is. Okay so logically, this makes sense, it represents the population. Would having the black guy in the picture be wrong because it doesn’t correctly represent the population of Poland?
Let’s think of the USA, or actually Penn State, for example. The dominant race at Penn State University Park is definitely Caucasian. But I’m pretty sure every brochure I’ve gotten from this school makes it out to be a little haven for cultural diversity, even though that’s not technically reflective of Penn State’s majority. I’m sure people have seen that anti-discrimination poster around campus with the nittany lion and three other diverse people hugging. I guess that’s supposed to say “we love you if you are hispanic, white, black, gay, or a lion!” For the most part, advertising in the United States embraces diversity (or maybe it’s just to avoid any anti-ethnicity confrontation), and I think that’s why to us, or I guess me, replacing a black person with a white person in an advertisement about Microsoft creates a little bit of a wince.
When I first heard about Microsoft replacing a black man’s head for a white man’s head I was shocked that Microsoft did something like that and got caught on top of it. I didn’t understand why they couldn’t simply retake the picture. I automatically felt that it was a racist move on Microsoft’s part; and I didn’t see what the problem was if they kept the black man’s head in the advertisement. After finding out the ad was to be directed to Poland consumers it slightly changed how I felt. I started to understand that replacing the man’s head was a business decision and Microsoft wasn’t trying to be racist.
If the swapping of the men’s heads was an ad for Americans I would have really been offended because America is a melting pot; ads need to be made where people of different races and ethnicities are represented (even though that’s not always the case) so consumers can better identify with. I have never been to Poland, but I know it’s a really white population and the percentage for people of color is extremely low. With that being said, I’m not surprised that Microsoft changed the black man’s head for a white one. I feel if they would have presented the original ad to Polish consumers they may not have taken it seriously because they aren’t use to seeing black people.
This incident shows that racism is still alive in all parts of the world, and I don’t ever think it is something that will end. We can say that people in Poland are racist; however, if there is little to no black people in Poland its not astonishing to me that they may not feel comfortable with people of color. For them to see a black man in an ad may be odd to them and Microsoft felt that changing the heads would be a wise business decision. In no way am I trying to minimize what Microsoft did, and I do think its wrong but I understand why it was done.
I wish Microsoft would have kept the original ad and we could see if it got negative responses from the Polish audience because of the black man. I doubt the original ad would have stirred up this many problems. Microsoft would have been better off keeping the ad how it was because they are dealing with more issues than they expected. They put themselves in a position where they look racist and dumb for putting out an advertisement with a man that has a white face and fair color hands. The whole situation is just sad to me. I’m sure Microsoft won’t make such a silly mistake text time.
When I first read this article, I did not think much into the idea of altering a picture as a problem. I think as a society we are way too scared of crossing the line of racism, when in reality I felt like the change of the picture was a decision in the marketing aspect. For example you would not advertise in China with white people or black people in the advertisement, you would use the ethnicity or background of the people you are marketing to. I can understand where people are coming from when only one person was altered and the other two people in the advertisement stayed the same. I fell like there are too many times in America that minorities always have to play the race card. I dislike when people have the need to do so, it is unfortunate, not everything is about race. I understand that there are still many racist people out there in the world, let alone in America, but sometimes I think people need to look outside of the thought of racism and think wait maybe it would not make sense to advertise to a certain group of people with a different ethnic group than them. I myself am a minority, I hate hearing racist slurs and coming across racist incidents, and I would be the first to speak up against such discriminating actions. My group of friends is very diverse and come from many different types of cultures and backgrounds and I understand the need to stand up for them, but not every situation is about race. There is one odd thing about this picture that came to mind, why did they change the black person’s face and not the Asian persons’? Another question that really makes me curious is who took the time to compare these two images? I feel like it had to be the person that did the Photoshop. I find it funny that they altered the person’s face, which honestly they did a great job ha, but honestly as a business, Microsoft has to market to their clientele. It is not like they did not use the black man’s face in the advertisement for America, instead they did and they used a different one for Poland to save money (by using the same two people) and also to relate to the demographic. I definitely do not think this advertisement was a deliberate attack against black people or sending a racist message. I do find it ridiculous that the article says that Microsoft is trying to “please all markets” by using a black man’s hand and a white man’s face or that a blogger said “‘the white head and black hand actually symbolize interracial harmony’”. This is too funny, I really like the idea and wish this could be true, but I am almost positive that that was not the intent, instead maybe the person that worked with Photoshop was too lazy to change the hand or thought it might just work to not change it. I will say this I do agree with our professor when he calls the act of altering a face in the advertisement as “It just feels raw”, it does feel weird, but I think it is understandable. I am a firm believer that we are all alike and that we should not have to go out of our way to show people we are not racist or be scared at times to speak our mind. For example, like what our professor wrote, “’We can’t have a photo without at least one woman and one person of color, afterall’”. I find that true, I don’t think that is a problem at all, but I have seen those commercials where it seems like they went out of their way to add that extra person of color, sex, or even white person, which I think is not needed. Please do not get me wrong though, I do admire commercials that go out of their way to do so, I just wish our world did not need to be so politically or socially correct in the idea of race. I wish that there were no longer racist people out there in the world instead wish for everyone to realize we are all alike. I hope that one day we all will live in a world where color of your skin had no meaning instead where we have love, peace, and harmony for one another not hatred or war.
When I first heard about Microsoft replacing a black man’s head for a white man’s head I was shocked that Microsoft did something like that and got caught on top of it. I didn’t understand why they couldn’t simply retake the picture. I automatically felt that it was a racist move on Microsoft’s part; and I didn’t see what the problem was if they kept the black man’s head in the advertisement. After finding out the ad was to be directed to Poland consumers it slightly changed how I felt. I started to understand that replacing the man’s head was a business decision and Microsoft wasn’t trying to be racist.
If the swapping of the men’s heads was an ad for Americans I would have really been offended because America is a melting pot; ads need to be made where people of different races and ethnicities are represented (even though that’s not always the case) so consumers can better identify with. I have never been to Poland, but I know it’s a really white population and the percentage for people of color is extremely low. With that being said, I’m not surprised that Microsoft changed the black man’s head for a white one. I feel if they would have presented the original ad to Polish consumers they may not have taken it seriously because they aren’t use to seeing black people.
This incident shows that racism is still alive in all parts of the world, and I don’t ever think it is something that will end. We can say that people in Poland are racist; however, if there is little to no black people in Poland its not astonishing to me that they may not feel comfortable with people of color. For them to see a black man in an ad may be odd to them and Microsoft felt that changing the heads would be a wise business decision. In no way am I trying to minimize what Microsoft did, and I do think its wrong but I understand why it was done.
I wish Microsoft would have kept the original ad and we could see if it got negative responses from the Polish audience because of the black man. I doubt the original ad would have stirred up this many problems. Microsoft would have been better off keeping the ad how it was because they are dealing with more issues than they expected. They put themselves in a position where they look racist and dumb for putting out an advertisement with a man that has a white face and fair color hands. The whole situation is just sad to me. I’m sure Microsoft won’t make such a silly mistake text time.
This article really made me laugh at first because of just how ridiculous microsoft made themselves look. Whether it was a corporate big shot who ordered the altering of the photo or just some random guy who thought it would be funny the whole thing I believe is stupid. I find it hilarious that in Poland like sam said there is such a huge white population and they were willing to use the black mans photo but here in America where we are supposedly all equal and not ashamed of anyone we felt the need to alter the photo and couldn’t even do it correctly. They changed the head but forgot the hand? What an idiot whoever was responsible for that. The one blogger in the article suggested that they meant to leave the hand as a sign that black and whites are equal in America. I completely disagree I think it was a blunder that never got corrected and made Microsoft look bad and left them trying to cover their mistake with some excuses. The big question here is whether or not the photo was altered because of racism. I do agree that in certain areas of any country people will put gender or race specific advertisements because it’s a fact that those are the kind of people that live in that area and they are trying to appeal to the crowd. That makes sense, in my mind that is nothing but smart marketing. As a business person you realize that sometimes what is right isn’t your best option, if you need to exploit something in order to sell your product then that’s what you do. Is this right? I don’t necessarily think so but it does happen. I think that this specific incident has a little bit of racism to it. Maybe there is some statistic out there that says there are more successful white businessmen in America then there are black, or maybe a white businessman is better for advertising. I’ve never seen these statistics so I am the wrong person to try and speak about facts like this but that aside I know for a fact that there are plenty of successful black Americans so why hide the man in the photo? Why the black man? If we were so worried about whites being the centerpiece of the picture why is there an Asian man too, it doesn’t make much sense to me. In my personal opinion I don’t look at specific details like a person’s skin color in advertisements. The race of a person in something as simple as an advertisement would not affect my decision making process on buying a product. When all is said and done I do believe Microsoft had some racist intent with this picture. They obviously made a big mistake and got caught. I find it saddening that this happens in America but it probably always will.
The photo shopping of people of different races to advertise in different areas of the world makes a clear indication that race is still a problem in many areas of the world. To think that there was a big meeting to debate whether or not adding or losing someone in the ad based simply of the color of their skin or ethnicity is ridiculous. If something as trivial as the color of someone’s skin can make or break a marketing campaign it is the people that the ad is directed to that are to blame. How the difference between a black man and a white man sitting around a table has anything to do with what they are trying to sell is beyond me. Shouldn’t a business worry more about the product then the picture in an advertisement? I believe the world and more importantly America has become obsessed with political correctness so much that this is a problem that businesses are running into when they are making their ad campaigns. I believe that in most areas advertisements depict the people who the product is intended for. Given the Poland is primarily white it is expected to see white people in their ads. Would a black man in the ad hurt sales in Poland? As I am not Polish I cannot answer that question but in my opinion there is no way that it would.
I believe you see the placement of people in ads based on their race far more in America however. The best example I can think of is fast food commercials. The one I see the most is McDonald’s commercials. I have noticed more and more that McDonald’s commercials have only been featuring Africa Americans. Then I think to myself why the people marketing McDonald’s do this would. Are they targeting African Americans more than any other race? Or is it long since due that they show a little color in the commercials? Whatever the reason may be, I’m sure that there was a long debate over whether or not the company should display their ads in this manner. I’m sure however if they went on and put out the commercial they have done their research and believe that it will ad revenue to their sales.
Long story short it is the people how cause the need for different races in different areas of advertisement. If the color of someone’s skin didn’t trigger something in someone’s head for worse or better there would be no need to worry about it or even notice it. However seeing a black man around an office table does trigger something to some people. Once people can look past race advertisers will need to worry about the race of the people they are depicting in there ads.
Political Correctness or Blatant Racism
In a sense I have to admit that on an Advertising/ Business move, Microsoft made a good call in not having a black man being the image that Polish people associated with. Just think, if the Polish population is as “white” dominated as was stated, then how do you expect for people from that demographic to associate themselves with a black man? It’s sad that this is reality, but it is. It shouldn’t be a problem whether it’s a white face or a black face or an “in between face” because we all share 99.9% of the same genetic make-up, right??
Lets take Ambi commercials for instance. Side Bar: Ambi are different types of skin cosmetic products, particularly for the face, that are geared toward people of color (black, brown, mahogany, light brown, black blue-whatever, you might want to categorize them in). Personally, I feel that if those commercials had white women with blond hair, I WILL NOT purchase that product. Sounds messed up, I know but it’s true. Just like a white person seeing that commercial wouldn’t really pay it any attention because of the belief that that product does not apply or cater to them. I feel that having black women in that commercial really helps to advertise to their intended costumers.
On the other hand, on a Public Relations move, that was the DUMBEST thing Microsoft could have done. Their first mistake was to have the advertisement made with a black man and then after the advertisement was made, make it publically known that it was a “bad idea” to have a black man be the image that Polish people associated with. I have learned that in Public Relations it is just as important to think about prevention as it is important about the cleaning up portion of public Relations. Microsoft should have opted for prevention. Microsoft should have paid attention to the fact that no one can criticize on who you sell your products to, but on the same token, Microsoft should have been more aware to the fact that at this day and age everyone has to be more conscious so that they do not offend anyone.
This situation can be seen as being racist or it can be seen as trying to make the best or most profitable investment. Microsoft is a business whose object is clearly to sell products to make a profit. Maybe their advertisement in Poland may be a white person and maybe that same advertisement maybe shown in New York but instead a black woman is being portrayed. I personally do not believe that this situation is racist, I feel as though Microsoft was just trying to make the best investment possible. I also believe that on a public note they definitely screwed themselves. I think a quote that can be used in this situation is, “What you don’t know won’t hurt you.” Well, in Microsoft’s case, everyone knows, so now the hurting has begun.
I believe there is a fine line between racism and appealing to a particular market when it comes to advertising. In one sense, it is important to represent the market accurately. And if the citizens of that society are not very diverse, the advertisements should represent that, right? In this case with the overwhelmingly white population of Poland, it is understandable to have three white people represented at the table as opposed to diversifying the actors. Americans expect diversity to be displayed in advertisements, as America is a “melting pot”. Perhaps the expectations are different in Poland. Those offended by the adjustments made to this advertisement may not have considered the cultural differences, a typical example of the ethnocentrism that Americans often obtain.
The failure to photoshop the hands in this ad leads to the angry backlash. A multi-billion dollar industry like Microsoft should not have made such a huge mistake, especially since their ads reach the masses. I believe people have a right to be upset by this mistake, yet they need to realize this is most likely not a blatant case of racism. Many offended people could interpret this ad as racism, when in fact the advertising company was probably looking for the most accurate portrayal of their community. Advertising is about appealing to the audience, and not that a black man is unappealing to the Polish, but he simply may not represent their community.
American businesses are constantly fighting to be “politically correct.” Advertisements and their public relations play a huge role in making sure their company is approved by the public, and that involves doing their best to display political correctness. A black man, Asian man, and white woman sit at this table, representing the epitome of diversity, right? But is that really how it is? Where is the white man in this situation? This may be realistic in America, as we are diverse, yet in Poland – where 97% of the people are of Polish (and therefore, white) descent, is this realistic for them? Altering this ad was most likely not racially motivated, just financially motivated. People are more likely to buy a product if they can relate to the advertisement, and in this case, it seems to be just what Microsoft was doing.
I took an ethics and journalism last fall, and we touched on the topic of photo manipulation for the case of appealing to a certain audience. It can be debated, but generally it is considered unethical to do so. This photo may not be describing a certain event as photographs in journalism do, but it is just as wrong. I doubt people would even question the ad or Microsoft if it was re-photographed in a different setting, or even the same setting with the same white woman and Asian man, yet replacing the black man for the white man. People do not like to be lied to, and Microsoft “lied” to their consumers in that sense. Microsoft made a mistake, but their error was not racially motivated.
Initially while reading this article I felt no immediate emotions to it. I am a straight male, and my ethnic background consists of Aruba, Dominica (West Indies,) and Italian. For me I could understand why some viewers outside of Poland could say that the picture could be a little bit racist if no other race than white was depicted. On the other hand I don’t feel that the lack of another race is completely wrong if you are truly gearing your ad to a certain group of people. For example, I’m sure that party promoters for a Reggae party would not have a white man and woman on their flyer, however they would have the race or ethnicity that the party is particularly catering to. Now, the question is, “Is this racist?” I don’t believe that portraying heterosexual straight couples on a party flyer for example is going to attract homosexual couples to come to a promoted event. People in general are comfortable with their own. It doesn’t necessarily make them racist but it may mean that in the back of the person’s mind, lays a misconception or a judgment. Black people like being around black people and for the most part I believe that television commercials and movies cater so much to the various different cultures in the United States. I feel like the United States is probably the only place in the world that wants to almost appease everyone. This nation strives to make everyone happy.
Another example of these appeasements could be the regularly scheduled newscasts at night. If one took the time to really notice the anchor’s ethnicities, there usually consists of a white male, a woman of any race, and another black male. Now the fact that a person’s face was changed on a Microsoft ad in itself is not racist in my opinion. I feel that the mistake of not changing the hands as well is absolutely outrageous. Now people who had no idea that maybe the color of the person’s skin and the face that was initially black, was changed. As a result of this questions come into play and now Microsoft has issues. This problem could have easily been avoided if the proper effort took place in changing the person. Photoshopping the individual in the first place means that someone in the company felt that all white personnel would be more appealing. Ok, maybe it would be but the mistake was made, and something so small turned into a big mishap.
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions and since you can’t be put in jail for having a racist opinion, then no one is at fault for the initial photoshopping of the individual.
As Americans, we are very sensitive to the issue of race. This could be for a great number of reasons; however, my personal belief is because the history of our great nation is so deeply rooted in the exploitation of other cultures, we are now hung up on making amends for the actions of our ancestors. It is so easy for us to see the racism in the advertisement because, in fact, we live in fear of being labeled a racist. Though we worry about it to an extent in our daily lives, big corporations such as Microsoft trouble over the issue ad nauseam. For an entire company to be labeled racist is the equivalent of bearing a scarlet letter, but instead of wearing it on your chest, it’s all over your ads or your products.
I mention this because had the advertisement been aimed at Americans, the black man would have been an integral part of the advertisement. To exclude him would have been racism. However, it is hypocrisy because when casting for the ad, it is very likely that the “wanted” ad specifically asked for an “other-cultured” individual. In other words, he is not just a man, he is a black man, and that is the important thing. In Microsoft’s quest to avoid the sin of racism, they did just the opposite and ran into it head first. The black man became a commodity to them - a public relations tool – not an individual.
In America, it is important for us to see this person in the advertisement. It soothes us, as though Microsoft is saying to us “relax guys, we’re not racist.” However, in Poland seeing the black man in the ad is not as crucial. Does this mean Poland is racist, or are we because we are so afraid of being labeled one? We are so much afraid that we go through extra effort to specifically seek out a member of another culture to prove just how not racist we are.
So what is the deal with Microsoft? Were they racist in changing the head of the black man to the one belonging to the white guy? My short answer is yes, but they were not wrong in the business sense. They knew how to appeal to the Polish audience and went for it. The tactics hit a nerve with Americans because we are very ginger to the topic of race, but if we were truly honest with ourselves, we would admit that had we been in the shoes of the advertising execs, we would have done the same thing for the sake of business.
While there are so many directions in which one could take this essay, I can’t help but address this perceived “blame game” that the article shows. Microsoft says it pulled the image and is investigating who made the alterations; others are saying it was probably done because of Poland’s ethnic makeup (though the article does not specify whether or not people believe it was Microsoft or a separate entity that made the changes). I feel that if Microsoft did it, they should take responsibility for the change, and I feel they have a legitimate reason for making the change: marketing. I hate the fact that Microsoft felt they needed to make the alterations (assuming, at this point, that they did mess), but it’s not uncommon in marketing to change an advertisement based on the location in which it will be run (like Sam said, an advertisement on a bus in San Francisco might very well be different than one in Memphis or Miami). The goal in advertising/marketing is to sell the product, and often times that means making changes to something in order to reach the audience that will view it. I think if Microsoft was responsible for the changes, they should own up to them as they can simply say that they were marketing to a different audience than the United States/Canadian audience. And, unlike the United States, Poland has few black residents. (I can not seem, however, to find exact numbers based on Poland’s population, but all first-hand accounts that I read online say it is very rare to meet a black person in Poland). That lack of blacks, however, is not necessarily attributed to racism or the idea that Poland is not accepting of people of color. In fact, part of it probably that Poland outlawed slavery in the 1400’s. To compare, slavery was not abolished in the United States until 1865. Up to that point, many Africans were forced to make their way to the United States, which increased the black population in the young country, something that Poland did not have as much of an opportunity to do.
All that said, I highly doubt this is Microsoft’s doing. They’re going to get blamed for it, but I can’t see them making the mistake of leaving the hand of the man black while changing his face. Also, the entirety of the Photoshopping is not of a high quality. There is too much of a blur behind the man’s head (in the window), and his head and neck are in really awkward positions. Microsoft likely has some of the best graphic and computer artists in the world (after all, they perhaps the world’s top computer and software company).
I think that with the changing world, that America has switched from a "melting pot" nation to a more "salad bowl" nation, in that all the peoples of this nation make America yet hold the unity but also their individuality (in this case-- ethnic individuality). Because of this switch from the mentality one common unity, to a diversified unity, the marketing schemes have to evolve to fit this new, phenomenal change. Therefore marketing or advertising to the general public isn't sufficient enough, but to be able to "target" certain audiences within the public allows the use of a more specifc, ethnically taliored ad. This is not racism because you are attempting to appeal to a certain people, and to appeal to one, but not the other is not hate, or discrimination, but rather a more specific product for that specific person. However when an advertising campaign that is not planned correctly or if the product is liable to be advertised in a specific way is when trouble occurs. If the adverting campaign is not planned correctly in which the target audience is grouped in to too general of mass of certain people, or if the advertisement technique is too gerneralized displayed lewds to offensive advertising. In this case the Microsoft ad in which the black man's head is photoshoped off and replaced with the head of a white person is first of all made to apeal to a highly white population (which is ok), they failed in their marketing scheme because they were to lazy and cheap to hire models to retake the image with all white people. The cropping of the black man's head (to me) signifies no hate but rather a failed and lazy buisness tactic in which not only lewed to racist behavior, even if it was not intentional. Microsoft's approach to advertising only white people in an ad that is targeted towards the extremely white polish society does not make them racists but is a marketing approach that is specfic and more effective. However I don't think that the black man in the first ad would of hurt their markting campaign anyway, because Microsoft software is such a general program used by all people. Also if they would of redone the first photo with a white man, why won't they interchange the asian man in the back? Again its the failed marketing scheme developed by lazy business people. Overall I don't agree with the ad or Microsoft's steps in approaching their marketing in Poland, however I think that it is was not an intentional hate crime, however thier manner may rub off that way. I think that racial marketing is effective and does allow a company to sell their product to specfic targets if they are specific in who they are targeting.
The Microsoft mix-up has caused a commotion on the web. Microsoft’s advertizing was trying to direct their product to its mostly all white consumers in Poland, but when the advertisement was shown in the United States a black man replaced the one white man. Many are looking at this situation as being raciest, but you could also look at it as the company trying to appeal to its consumers. I personally do not think that Microsoft is raciest, but in fact, they just made a mistake.
Companies always try to appeal to their consumers, but at the same time, they try to be politically correct. Sometimes both cannot be accomplished at the same time as we found out from the Microsoft slip up. Now imagine if the advertisement that was released in Poland had no white people in it, what would people say then? The only reason Microsoft is being considered raciest is because they first had a black person then removed just his face to appeal to the mostly all white population in Poland.
I find it funny how advertisements always have “the white guy”, “the black guy”, “the Asian”, and “the women”. Instead of appealing to their consumers, companies try to be more politically correct, so they are not looked at as raciest. When companies have different races in their advertising, it adds to the fact that we see people for their race and not as an individual. When I first saw the Microsoft advertisement, I saw three people sitting at table, not “a women”, “a white guy”, and “an Asian”. It was not until I read what had happened that I noticed a difference in the two photos. People are always caught up in trying to please everyone, but in reality, they are never going to accomplish that. In advertising, companies should appeal to their largest majority of their consumers.
The best part about the Microsoft ad was of course them not changing the white man’s hand. Yes, I understand it was a photoshop mistake, but if we did not know about them changing the black man’s face to a white man’s face would anyone even have picked up on the fact that the hand was slightly a darker shade?
All jokes aside, I do not see the big problem with the Microsoft advertisement. The company was trying to appeal to the white population of Poland. I know I must sound redundant, but Microsoft is trying to sell a product. Of course they are going to make the ad that appeals to the majority.
Honestly, I don’t think that there is anything ethically wrong with how Microsoft altered the advertisement. The marketing directive of any large company is to target the major audience. Microsoft simply acted on the fact that the majority of the Polish population is white. The only thing I would have done differently if I were the marketing director in the company is actually had a white man sit in on the advertisement, as opposed to switching the head out.
“Maybe the event got press simply because the manipulation that drives the advertising dimension of marketing was exposed for what it is...manipulation”(Richards).The advertising business is how it is. It is manipulative and underhanded. IT IS HOW IT IS. This fiasco only backs up what we, as consumers should already know—advertisements are geared to our likes, dislikes, and emotions. We want to buy what we see ourselves doing. A middle-aged white man is going to look at the altered advertisement and see himself in that white-faced man’s seat. In turn, the Microsoft advertising tactic pays off.
I do not see one bit of it as racism. I do not see how anyone other than the black man in the actual advertisement could be offended by the altered advertisement. The biggest mistake that was made is that the alteration was noticed by the public eye. I guess the way I see it is through a logical a standpoint as opposed to an emotional one. You do what you have to do when it comes to business. It is astonishing how such an experienced, popular company managed to slip up that badly and blatantly though. This is a company that is in the public eye at all times. But a slip up like this should not be thought of so critically; it should be laughed at. It was pure laziness that drove Microsoft into this obstacle. If the same ad had been made, with a simple switch of actors, there would have been no issue. It would have been looked upon as more of a marketing strategy, than a shot at the blatant use of race in marketing stratagem, today.
The bottom line is: it is okay that things are done, right or wrong, when it is not brought to anyone’s attention; we let it go, we ignore it, BUT we are still aware of it. The second there is a need for that right or wrong action to be brought to the public eye, it is scrutinized and looked upon critically even though, the whole time, we knew it was happening. Why didn’t we stop it in the first place? This is how I address issues like these.
I absolutely love how Microsoft is doing things like caring for the environment by calculating carbon footprints, and at the same time, they allow an example of racism to occur in one of their own advertisements. It’s completely contradictory, and it says something about how seriously you should take any of their “efforts” to show that they care.
It’s all a façade, but that’s just the way things are when it comes to business. Money over values; that’s the motto of a business. Would replacing a black male with a white one make a noticeable difference in the success of their business with the Polish? I don’t really think so. Microsoft didn’t think about the big picture when this happened. What really bothers me is that the switch in the ads makes it seem that any other race is fine as long as you are not a darker color. All races should be accepted, and I don’t for one second believe that Microsoft was trying to show a “harmony” of races by showing black hands on a white man. That is just their BS cover up.
Another thing everyone needs to realize is that Microsoft made a generalization about the social class beliefs of the Polish. Whoever changed this picture automatically assumed that Polish wouldn’t like a black person to be in the ad. Honestly, it’s hypocritical. You are pro saving the environment, but you are against certain people in your environment? Sounds stupid to me. I can understand their motives and their best interests for the business, but it teases people. Microsoft shows people in the US diversity, and then they show the Polish one skin tone. It’s completely manipulative. I’m sure the same is done when a company advertises in India or China. This just shows you what companies think of their target markets. They make us seem racist when they change their advertisements to “satisfy” us. To be honest, I would have been much happier had Microsoft just used a white male in the ad from the beginning. There was absolutely no need for the change.
A company’s product is what should matter, not the people behind the product or the people advertising the product. What next? Microsoft is going to replace all of their black products with white ones in Poland? You see where I’m going with this. More questions arise from this debacle. This is the FIRST time Microsoft has been caught, so does this mean that they have done things like this before? Probably.
Ultimately, will this new information make me or anyone else stay away from Microsoft? I doubt it, and that’s the sad part. All I have to say is this: Apple never messed up this badly.
I have learned to accept the fact that businesses will go to just about any extreme in order to sell their products. I don’t agree with it, but in the world today, it’s something we have to face and deal with daily. Hot, half-naked girls are used to sell men’s cologne and built, tan guys cover Abercrombie bags. Is this sexist? Or is it just smart advertising? I think it’s just what advertisers have to do. People are photoshopped in most shows, movies, commercials and billboards. Whether it’s just to even out blemishes or to make them look thinner or their bodies more defined, we’re exposed to it hundreds of times a day. Whether it’s wrong or right, advertisers set a standard that we have to live up to. It’s part of their job.
No one really gets too worked up over these types of advertisement, until it’s racism that’s the issue. I do think it’s kind of ridiculous that only the guy’s face was photoshopped and his hands were left black, but I think it’s just part of who they’re advertising to. In a mixed nation like ours, advertisers have to appeal to many different people. However, in a country like Poland with little to no black people, why would they put a black person in one of their advertisements? I’m sure if they were putting their advertisement in India, they would put Indians on the advertisement. It just makes sense.
I think what the one person from Microsoft said about them not changing the colors of the guy’s hands to appeal to everyone was complete bullshit, because then they could have just left the black guy in there considering there was already a white woman. I think it was just something that they overlooked, even though it’s something really noticeable. I think it’s wrong that they tried to cover up with this excuse. They should have just owned up to their actions.
Even though I said I think they were just trying to appeal to the majority of the people in Poland, that doesn’t explain why they didn’t crop another white person in place of the Asian. I would have thought they would have changed both the black and Asian to white people, so that’s a little confusing and may lead to a different explanation.
I don’t know Microsoft’s exact motives behind cropping in the white person’s face, but I don’t think it should be considered racism. If it had been done in America, I think we could think more about it and it probably would be considered racist, but since it was aimed towards a country that is made up of mostly white people, I think it should just be considered good advertisement. I don’t think people need to look much deeper into it than that.
Microsoft’s advertisement may have been changed in poor taste, but there is no way in which one can take fault with the corporation for doing what they did. In fact, the situation not only is not racist but it should not be categorized as offensive by any party. Rather, it should be yet another reminder of the hypocrisy of the world in which we live, and another example of how the Wu Tang clan were correct when they so eloquently rapped “Cash Rules Everything Around Me.”
The simple fact is that advertising exists to sell merchandise. Microsoft isn’t required to have a certain percentage of minorities in its advertisements. There’s no social commitment on Microsoft’s part to portray a black man or woman in this picture. Instead, it is the job of the public relations department to cater this advertisement to the sales target. In this case, it’s Polish consumers. As Sam points out in his blog entry, Poland is a very white country. If the presence of a white man would make 1 more Polish company use Microsoft IT solutions, then the PR department has done their job. The only thing that has brought attention upon this situation, the only thing that differs in this situation from 99% of other advertisements is the altering of the original image. If we had the exact same ratio, two white people and an Asian, or hell, even three white people as the original image, nobody would complain at all about this image. I assume the graphic designers of this ad realized late that the African American was in the picture, and rather than reshoot it, decided to attempt a crude photoshop edit.
The only racism in this image comes with the racism predisposed in every single one of us. If we could truly look beyond the faces on the picture, and focus on the advantages in the IT sector that this Microsoft product would provide, then there would be no need to switch out the black guy. However, because we are programmed, or socialized, to feel more comfortable around those of the same skin color, we want to see that in our advertising. What Microsoft did is absolutely acceptable. They didn’t remove the man because he was black, but rather because black “doesn’t sell” in Poland. It’s not their fault that Polish people react negatively to black people, but it is their job to sell computers. If they fail to do that, a hell of a lot more black people will be out of jobs.
I’d like to liken this situation to the reverse sort of “racism” if you would be so inclined to call it that, that we see often in advertisements. For instance, in this ad, there was to be just one white individual, and two minorities. However, the ratio of white workers at Microsoft is surely more than one of three. It’s the same thing in college magazines. I can’t tell you how many I saw that showed minorities as half the student population in the pictures and photographs, but when you flipped to the back of the book, you saw that the school was 85% white. Is that racism? I don’t think it is. I believe that you’re designing the ad to a specific group, to accomplish an end. Schools are constantly looking to improve diversity on campus, and it will boost minority applications if they feel like they will be surrounded by members of their race, and not isolated.
I feel like these cases are comparable because they both address manufacturing of racial conditions. If one deems the actions of Microsoft racist because they remove a man of color, they’d have to call out Penn State for exaggerating the presence of color on campus. As it is, the only offensive thing about the advertisement is the crudity of the photoshop, without which this wouldn’t have been caught. It’s the job of the marketing department to appeal to the consumer, and they did just that in this advertisement. You can’t fault them for wanting to make the company money, at any cost.
To be honest, I think it was perfectly fine that Microsoft changed the head on the middle man from black to white. Every little detail in an advertisement is obsessed over by the creators. Everything from the font, color and size of the words to the lighting and placement of pictures is strategically planned. Advertisers try to figure out the best way to reach their target audience as effectively as possible. One strategy that helps them connect with the identified target market is to make the individuals in the advertisement similar to them. The audience will not know the depicted people’s favorite food or music or even what language they speak. All they can relate to is how they look. Since this was a Polish advertisement, it only makes since that white skin would be more dominant than that of color. I’ve never been to Poland myself, but I will take Sam’s word for the fact that everyone is of white skin there.
I think Microsoft when wrong when they decided to apologize for their decision to Photoshop the image. They were afraid of not being politically correct. Offending an entire race is a public relations nightmare. So then I guess maybe they aren’t “wrong” for apologizing, however, I don’t think they really are sorry for the reasons they should be. I think the real issue is that people are getting offended unnecessarily. In the United States they are many a cases in which white people are replaced by those of color in the appropriate periodicals. It is not uncommon to see an ad, for instance, of a black woman wearing Cover Girl in the magazine Ebony and then the woman will be white in the issue of Vogue. It is all a matter of finding the specific audience the company is attempting to target and speaking to them.
Lastly, I think the symbolism of mixing the dark skin with the light face depicting a form of unity is a little bit of nonsense. I do not think there can be symbolism in something if the audience would never pick up on it without an explanation from a third party. It is more a matter of convenience: they only had to change the head and didn’t have to bother with the hand because shadowing made a darker skin tone probable. However, if someone wants to see this symbolism as a positive effort by the advertisers, then I shouldn’t discourage it.
Honestly, I believe that this whole Microsoft debacle is yet another instance of the harsh reality that we have not come close to overcoming racism and prejudice. The picture was obviously changed because Microsoft believed that their advertisement would be more appealing to the Polish market with a white male in place of a black male. To tell you the truth, I can't say that I necessarily blame them for taking this action. As one wise man once said, it doesn't matter if your black or white because the only color that matters is green. Their goal was to sell their product, and they decided to do so by any means necessary. I find it hard to believe that the Microsoft company was completely unaware that this "minor" adjustment was made though.
Now, to those ignorant (and by ignorant I mean the literal definition) people who responded to this thinking that the white face and black hand was a decision made to "reach all markets" or "symbolize interracial harmony", I challenge you to step back and assess what it actually going on here. The fact that there is a white hand was simply the mistake of the person who edited the photo. Furthermore, without the juxtaposition of the original photo, it's hard to see that the hand is actually white and not black. This is quite frankly a small thing that would very easily go unnoticed. I can't begin to explain how ridiculous these two claims sound. It's not like we are reading a poem and interpreting it to be this or that. There is no interpretation needed in this regard, rather just a break down of what the initial motive was. To think so deeply about something that is so clear is virtually remedial in nature. Granted, there is typically always a deeper meaning behind someone's action, but this just is not one of those times.
Now personally, what I don't understand about the photo is why the person who altered the photo didn't also change the face of the Asian man. This brings into question the idea of racism or prejudice against blacks in general, rather than racism or prejudice against minorities as a whole. Like i said before, I wouldn't blame the creator and editor of the advertisement if their sole purpose was to better appeal to the Polish market, but considering that they left the Asian gentleman in the photo it brings to question the purpose of said decision. It could very well be that the person who altered the photo simply didn't like black people. Then we have to look at the stereotype that most people are afraid of black men, finding them to be scary to some extent. So maybe the guy that altered the photo simply had this in mind, meaning that maybe he wasn't exactly racist against black people, but more so he was just acknowledging this very stereotype. Which brings me back to my initial thought that this alteration was done to make more money.
Regardless of whether you believe this ad is indeed racist or that it is merely targeted advertising, this should not exactly surprise anyone. This type of interchangeable advertising is used everyday all across the world catering to one demographic or another. The fact that Photoshop was used to replace the black man’s head with a white man’s head does indeed raise some separate issues here but I’m not quite sure that they are racial. The words cheap and lazy come to mind when I think about the Photoshop aspect of this ad. I do not feel that this ad or Microsoft were racist when creating this ad or even when modifying it to cater to a significantly different demographic. Personally I believe that this is simply a mixture of marketing tactics and political correctness. As noted in the blog, companies constantly change advertisements to target predominant ethnic groups in a certain area. The point of this is for the company to better relate its product to the people of the particular targeted area. Now I am not defending large corporations or saying that racism does not occur in the business/marketing world, I just don’t believe that this particular decision was racially based. The fact that we immediately jump to racist assumptions after viewing an ad like this makes me wonder how this thinking effects racial dividing lines as a whole. I am a believer that talking about race openly does help to dissolve racial barriers. But, I also believe that over-analyzing situations involving race can increase the need to be politically correct which almost seems to me is a type of racism in itself. If the goal is to eliminate race as a concept completely, and we continue to seek out instances where race was not considered or over-compensated for then we are only glorifying the concept of race. To truly eliminate race and its magnitude of problems we must emphasize viewing people simply as people rather than black, white or brown people. Maybe the interchanging of heads of men of different colors is the exact opposite of racism. If we are truly striving to eliminate race and become one unanimous race than replacing heads with heads of other races in a photo should not matter. If this would have been a black man’s head replaced with another black man’s head or white with white no one would have cared. Yes, it would still have been a bit odd and radiate a feeling of being cheap, but it would not have been a big ordeal. So, I question those who say they are all for eliminating race as a concept and breaking down racial divides who continue to find reasons for race and racism to exist.
As an African American woman I have noticed the progressive changes that have helped to better my race in a number of ways. African Americans can eat at the same restaurant as those of the Caucasian race, as well as other races. We can attend the same schools and use the same restrooms. But above all we can interact with other racial groups, to create successful and meaningful relationships with one another. Whereas in the 1960’s, African Americans protested for these rights. However, looking at the Microsoft advertisement made me feel as if these “progressions” were not really progressive at all. But more as a cover-up to a bigger issue. This Microsoft debacle only leaves room for me to think that things have not actually progressed, but have given African Americans enough freedom and enough constitutional rights to keep them quiet.
As Professor Richards stated in his blog, there always seems to be at least one woman or one person of color in a photo which thus tries to depict equality between the races. I too have also noticed that most advertisements, television programs, etc. do incorporate both groups; however I believe it is done more for political correctness rather than placing them in the advertisements because they truly want to. There have been countless times when I have seen movies, commercials, and advertisements that have featured the races only for political correctness because after they were featured once they were often not seen again. It actually became a joke to my friends when we would watch scary movies because it always seemed as if the African American person was the first to die. Often times, it didn’t take more than 15-30 minutes into the movie for the African American person to be killed off. Yes, it is also true that African American actors Denzel Washington, Will Smith, and actress Halle Berry to name a few have not made significant strides in the industry. But in the same token, satire comedies, scary movies, and the like still stress the elements of the past; which allows me to further tie in my opinions of this issue. I feel as though no matter what strides people of color take on we will always be the last place racial group in the minds of most people.
The photograph clearly depicts blatant racism. I understand that advertisements are created to appeal to a specific audience, but with that being said does that also mean one race is liable to get cut out? Why didn’t the advertisers remove the Asian man or the Caucasian woman? Are they more important than the African American man? After so many changes that we as Americans have created to include other races “equally” it amazes me that in 2009 a top corporation such as Microsoft cannot fathom placing an African American man in an executive position in an advertisement. Though ironically, an African American man holds the highest position in the nation.
The incident that occurred with the black man’s head being cut out of the advertisement was ridiculous. Personally, I cant stand to see things like this happen in our society because I feel that it just promotes racism instead of unity. We still live in a world with racism, and to tell you the truth incidences like this will never end. I say this because you can clearly see Microsoft make up a dumb excuse so they don’t get sued. Well I think that the black man should sue Microsoft for everything they got. I guess Microsoft was trying to appeal to the polish markets since that country’s dominated with white people. Lets get real, they should be interested in what the Microsoft product has to offer instead of what type of people are associated with the product. Some people need to get out of their own ways and see the world for how it really is in this day and age. For those bloggers who say that the white head and black hands on the persons body depicts interracial harmony, I would like to know where that wild idea came from. I mean, in our society you are either black, white, Asian, etc. There is no such thing as a white person having black hands. Why couldn’t it be a black head with white hands? The symbolism of a black head and white hands would be different than the white head with black hands but the photo was not edited in that way because of the racist and negative view of black people. Personally both of those ideas are simply ignorant. But whoever edited or photo shopped the photo clearly hated black people. But its ok, the minority will become the majority and soon that persons ideas, thoughts, and values will have little meaning . Interracial harmony could be a lot better in our world than what it is right now. Even being here at school I still see racism frequently and quite frankly I wish it would end. For example, telling someone not to let one of my friends in a party because black people are anthrax, enough said. Also, I think to myself why wasn’t the Asian mans’ head cut out. Asians are minorities just as blacks are and I know that they don’t consider themselves to be white. Asians look nothing like white people, so his head should have been cut out as well. In saying that, racism towards black people is still alive in society. Nonetheless, I have learned to deal with such ignorance that continues to plague our society. After reading this article, it just lets me know that no matter what, racism will continue to exist until people in general come to their senses and realize that the world would be a better place if racism were to end.
This Microsoft advertisement portrays laziness and lack of professionalism. It does not make any sense that a company as large Microsoft would use photoshop to replace a black man’s head with a white mans head without taking the time to change the shade of the person’s body. In the BBC article it states that an Asian man and white woman were featured on the ad also. It’s not like the company doesn’t have the resources or people to reshoot or edit the ad properly. Their lack of professional could also portray that Microsoft does not take their Polish audience seriously. If the ad was in the U.S. they would spend as much time and money as they could to appeal to their consumers. Their failure to change the one hand shows that they did not take precaution to review their work. Even if they did review their work, wouldn’t it be better to be safe than sorry? Obviously, we were able to see the differences and were able to get access to these two ads. What makes Microsoft think that the Polish audience does not have the same resources as we do? If I was Microsoft, I would rather spend more money on an ad than having the chance of ruining the reputation of my company. If I was a person living Poland, I too would be shocked and turned away from the company due to their lack of effort.
If you look at it from Microsoft’s view, it is understandable why they would change the person for the Polish audience. Microsoft did what ever that was in their best interest to benefit their company. Microsoft assumed that sales would decrease with the black man on their ad, so they cropped him out. Because of culturalization, Microsoft is trying to follow the norm of the different markets in the various nations. Because Poland has a predominately white population, they were just trying to appeal to the Polish audience with a white actor.
Can this ad be considered a racist? Companies are going to focus their advertisements based on the various markets related to the culture. You would not have a football player promoting Gatorade in China, when football is not a widely known sport. As a consumer, we buy certain products because it relates to us.
It would be interesting to hear what Microsoft’s public relations person had to say about this incident.
Was it ethical of Microsoft to change their ad so the Polish people feel comfortable with what they see? There are a lot of faults with the ad, but can you blame them for taking the easy way and trying to make more money without spending too much of it.
What were they thinking?
Microsoft must have been smoking some pretty good stuff when they published this photo and to think that nobody would notice. One person may have changed this photo but a collective group of employees at the Microsoft Corporation saw this photo and gave it the ok to be published.
So what was Microsoft’s real intent? I personally do not believe that this was racist on the part of the corporation. I do believe that this was a strategic marketing strategy to appeal to the Polish population. I do not think that Poland has an overwhelming amount of African Americans in their country so it only makes sense to appeal to the people that are potential customers to your company. So from a marketing standpoint I understand why the Microsoft Corporation published this picture.
The real problem I have with this photo is that the Microsoft Corporation didn’t take the time to find a picture with a white guy in it. How hard would that have been? Its not like white men don’t work for Microsoft.
This photo has created a media field day and a nightmare for the Microsoft Corporation. Many people will take this photo to believe that Microsoft is racist against African Americans and that they don’t want to place them in their advertisements. This could cause the African American population to stop purchasing products from Microsoft which will be a huge loss for Microsoft. Microsoft will try and smooth things over but in the end they have offended an entire race by photo shopping this man out of the picture.
Knowing that African Americans will be offended is obvious but I think the more interesting development will be what white people will think of the advertisement. I myself believe that it wasn’t racist but what do the majority of white people think? Most people will probably just shrug it off and forget about it in a few days and others will remember this blatant miscue on behalf of Microsoft. Some may not be able to trust a company despite its record and high prestige. The fact that a prestigious company will blatantly publish a photo and expect no one to notice is alarming to me. What else are they willing to overlook and hope that the public doesn’t notice?
Overall Microsoft has lost a lot of respect and not just from the African American community but from all of their customers. How is someone supposed to trust a company that put forth less than zero effort to hide the fact that they were photo shopping their advertisements? Like I have said, I do not believe this was intended to be racist but it is perfectly understandable that someone would take it that way.
At first, I thought this was an awful move by Microsoft. It appeared to be obvious racism, as Sam said, by saying someone can’t be at a table because of their skin color. But after thinking about it some more, I have mixed views. Sure, it seems unfair to the black man, but that’s MY view, and the common American view. On the other hand, this may not seem racist at all to people in Poland. And that’s why Microsoft did that. It’s a case of marketing; it has nothing to do with what Americans think, it’s just about what they think in Poland. If that means replacing the black person with a white person, then so be it. It was a smart move on Microsoft’s part.
On the other hand, I disagree with the actual Photoshopping of the image. I don’t see anything wrong with switching a white man for a black man, but they should actually use different people. By pasting a head onto another person’s body, it just seems rushed and a little careless. The white person’s head is in an unnatural position, and when you combine that with the black-colored hands, it’s just not a good picture. What Microsoft should have done is taken multiple pictures, with different races in each picture. That way, if someone comes across both pictures (as many people did), it’s not a blatant case of Photoshopping.
In America, companies have learned to market their products using a wide variety of races. Our country is known as the “melting pot” of the world, and this is a great example of that. With so many races and ethnicities, companies try to appeal to them all. This has become an even bigger deal over the past decade, and now it is hard to find any marketing picture or video that doesn’t have multiple races.
This is a concept that has not been spread to the rest of the world. In other countries, it is common to see advertisements that only show that country’s race. This has also become common in sports. Many sporting organizations are now marketing to other countries by showing games or matches that focus on athletes in their region. While this is partly, just to “show the home team,” it also goes back to the issues of race and ethnicity. For example, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) just received a television deal with ESPN UK. They are using this deal to advertise different fights to different countries. In America, no one really cares what race a fighter is, so they show us everyone. In European countries, however, the UFC is making it a point to air fights featuring athletes native to their country. Since there is very little “rooting for the home team” in the UFC, this is more to show a familiar race and/or ethnicity.
Personally I find this article funny. It’s funny to me to think that in this twenty-first century society that people at Microsoft would get so worked up over having a black person in their Polish advertisement. Now I myself have never been to Poland nor do I have any intent on ever going, but I do very much understand the fact that Poland is an extremely white country. This is in contrast to many European nations such as England, France and Spain, which have significant numbers of immigrants from all over the world, including Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. Poland on the other hand still maintains a very large white catholic population. I also very much do understand the need for advertisers to target a specific audience in their advertisements in order to sell as many units as possible. However, I strongly believe that Microsoft made a major advertising blunder. The way I see it, the advertiser had two options if they were concerned with having an advertisement with a black person in it. Option one, what they could have done is reschedule and reshoot a new ad for the Polish market. Though this option would have cost them a bit more time and a bit more money, it would have laid to rest their fear of marketing a black person to a market that is unfamiliar with black people. Also in retrospect the only cost that this would have had to Microsoft is that the advertisement would have reached the consumer at a slightly later date, and they would have to pay the models for the new advertisement. The second option that Microsoft had was to simply run the same advertisement that they ran in the American market in the Polish market. Understandably this may have been seen as slightly more risky to Microsoft, proving to be more of a trail and error advertisement. This option could have ended in two different scenarios, either they do not sell as many units as they would like to, or they are seen as being progressive and sell many units. In either of those two scenarios Microsoft nevertheless would have sold several thousand units in a foreign market. What advertisers like Microsoft do not realize is that certain people who are unfamiliar with another group of people judge them on what they see in the media. I would imagine that people in Poland probably judge black people by how they see them depicted in movies and other such entertainment. It is a possibility that if they began to see more black people depicted in a positive light then maybe their perception of them would change. Microsoft could have been seen as leading the way in changing the perception that the world has on black people. Instead they simply became the target of another pointless instance of racial profiling. Also it appears that the gentlemen in the corner is Asian, one must wonder why the advertisers did not feel the need to change his face.
The Microsoft debate is one that I have mixed feelings about. Being that I am half black and that my physical features reflect, for the most part, that of a Black female, I am first and foremost a little bit indignant at the thought that Microsoft (which is clearly a company that is everywhere and makes its presence known around the world) would find it inappropriate to have a Black male featured on its advertisement. I’m not someone that is easily annoyed at racial remarks because most (or arguably all) of them can be summed up to mere ignorance and some people will just never change- I’m used to it for the most part because I lived in a predominantly white and Indian area in New Jersey- but sometimes I find that it hits a nerve in me. On the other hand, I’m really not all that surprised at it considering Microsoft is a business. It’s a company; its main goal is the make money. Advertising agents make a living off of appealing to the needs of its targeted audience. The obvious goal is to avoid offending consumers because that doesn’t bring in any profit. That doesn’t bother me. That’s clearly what has to be done. I am a little puzzled by the fact that there is an Asian male in the ad though. It reminds me of a time last semester when my Asian boss asked me if my Chinese roommate considered herself white- which highly confused me. I said, “No, she’s Chinese, and that’s what she considers herself”, to which he responded, “Some Asians do not consider themselves to be minorities”. I suppressed the desire to say, “Right. In Asia.” Seeing that Asians are considered okay in that society whereas Blacks would not be is just a slap in the face.
One thing that really makes me laugh is the completely ridiculous statement made on the article on BBC news that ‘Bloggers have had a field day with the story, with some suggesting Microsoft was attempting to please all markets by having a man with both a white face and a black hand.’ "The white head and black hand actually symbolize interracial harmony. It is supposed to show that a person can be white and black, old and young at the same time," said one blogger on the Photoshop Disasters blog. I laughed so hard at that. It’s funny! Although I really hope whoever wrote that was being facetious because that has to be one of the dumbest things that I’ve heard in a while. I’m pretty sure, though I realize completely that I’m not the one who did the photo-edit and as well that I am not in the head of the person who did the job, that was not the objective. Actually, I’m almost ninety-nine percent sure that that was just a terrible photo-shop job. Things like this happen all the time, and we point and laugh at the stupidity, yet, I don’t know, truthfully when it has something to do with race, we sit there and analyze a gray square because it represents “the blending of two once separate cultures” or we look at a black circle and say “well, that’s just racist”. It is honestly just a complete stretch. Being that I like a lot of things to be straightforward in a scientific sort of way, I kind of find that to be just irritating in that “Is that a cloud because we call it a cloud, or is it a cloud because we’re asking that question” sort of way.
Simply by looking at the edited photo, I felt that it was poorly done. The hand color was obviously different from the face and the head itself looks distorted and awkward. I believe that this job was hastily done without the approval of their coordinator. Microsoft is a very large cooperation with many employees so things like these are very hard to monitor carefully until it is too late. I believe the person that decided to approve or Photoshop the image is a racist and not Microsoft entirely but they are still responsible. This defines what I believe racism is. People that believe skin color classifies someone and automatically places stereotypes and cruel accusations upon them. Even if the one responsible assumes they are not racist, they must have thought that other people are and therefore they changed it to satisfy their customers. I highly doubt that an image of someone of a different skin color will change a consumer’s decision on purchasing their products. Regardless of their thought, their attempt to make their image look better has actually made it worse after this debacle.
However, in another standpoint, it does make sense that they would try and alter the appearance of their site to appeal to their audience, regardless of how racist it is, it is just promoting good business. As stated in the blog entry, advertisements for companies are known to change their appearance based on the majority or targeted group they are hoping to attract with their advertisements. I think that thinking strictly business, it was the right thing to do but to consumers like us, it comes off as a very racist issue. America is a country that resides a very diverse group of people which makes an advertisement with a black person not very surprising and actually quite common. In other countries however, things like this might be very rare and shocking. Companies typically strive for diversity in their workplace and outward appearance. This is why the Microsoft advertisement was the way it was in the first place, diverse. Microsoft employees might have thought that Poland had a different view on diversity in an advertisement so to be safe, they changed it accordingly to what they believed would be a neutral image. It would be kind of random to include a population that is non existent in the country you are advertising to.
I think the explanation that one blogger had that the hand was left black to represent diversity was odd and actually surprised me that someone would interpret something like this is that kind of way. When I first heard and saw about this issue, it was screaming racism to me. I do not think a white face and black hands represents diversity anywhere, it just represents a spotty Photoshop job.
When I first read this blog and looked further into the Microsoft photo-shop debacle, I was immediately torn. Part of me wanted to think about the situation from a marketing standpoint while the other half strived to consider its ethicality. While the fact that Microsoft photo-shopped the head of a white man onto the body of a black man makes it an issue of race, it is impossible to make a fair judgment without taking into account the motivations of the company itself.
My immediate thought while reading the article was that a simple error had been blown out of proportion. I wonder, would there still have been as much controversy had the black employee been completely replaced with a white worker, hand included? Or if a different photo had been shot using the Asian man, the woman, and a white man? All mistakes aside, let’s hypothesize that Microsoft had fully interchanged a white man, body and all. As a marketing major, one of the most basic things we learned was that a prime objective of advertising is to appeal to the product’s target market. It’s apparent that one of the ways to do this is to show the potential customer something with which they are familiar and comfortable. Companies use this strategy constantly, yet Microsoft is scrutinized because they chose, perhaps to cut costs, to manipulate the same photo into many uses. Take Audrey Magazine, for example. There is no way sponsors in a self-proclaimed “Asian American women’s lifestyle magazine” would waste money running ads geared towards another race, such as African American. Also a perfect example, as previously stated in other blog responses, is the television station BET, which literally stands for Black Entertainment Television. Since the target audience for this channel is obviously a black population, it only makes sense for advertisers to aesthetically gear their advertisements towards people of color. To further solidify a point, when I initially loaded the BET website the two most prominent ads featured black men and women. While I fully support Microsoft’s decision to appeal to their primarily white target audience by depicting familiar looking people in a photograph, I soon came to a few opposing realizations.
First of all, I was very curious as to the actual ethnic makeup of Poland. Obviously it is a primarily white country, which influenced Microsoft’s decision to create a “whiter” ad. According to the CIA World Factbook, Poland is 96.7% Polish, 0.4% German, 0.1% Belarusian, 0.1% Ukrainian, and 2.7% other and unspecified (as of 2002). If Microsoft replaced the black man because there is clearly not a prominent black population in Poland, then why didn’t they replace the Asian man to reflect the lack of an Asian population in Poland?
The second resource I used was an article on Telegraph.co.uk about other photoshop blunders in the advertising industry. The article reveals that in 1996 Ford used a photo of black and brown employees to advertise in Poland but lightened their skin tone and replaced their faces with those of white people. In the end, Ford was forced to compensate the staff members whom they had offended. This example, coincidentally similar to the Microsoft case, made me realize that I had never given a second thought to the actual people in the images. How could the black male in the Microsoft photo not have been insulted when the company deemed his body acceptable to present to customers but not his face? When I thought about him as a real human being and not just some model, it really affected my viewpoint.
To conclude, I believe that Microsoft clearly made an error in replacing the black man’s head with a white man’s head as opposed to the entire body, but their goal was to better cater to their target market rather than portray racism. I do, however, feel that in substituting out the black man to make for a “whiter” ad they should have addressed the Asian man as well.
I think it is pretty obvious from the responses of the class, as well as the media at large, that the actions of Microsoft were without a doubt offensive and an enormous mistake. While I cannot deny that the company’s actions could definitely be interpreted as racist, it is also hard to fault them completely for anything other than the complete stupidity of forgetting to change the hand. Yes, to an American audience the image of a multicultural boardroom is familiar and preferred, however, I’m sure Microsoft has done its fair share of research and knows what their audience in each country would like to see.
I am not saying that their actions were right, but who can fault them for wanting to make the maximum profit from their target audience? We live in a money driven society. This is a purely financial decision. Since when is companies all across America using slave and child labor to make a larger profit ok, but altering an advertisement to make a larger profit a tragedy worthy of national attention?
Again, I’m not saying I think this was the greatest idea I’ve ever heard, but, honestly, aren’t there issues far more worthy of our attention then an ad? As American citizens living in a very multicultural environment this type of seemingly racist behavior is unacceptable, but I have to believe that Microsoft knew what their audience preferred to see and knew the financial gain that would result from altering their ad. This was not an attack against African American people; it was a company trying to make money. Isn’t that usually the goal of a major company? Yes, it is unfortunate that Microsoft messed up the hand, and, consequentially, the world saw the level to which companies sink to in order to make a buck, but I’m going to venture a guess that Microsoft is not the first company to try this trick, unfortunately for them; they are just the first ones to get caught.
As it says in the blog, “Companies shift their advertising to appeal to different markets all the time.” And this is a perfect example of that. While it is sad to see exactly how manipulative advertising truly is, it is a part of the world we live in and something we ignore on a regular basis. In fact, we financially support these companies and prove to them how effective their targeted advertising really is. It would be wonderful if the whole world was so accepting and colorblind that it truly would not matter what race the people in our advertisements were, but we don’t live in that world and advertising executives know that. Microsoft does not create advertisements to preach diversity and display what a boardroom should ideally look like; they create them to sell things. It is as simple as that. A company created an ad to sell a product. Who can really fault them for that?
The first time I read this article, I was taken aback. I would have never thought that a very well known company like Microsoft would do something like this. “Photoshopping” a white man’s head in place of the black man’s head for an advertisement in Poland, really? Just because Poland is predominantly white, doesn’t mean that a company should cater to them. Is this what it has come down too, changing advertisements just so they will appeal to different races in a certain area? If it has then we can’t say that we have moved further from racism. Would the Polish buy the product any less just because of the black man on it? Don’t Polish people know that there are different races in the world other than white people?
To think that a company like Microsoft would cater to a certain race just to sell more of their product is kind of harsh. Just image if all of the companies around the world did that, what would people think of them? What does that tell you of a company on how they have to change their advertisement every time they promote in a different country that has a predominant race? Companies should not have to cater to anyone. If companies keep this up, will we ever be able to get over racism?
Something as simple as changing a guy’s head in an advertisement, to a different race, is one step back from getting over racism. The replacement head doesn’t even look like it fits in with the picture. Maybe instead of changing the head they should have just run a whole different advertisement, which could become a whole different story. However, you should still not be able to carter to a certain race. If one race was catered to, than all the races in the world would want to be catered to.
If that were to happen, then there would be many different advertisements that one company would have to run, and who has enough money to run all those different ads? Even though Microsoft is a popular company, but do they have enough money to run different advertisements for all the different races in the world? I think not.
A company changing their advertisements leaves the floor open for racism. Why should one race have more privilege than any other? This action just takes us backwards, when we want to move forward towards a racism free world. Some people may not believe that this would be racism, but that is just it, something as subtle as changing a picture, to me, is considered racism. Maybe the company should just leave their original advertisement up because I do believe that there are more races in the world then that advertisement depicts.
In my opinion I don’t think of this situation as "RACIST". I don’t think this was intended to mean or hurtful to anyone in anyway. I’m pretty sure that a company like Microsoft would do something stupid like this to jeopardize there billion dollar company. Like some people stated I see it as a marketing preference. I think we as people shouldn’t jump to the racial bandwagon so quickly when matters like this arise. However with that said if Microsoft went through with that photo editing then they should have did it without error. Meaning if you’re changing a persons head and color, don’t forget to include the other visible body parts. Also they could have gone even a step further and edited the Asian person in the photo as well. In other words, if you’re marketing to a generally "white" population then everyone in the photo should be white. In my opinion I think this would get rid of the discrimination in this photo. Similarly I think the same principle would have happened if the roles were reversed. Meaning, if the target audience was majority black then I believe the photo would have been “altered” to be more efficient to a black audience. The point is it has nothing to do with race it’s just what companies use as “smart” marketing tools. For instance take what Sam Richards said if “you were posting an ad in a LGBT magazine would you use straight people? Not really! You can but it would raise eyebrows nonetheless. So overall this entire situation should not be taken to heart or as a racist gesture, just as a marketing preference that may have received the wrong impression.
Regardless of what happened, there was no way that no one would realize what happened. Millions of people use the internet very day and is filled with some of the world’s most observant people. Many people are aware that Poland is one of the whitest areas, but we don’t know for certain what the editor’s intensions were. For all we know, it could be anything. It could be a joke or he could have simply did this for attention. It is possible that the editor wanted to direct towards the Polish market, but it’s unlikely. The fact that the editor pasted a white face on a black man’s hand demonstrates poor Photoshop skills. However, it is also possible that the editor was aware of what he was doing and just left the black man’s hands there hoping people would catch on and draw attention.
The ad in the US did not have any changes made to it, because the US promotes diversity and wants people to embrace and represent different backgrounds. If the ad from Poland were released and published in the US, then it would cause a massive uproar. Most people will look at the ad and immediately claim “Racism”. Lawsuits, protests and mass media attention would ensue everywhere. In a situation like this in America, the possibilities are endless. Who knows what kind of mayhem would occur?
This situation is the perfect example of the phrase “You can’t please everyone”, because the minute you satisfy one you anger people or they dislike your actions for whatever reason. No matter what you do, some type of problem or disagreement is likely to occur. In this case, it has landed Microsoft into some trouble. Hopefully Microsoft will learn from their mistakes and grow from this experience as a company. This will teach Microsoft to be more careful about how they market products and display things on the market. Obviously in this situation, they were oblivious to the fact that people are sensitive towards race and ethnicity. Regardless of the contents of the advertisement, I don’t think that it would have stopped people from buying the product they needed. If someone needs to use the software, they are going to buy it regardless of what the ad states.
As a reader of this article and the internet, I find this situation hilarious. I think that what the editor did was funny, but done poorly at the same time. I am almost certain that the editor was aware of what he was doing and found it humorous as well. However, when you represent one of the biggest companies in the world and are trying to promote your product, its no longer a laughing matter.
Microsoft was being racist or it was aiming for its target??? It was really hard to decide if it was being racist or it was targeting for their specifically consumers in different nation. I think Microsoft was being racist because it is known as a major corporation in the world that would not make this kind of careless and racist mistake but they actually did it. Even though I kind of understand why Microsoft edited the ad from a black man’s head to a white man’s, it is hard to appeal a variety of people without having a reputation of being racist. If they really want to target their Polish consumer, why they did not edit the black man hand? Also, according to the blogger of an article on BBC news said, “The white head and black hand actually symbolize interracial harmony. It is supposed to show that a person can be white and black, old and young at the same time.” According to this quote, these just are some excuses that they made up to not losing billions of their business. As I was reading the blog and couple of previous comments, I found that Fallout09 said, “Let’s get real, they should be interested in what the Microsoft product has to offer instead of what type of people are associated with the product. Some people need to get out of their own ways and see the world for how it really is in this day and age.” According to his or her quote I personally thing that although Poland is country that not accepting all kind of different color or race of people but they should be able to accept the quality of the product not the appearance of the ad. Therefore, if they want their consumer to buy their products base on the race or nation, why they did not replace that Asian man with another white guy? Or is it because that Asian man has light skin as those Polishes do? Zac said, “It appeared to be obvious racism, as Sam said, by saying someone can’t be at a table because of their skin color.” According to Zac’s quote I totally agree that it is obviously an racism. However, I do not think that Microsoft will lose their consumer because of this ridiculous mistake because people are still living an racial society. There are people think this a obvious racism. There are also some people think that it is okay to replace a black man from the ad and put a white man instead according to their daily business. The United States is country of diversity of all races. Therefore, racism should be eliminated in the media.
I think we should be more concerned over the fact Microsoft's global marketing campaign team doesn't care enough to take a second photo with Polish people to use in Poland. Or instead looks down on Poland enough to think no one would notice the fact the formerly black man has kept his black hands...or to not take out the Asian guy? This just seems like someone at Microsoft was lazy and 10 minutes before the deadline went, “oh shit”, and then promptly added one polish guys head to the advertisement. I mean, really, most companies are smart enough to try and curtail their message in order to reach their targeted audience. The real victim here is Poland since they are apparently not important enough for Microsoft to bother making a halfway decent ad for them. Thats the definition of disparate treatment right there.
Aside from Poland not being worth jack to advertise towards (apparently), the (at least) perceived issue of racism seems to stem from the fact Microsoft did, 1) Only took out the Black dude, and 2) a major corporation shouldn't be making subtle tributes to Michael Jackson. The reason I said perceived is that this seems too sloppy to be racist. Most of the racist connotations come from assuming that there is a world the ad captures, where a black man has to give up his seat to a white guy. What we are seeing here, in this advertisement, isn't a world, its not an opening into some other world in which owning Microsoft's product will make us successful business men and women. Its an illusion and trick in order to get us to buy a product. If by and large people will buy from other people who look like them, then I don't see much of a problem, I don't shop at shop at hot topic, because that isn't the culture or image I want to associate myself with. Its easier to relate to someone who looks, talks, and generally has the same culture as you.
And yes media is manipulative, and we should do well to remember that. Instead what we seem to be doing with this is giving an otherwise unnoticeable and unimportant picture a lot more attention and power than it deserves.
I'm just not sure if I can consider using peoples own views and comfort zones are inherently racist. If you prefer to spend more money to go to a bar that speaks Spanish, does that make you racist? Or even advertise that its Hispanic? I would hope not. Trying to sell to peoples preferred comfort zones seems manipulative, not racist.
After reading this article there was a few different ideas and feelings that came into my mind. When I read the part where Microsoft stated that they did not know the advertisement was being published, I did not believe that. There is no way that Microsoft didn’t know what they were publishing. There had to have been numerous people who looked at this advertisement to approve it. I also do not think that there are any subliminal reasons behind it, such that “Microsoft was attempting to please all markets by having a man with both a white face and a black hand”, as one blogger stated. To me they were simply targeting two different audiences in two different areas of the world. The darker hand isn’t even that noticeable if you didn’t know the other advertisement existed.
I do not agree with what they did by replacing the black face with a white face, but still I can understand their reasoning behind it. Even Sam said that Poland was the whitest place he has ever visited, so why wouldn’t Microsoft target a white audience? It is the most profitable move on their part (and they even saved money by only having one photo shoot). Also, Sam said in class that people are more likely to buy a product if they see someone they can relate to using it. There are magazines out there that aim towards certain racial audiences. For instance the magazine Latina, which clearly targeting a Latino audience, they would not publish a magazine filled with white girls who have blond straight hair. That would not make sense and their target audience would not be able to relate, therefore would be less likely to buy a product. The magazine is filled with Hispanics. Is this racist, or profitable? Especially when it is known who is going to read, or in Microsoft’s case, who is going to be living in the area where the advertisement is going to be, it just makes more sense to have the advertisement show people of the dominant race.
In the United States we are not used to this because there is a very wind range of races in our country. By having advertisements with people of all races it allows the company to grab the attention of many different people all in one add. I still do not think they should have just photo shopped the white man’s head over the black man’s head, but who knows, maybe someone had a deadline to meet (I am sure we have all had to cut corners one way or another before). So basically I think that this issues is being looked too far into, after all, we are all just monkeys.
The idea that a company would put models in its advertising that look like its target audience (i.e. white people in Poland) isn’t that surprising. In America, we expect to see at least one woman, and people of different races in advertising, because we value our diversity (or the notion thereof), and it’s become politically correct to see it in every advertisement. Certainly in other countries with a more uniform race, like Poland, it wouldn’t be surprising to see ads with all white people. What stands out here is why Microsoft felt the need to change an ad that it had already created to suit that race. As a Polish person (or I should say Polish American, because despite the fact that my grandfather was born there, I’ve never even set foot in the country) I find it hard to believe that such extreme racism would exist in that nation, to a point that it’s citizens wouldn’t buy a product because it was advertised by a black man. This would lead one to believe that the only reason the company did it, was to appeal to the dominant race. But, if the ad were designed to appeal to that race, then why was the Asian man left in the photo? Is an Asian man more “white” than a black man, and that’s why it was acceptable? Or did Microsoft only want to use the resources to change one photo (or head), not two? None of these reasons seem to logically follow. The only other possibility that comes to mind would be the small mindedness of the person designing the ad. He/she was either racist against black men him or herself, and therefore wanted to rid the ad of the black man, or believed that a large group of white people when congregated together would be racist against a black man, which really is another form of racism. Or perhaps it wasn’t racism at all. Let’s be honest, we’re probably more likely to buy things from people who look like us. A person who designs an advertisement’s job is to appeal to a target audience. After all, the advertisement is meant to appeal to business men and women, so it clearly wouldn’t contain children or other people having little to do with business. This advertisement's models are dressed as businessmen. Maybe taking it a step further and trying to make the models match the target demographic isn’t entirely racist. I believe that until someone comes out and actually states why it was done (which will never happen), it’s difficult to say whether or not you could call this blatant racism. As a side note, the idea that a white head and a black hand was a symbol of racial harmony is absolutely absurd. This was the work of someone who hasn’t quite mastered the art of Photoshop.
I believe that racism is changing the world today. When I first read this blog post I was not surprised. I mean it’s not like Microsoft wouldn’t hire a person because of the color of their skin. I think that there is a ton of racism in this world today and it is not just from the everyday person anymore. Racism is starting to move into large companies and change the way they advertise their products. The big mistake that Microsoft made is that they forget to Photoshop the hands of the white guy into the advertisement. The main goal of any company is to succeed by selling your product any way you can. Besides the obvious mistake, what Microsoft did is not wrong, if anything it is smart. By having all white people on an advisement in Poland is smart because now, when you pass this poster, all of the people from Poland are going to look and see that other white people are doing, so they are going to want to do it. It is the same thing in Africa; you are not going to want an advertisement with all white people because the people of Africa cannot relate to it. On an episode of the show “Scrubs,” they were making posters to advertise the hospital and portray it as a nice, friendly place to be helped. On all of the posters there was a black guy and a white guy to try and show that the hospital is not racist. This is an example that happens all of the time in the United States. A company or an organization will use a group of people from different ethnic backgrounds just to show that they are not racist. In my opinion what these companies are doing IS racist. I am not going to say that I think racism should be eliminated from the world, because in a way I think we need it. I think that it is funny to tell jokes about other people’s race, and that is what is great about the world. According to the BBC website, “Microsoft said it had pulled the image and would be investigating who made the changes. It apologized for the gaffe.” I think that this is the most ridiculous thing in the world. You should not have to apologize for being racist or for doing something that you thought would benefit your company. Even worse Microsoft should not have taken the picture off the internet. Maybe if other people and other companies saw that big old Microsoft was being racist for their own benefit, then maybe these other companies would realize that it is not wrong to do whatever you need to do for your business to succeed. In the end I do not think that this was a matter of racism, I believe that Microsoft was just doing what they need to do in order to promote their product.
The idea that a company would put models in its advertising that look like its target audience (i.e. white people in Poland) isn’t that surprising. In America, we expect to see at least one woman, and people of different races in advertising, because we value our diversity (or the notion thereof), and it’s become politically correct to see it in every advertisement. Certainly in other countries with a more uniform race, like Poland, it wouldn’t be surprising to see ads with all white people. What stands out here is why Microsoft felt the need to change an ad that it had already created to suit that race. As a Polish person (or I should say Polish American, because despite the fact that my grandfather was born there, I’ve never even set foot in the country) I find it hard to believe that such extreme racism would exist in that nation, to a point that it’s citizens wouldn’t buy a product because it was advertised by a black man. This would lead one to believe that the only reason the company did it, was to appeal to the dominant race. But, if the ad were designed to appeal to that race, then why was the Asian man left in the photo? Is an Asian man more “white” than a black man, and that’s why it was acceptable? Or did Microsoft only want to use the resources to change one photo (or head), not two? None of these reasons seem to logically follow. The only other possibility that comes to mind would be the small mindedness of the person designing the ad. He/she was either racist against black men him or herself, and therefore wanted to rid the ad of the black man, or believed that a large group of white people when congregated together would be racist against a black man, which really is another form of racism. Or perhaps it wasn’t racism at all. Let’s be honest, we’re probably more likely to buy things from people who look like us. A person who designs an advertisement’s job is to appeal to a target audience. After all, the advertisement is meant to appeal to business men and women, so it clearly wouldn’t contain children or other people having little to do with business. This advertisement's models are dressed as businessmen. Maybe taking it a step further and trying to make the models match the target demographic isn’t entirely racist. I believe that until someone comes out and actually states why it was done (which will never happen), it’s difficult to say whether or not you could call this blatant racism. As a side note, the idea that a white head and a black hand was a symbol of racial harmony is absolutely absurd. This was the work of someone who hasn’t quite mastered the art of Photoshop.
By all means just replacing the man’s face and not his hands was a big mistake. However I feel that the only mistake is that whoever fixed the add didn’t fix the man’s hands. This is not offending or an act of racism by Microsoft, this is simply a company trying to make a certain consumer group feel as though the add is speaking to them directly. Too often too many people are ready to jump at the chance to call someone out for being a racist or not thinking about the other races or the other genders. It is simply an advertising technique because that company is trying to make the most money. Microsoft is simply trying to reach the most people in that target area. For instance if, Franklin athletic equipment, used a guy for a commercial about a “protective cup” no one would say anything. Not because they are trying to exclude the female gender but because the product is directed at males. I went to a catholic high school that stressed Catholicism and went to catholic elementary schools to try and recruit new and prospective students, but at the same time they wouldn’t go to temple on Friday night. This is not because we believe Catholicism is the right path or that other religions aren’t good enough for the school. This is done simply to target certain people and make the most money for that company. Other companies do the exact same thing, for instance in Japan they use Japanese people in their adds and billboards. To take offense to this is simply stupid. This type of marketing is seen all over the world and is used in every type of product. People getting upset at the add and the idea of companies doing this are hypocrites. They claim they are so concerned with not trying to be racist however they are the first to say something if an add doesn’t have a female, a person of color and a so called “white” person. By trying to be fair and equal they are pointing out what they believe is racist and causing a greater problem by accusing people of not thinking of other people and how they feel. People like this only cause problems; they are not interested in everyone being equal because if they were they wouldn’t bring up problems that aren’t that severe. Advertising is a tool to get people to buy more of a product. This isn’t the government saying now take a black man out of the add because that is offending the white race. Coming from queens which is one of the most culturally diverse places in the country racism is so clear cut. I don’t seem to even notice things like this because growing up it was never a black, white, Spanish, Asian thing for me. It was always is the person themselves a good person not which racial group are they from. However in Poland it is mostly a white society, not because they have slaves or don’t allow people of color to live there but that’s just how it is. To try and persecute Microsoft for targeting a certain consumer area is ridiculous.
Sometimes little mistakes get blown out of proportion stirring up feelings of negativity. This is the case with Microsoft; a little mistake of “photoshopping” soon was translated into large headlines and hot news. It’s highly doubtful that Microsoft was willing to cost itself such bad publicity for an advertisement –which its sole purpose was to promote a service. Companies use different strategies to convey their ideas and services/products, why are we criticizing a company for using one of its advertizing tools?
One of the key things you learn in marketing and advertisement is to “know your audience”. First and foremost, companies conduct demographic studies to understand who they are dealing with. Then they cater their product to their audience. This is done globally. For instance, Coca Cola in the US uses American public figures to promote its drink; while in the Asia, they use Asian public figures more often. Why is it different case for Microsoft’s ad? The firm knew its public, amended its advertisement to fit Poland’s demographic, and attempted to sell to a white race? Microsoft wasn’t trying to communicate race tolerance, and last I checked its objective isn’t to educate the Polish of different races found in the world.
If we are to criticize Microsoft for “photoshopping” the black man into a white man for Poland, then we should criticize Microsoft for intending to diversify its race selection in the advertisement for the US. It’s the same matter, it’s the same concept, the only difference is that Microsoft was sloppy and got caught. But got caught doing what? Something that every international/multinational firm has done? And will continue to do, because really there is nothing wrong with it.
Targeting your audience is not synonymous to racism. Targeting your audience allows you to get your message through. If to some extent you, the reader, sees it as an unjust tool of advertisement, then you should tackle the whole concept. We see young pop stars advertising different products all the time, is this yet another form of prejudice?
In reality, I believe the whole controversy that came about this advertisement caused more sensitivity than it would have if it was kept quiet. Different blogs, comments and statements were made that might have offended any of the communicated parties.
I do wonder, however, if the model in the portrait at hand, was told that he was going to be replaced depending on the country? Did he agree to it? If so, would the BBC article have called it racism if the model had came out and said “I am a black and I agreed to the terms?”
To conclude, I am trying to convey the idea that this marketing tool shouldn’t be a matter to discuss. But I wonder if there reason to photoshop as mentioned in BBC was to target the Polish, then why would they leave the Asian and only edit the black man?
I think when it involves racism in advertising, there is no political correctness. I understand that all of the people in Poland are white but Microsoft has to understand that there are all kinds of people in the world. Even if there are no black people in Poland does not make it OK to have to change an advertisement and erase one of them. I understand though they were trying the best they could to appeal to their customers in that country though. Since Poland does not have black people they wouldn’t be able to relate to it, but when I think of any commercial I see I don’t judge it based on the people advertisement but on how its presented. Aunt Jemima syrup for example, has a black woman on the label. If one day they decided to change her into a white woman on it I wouldn’t stop buying the syrup because all I am worried about is the taste of the product. I know it is not Poland’s fault that there is no black people there, but maybe they should try to accept the race issue in their country if a company had to go to such lengths to advertise a product there. Another interesting thing is the guy on the left appears to be Asian and yet they didn’t replace him. Maybe this caused more of an uproar because it was a black guy being replaced? If a white guy was replaced in an advertisement for a Chinese commercial I don’t think there would have been much talk about it. All of this talk about the racist advertisement actually made more headlines for them and spread the word around in the news. I’m sure this isn’t how they meant to bring attention to themselves but it worked.
What they did to try to present themselves better actually makes them look worse, showing that they can’t even double check their advertisements to make sure they’re perfect to send out. Photoshopping a person’s head and forgetting the hands is a very amateur thing to do. If they wouldn’t have worried about changing the head they wouldn’t have to worry about the even worse backlash that came from people discovering what the original advertisement looked like. The advertisement didn’t even show the point they were trying to make so to even have to change it was a dumb mistake to make. The strange part is that this happens all the time in the world of advertising, yet people don’t make a fuss because no one realizes it. If more people spoke out against what is happening, maybe companies wouldn’t have to resort to tactics like these to sell more products.
I do believe the Microsoft ad for Poland has racism rooted in it. However, it wouldn't be fair to call only the marketing advisors racist. The marketing advisors for Microsoft are trying to make their product as appealing as they can. Unfortunately, they had to go the racist way to make it appealing. The one aspect that made the whole ad racist was how they photoshopped a white person's head over the previously featured black person. Could they really not take the extra time to round up three Polish people for the picture? Or even just get a real picture with the asian guy, another white guy, and the white lady. The way they photoshopped over the black guy is in a way dehumanizing; they almost treat him as an object that could be copied and pasted over.
However, if they hadn't photoshopped over the guy and instead had an add featuring three Polish people, I don't think it would be racist. They are simply trying advertise their company to a certain market. If that market consists of 95% white people, and 5% black people, it would be unwise to have an ad contradicting these statistics. If they featured a black guy in an ad in a country with few minorities, the people's focus would be on the black guy. Having taken a few marketing classes, the number one objective you have is to get the consumer's focus onto your product. I think a lot of focus would be initially be diverted just for the fact that they featured a black guy. Microsoft along with the marketing administrators wouldn't be doing their job if no one is paying attention to the product advertised. That is why I could see the switch to the white guy in the advertisement. Of course that then brings up the discussion of why the black guy, and not the asian guy is photoshopped out.
The real question that comes to my mind is: who is more racist, the marketers, or the population? Like I said before, the marketers are trying to appeal to a population. Of course dehumanizing the black guy was wrong, but they are trying to sell units. What does the ad say about the Polish culture that they couldn't feature a black guy in their advertisement? It makes it seem that the population is intolerant. So I would have to say that the root of the problem lies in that fact, that the Polish people are more receptive to white people. I believe that is the difference in this case- the Polish aren't racist to black people, but more receptive to whites. The marketers know this, so they are playing that card in their advertisement. I believe that is the wise decision except for 2 parts.
1. Why did they have to photoshop the black guy out?
2. Why was the Asian guy still there?
If the marketers know that the population is more receptive to whites, why didn't they just make three white people sitting in a conference room? If they took the time to photoshop the black guy out why didn't they do the same for the asian guy? That is why I do think the marketers are slightly racist, or overreacting on the fact of featuring a black guy. From a marketing and psychological standpoint, I could see their idea, but this is where I think they cross the line.
First off, to think that a large and successful corporation like Microsoft could make such a mistake and discredit their reputation over a minor technicality is quite sad actually. They should be hiring the most qualified people for their marketing and public relations departments.. they obviously dropped the ball on this one. If that one person would have just caught the mistake of the discoloration of the hand the whole thing could have been avoided and this mess would not be an issue. Obviously, I do not think that it was Microsoft’s intention to be racist or cause any disrespect to any particular race. I think they just thought that they would relate and advertise to the Polish people in a way that they thought they would understand. However, is it to say then that the Polish wouldn’t understand the concept of the ad if they would have kept the black guy? I mean, the point is the fact that businesses need computers. Whether or not the people in the office are black, white, or Hispanic, they are still going to need computers. In the United States a white person would have probably been changed to a black person just to be politically correct and “reach out to all communities and populations.” Companies have almost been trained to do this because the civil rights activists, public relation and marketing employees all need to be on the same page or company’s reputations can be easily discredited as being racist. The same issue could go towards woman. In the countries where women are not seen as equals and cannot go to work or be out in public, can those countries have ads with women in them? I bet companies in those countries are reluctant to put women in and end up just filling the ads with men. This might not be just a race issue, but also a sexist issue. Even if Poland is primarily white, they could have just kept the ad anyways. It is not like the Polish people do not recognize a black person as an individual or a consumer who could also be interested in buying a Microsoft computer. I think this whole situation lands in the grey area. There is no right or wrong answer here as to if the company was being racist or not. On one side of the argument, I understand that some companies want to appeal to their customers but the bottom line is, in this day and age, it should not matter if the woman in an ad in Miami is Latin or white or black. The point still gets across as a consumer, no matter what races are being included in an ad.
The question is if the advertisement change for Microsoft was either Political correctness or Blatant Racism? In my opinion is that it’s neither there’s no politics or racism involved in this issue. Microsoft followed through what they needed to do to sell and move their products in Poland. It was just another business transaction. If they have to make everyone look like peirogi eaters to sell products there’s nothing wrong with it. I support Microsoft for changing the physical appearances of their model to cater to their clients. If they would have made all the models Caucasian then it could be called into question, because wherever there’s a majority there will be minorities. They represented a realistic ratio of how diverse Poland is compared to multicultural nations like the United States. Since there isn’t a lot of immigration into Poland the correct thing was done, by Microsoft following through and changing the ad to fit into the Polish Society standards.
I think that people should leave public opinion of what correctness is when it comes dealing business. Because the whole point in creating an advertisement is to sell merchandise. And if they’re boundaries that were crossed insulting some citizens it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because the bigger picture is to keep economies stimulated. We live in a world where every nation is codependent on each other if one economy begins to stagger other economies will follow. People who are annoyed with Microsoft’s action shouldn’t because they did the professional thing, which in the end benefits every person in society by their perseverance to stimulate the economy.
Personally when I buy products I connect more when the person representing a certain products has physical attributes similar to my own. People are discriminated not just by the color of their skin but their age is a huge factor. I noticed that once a woman turns a certain age her representation in society disappears and is only good for cleaning products, mini vans, and lane Bryant. Even though older woman find it disrespectful that they aren’t advertised in GAP ads and are replaced by 19 year old models, it doesn’t matter. Because who would buy the latest Stella boot cut jean if a 40 year old woman is in the ad? I wouldn’t. Whatever makes the transaction.
Also, I feel that this entire situation of changing the person in the ad from black to white is irrelevant. With so many horrible things happening in today’s society, why focus on something so trivial. Racism still exists but with the world becoming more globalized every single day, it will come a time when everyone is so intertwined that race will be overlooked. To get to the point of existence however society should look more into the corrupt governments that take money from their own citizens in Africa and the inequality Palestinians face every day living on “borrowed” land.
It isn’t a huge secret that different companies all over the world create advertisements to attract consumers in their specified target markets. Unfortunately, it is the mistake of such large and powerful companies like Microsoft to carelessly let the “behind the scenes details” of a strategic marketing plan surface to the public. Such bad judgment does have the tendency to reflect negatively on the company involved; even if they had the most honorable non-racist intentions in development. It’s hard to believe that the thought process of the marketing team behind this mishap is a team of all racist white men who particularly can’t stand black people. Come on. I will say the fact that the other man (not altered) in the photo is of a different ethnicity does pose a question or two of suspicion. Maybe that non-white man would be a way to have diversity and still appeal to the generally lighter skinned population. Under the circumstances of Microsoft’s Poland target market, I’m sure their goal simply was to sell the most Microsoft products to the most Polish consumers as they could in order to reach the biggest profit. Professor Sam said it himself that there are basically no black people or any other significant ethnic group at all in Poland. I will say, however, somewhat embarrassed at how sloppy of a job they did editing that poor guy out. After reading the original blog and article, I thought to myself how often this type of “racial editing” occurs in board rooms of major corporations; most likely every single day. I’m not positive how one should feel about the issue, but overall I found that I’m not too outraged by the nifty switching of the two men because it’s just another reality of the business world. It’s nearly impossible to change this thinking because society does see itself as a divided entity separated into different social groups whether by race, gender, age, etc. It’s hard to pin point blame a corporation for excluding a certain social group or race when all of us unconsciously or consciously do the same thing sometimes. Racism is a long and complicated social battle for people to continue to face and unfortunately there is no end in sight. In closing, I think the bottom line is Microsoft should have the resources needed to create new and inventive ads instead of cheaply and irresponsibly editing other ads to fit a target race specific demographic. Since I’ve already stated that I feel this happens too often, I hope that in the future marketing teams will learn to at least create or alter target specific ads professionally and tastefully so this type of bad publicity and racial hype wouldn’t happen again.
Political Correctness or Blatant Racism?
I believe that throughout history, corporations, the government, and small businesses have tried to post their advertisements or propaganda in the most aesthetically pleasing way possible. Corporations often use young, attractive individuals to market their products. The government usually lets out advertisements or propaganda that makes their programs or careers look extremely desirable. For example, when you see a Marine recruitment commercial, it’s always either a in shape black guy or white guy running through an obstacle course, riding a behemoth of a tank, or pulling out a shining sword with fire in the background. The military aims at recruiting many black people and white people (these are the two biggest pluralities when it comes to race in the U.S. military). Small businesses are often a big indicator of just how race and culture are used in advertisements. You will often still see tobacco products publicized on posters outside of gas stations. Although these products are packed with carcinogens, the storeowners use their advertisements to make the Phillip Morris and U.S. Smokeless tobacco products look appealing. Advertisements for chewing tobacco often feature a grizzly man with a beautiful young woman or a classic car by his side. This appeals to the group of people that U.S. Smokeless is marketing to: young to middle aged men that often see themselves as “macho.”
So, is it wrong for Microsoft to change their advertisement to feature a white man’s face rather than a black man’s face? I don’t see anything inherently wrong with them doing that. They are marketing to white people that are used to seeing other white people in their day-to-day lives. They’re most likely used to seeing white people in their movies, music, and advertisements as well. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this fact. However, there are several social issues that could be brought up in response to companies changing the race of the people in their advertisements based on the location of its release.
I would hope that someday this kind of changed advertisements doesn’t happen anymore in the United States. I believe the United States is becoming more and more excepting of having a multitude of races and ethnicities within the same borders. I do see why advertisements would change based on location. I know in my hometown there is a section of stores and restaurants that is primarily Korean, so all of the advertisements feature Korean writing and Korean people. I don’t find this wrong, it’s a just a method that these companies have figured out in order to reach the customers they see the best buying potential in. I don’t think that makes what Microsoft did right in any social or ethical aspect, but I do believe you can’t stop businesses from doing things like this that they have found help them run a successful business.
The strategic “photoshopping” done to replace a black man with a white man for the sake of furthering product sales does not shock me in the slightest. The corporate world, and especially the advertising world that goes along with it, go through painstakingly thorough steps to ensure they can reach the broadest consumer base as possible. It is surprising that such a high profile, international, corporation would make such a careless mistake. Had the advertising and marketing executives been posed with the theoretical possibility of something like this happening, and asked their opinions, the reaction would surely have been something along the lines of horror. There is a definite backlash that comes from such a racial decision, and a backlash any corporation would want to avoid. However this is the reality of modern marketing schemes. Microsoft is without a doubt not the only corporation, nor will it be the last, to racially edit their advertisements in order to appeal to the specific market they are targeting.
While it is without a doubt a racial decision, to replace a black man with a white man, it is not a racial move against the black population. A similar advertisement directed at the software market of Morocco, Egypt, or perhaps Saudi Arabia, might make the decision to replace the white woman with a black woman or a black man. It is equally possible that marketing guru’s in a corporation would feel that a darker-skinned, and potentially black, model would appeal more to the culture and population of such countries than a white model.
I do not view such decisions as either right or wrong, because while I certainly do not support the notion of racism or racial hatred, I do not believe such editing was done with the intent of harming the discriminated population. The decision to remove the black man was not done out of hatred for blacks or an intent to hurt the black population. It was simply business. It was a decision regarding what professionals thought would best promote their product in a specific locale and market. That does not make it right by any means, but I do not believe that is a morally wrong decision, because there was no racial hatred motivating the decision.
Such an advertisement also brings up a different point of view about the extent to which American marketing strategies seek political correctness. American advertising is so concerned with including everyone that it in a sense practices a different kind of racial discrimination. Discrimination means to favor or reject a particular group based on some cultural, ethnic, racial, religious, gender, or other grouping. So by consciously adding a person of color, a female representative, an Asian model, or in the case of some advertisements, a disabled person, are we not practicing another form of discrimination? One which could be racial? The act of favoring a person of color over another model for the sole reason of reaching a wider buyer base fits the definition of discrimination. Essentially, the error in the Microsoft advertisement was wrong to publish, however it is a fact of the world we live in. Discrimination, whether racial or not, will always be present in our decisions, and that is something we can not necessarily avoid. Clearly, it is not something Microsoft could avoid either, but no harm was meant by the advertisement.
I’m not sure if I would label this incident as racism. Companies should be allowed to put whoever they want in their advertisements, and they choose their models depending on the ad. Just as women’s magazines have the intended female target in mind when they feature ads of thin, beautiful, flawless women to advertise make-up or clothing. I wonder if in, say, China the advertisements have mostly Asian people in them(except for on skin-whitening cream of course) and a significant lack of different people? In other countries do they feel the need to represent all races like we do? I think it is really an American attitude that we need to show all races, but it is also logical to have many races for the targeted consumers of America because we are multi-racial. They can appeal to all. It would make sense if in any particular country the advertisements had the typical citizens of that country as models. If Poland is a country that is predominantly white then maybe it just makes sense to just include lighter-skinned people. I think it is the advertisers’ right to use who they want to sell a product, and they are allowed to think Polish people subconsciously do not want to see Black people in ads. I think the races of the people in an advertisement can make a difference on how well something sells. It doesn’t mean that Microsoft employees are racist but that their targeted audience might be. In a way it depends on the actual person that did it because maybe that particular person IS racist and photo shopped it because he/she doesn’t like Black people. In the article the fact that it says Microsoft has to investigate to find out who photo shopped makes it seem like they are playing innocent and just need to persecute the one person that did it. But obviously, someone or some people must have let it slip, and that’s a big deal that reflects on the entire company. It’s even worse that the change was poorly done with the hand staying the same. Microsoft just comes off as really careless. If I were that particular Black guy, however, I would be offended to have been cut out of the picture and really angered by the idea that I am not good enough to be advertising something. Although if I were cut out of a picture to be replaced by a Black person I would think more about the people the picture was intended for first, whether those people were racist. If I were Black I might reconsider a vacation in Poland. Either the Polish people or Microsoft workers need to think about their attitudes when it comes to racial tolerance. In this case I think Microsoft was just thinking about the Polish as a target because they are predominantly white and not thinking about racism.
I personally don’t find the switch in race of the man to be a big issue and I don’t think the press given to the topic is all necessary. Advertising companies have been tailoring ads for target audience for hundreds of years. The advertisers of Microsoft did not change the race of the man in the advertisement because they have racist values. They simply changed the race because it would project higher revenue for Microsoft.
It is common public relations/advertising knowledge that you tailor your pitch/ad to match your target audience to maximize profits. People like to read magazine and watch tv shows that are comprised of people “the same as” them. For example, fans of Rock & Roll read Rolling Stones and republicans watch FOX News. Ads and stories covered in these media outlets are targeted to these specific audiences.
So what is wrong with Microsoft advertisers implementing a campaign using multiple races to target their respective audiences? If Microsoft had refused to represent a racial group in an advertisement, then I would have an issue with their campaign, but that is not the case. They simply are working to maximize their sales. Even though I don’t believe Microsoft ran their international campaign incorrectly, I think they did not address the situation appropriately.
After further research of the situation, I believe that if Microsoft worked with the media more closely and explained their campaign strategy clearly, this situation would not have become such a large issue.
Now I am not saying that Microsoft is completely innocent. The advertising department/ outsourced advertising firm should have projected that people would be upset with the switching of the man’s race, but there is no way they could have guessed their campaign would bring rise to such an issue.
My question is, would this have been an issue if Microsoft replaced a white man with a black man? A black man with an asian man? An asian man with a mexican man? I feel that since the history of the United States has been marked with conflict between black and white that the public and media in the Unites States overly concentrates on these issues, instead of looking at the broad spectrum.
The media did not take into consideration the intent of the Microsoft advertising campaign. “It” (the media) saw the two different advertisements and immediately found the issue newsworthy because of the switch in race. This leads me to further questions…
Why do advertisements run in countries other than the United States raise concern in the Unites States? Will Microsoft change their ad campaign to correct their mistake? What are the opinions of black people in Poland and the United State about the ad?
The controversy over this article is more of a marketing issue rather than an issue of racism or political correctness. In today’s world of corporate marketing, marketers examine every detail of an advertisement in order to make their product as appealing as possible. Part of this process is known as target marketing, or marketing to a specific group of people. The US is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world and that diversity is shown in most ads. In the first ad, Microsoft chose to include an Asian man, a black man and a white woman because they know that all of these cultural groups will be viewing this ad in America. In a primarily white country such as Poland it makes sense for Microsoft to have people in the ad that Polish people are more used to seeing. As a business major and someone with experience in the field of marketing I don’t see a problem with Microsoft using different people in the ads to different countries. Microsoft is a major corporation who’s main objective is to make profits, therefore they are always going to do what’s going to be the most profitable and if they think putting a white man in an ad rather than a black man, then there’s no real problem. If they were selling the same product in an area where the majority race is black, then they would probably have three black people in the ad. The real problem is that they blatantly decided to simply paste a picture of a white man over a black man.
Something just doesn’t feel right about their decision to Photoshop the white person in the second ad. That is blatantly racist because they knowingly put a picture of a white man’s face over the black man’s face attempting to give the article more appeal to polish people. I would have no problem with the ad had Microsoft just taken a different picture with different people in it but the fact that they went through all that trouble just to have a white face is somewhat disturbing.
This mistake is not only racist but it can also prove to be damaging to Microsoft’s reputation. It baffles me that such a respectable, large corporation would make such a bad mistake. As people find out about this in culturally diverse countries such as the United States, it will probably dissuade them from purchasing the product. The only reason this ad is receiving so much coverage is because the white man is so clearly photo shopped into the photo that the black man’s hands and the rest of his body are still in the new ad. In reality, it shouldn’t matter what color one’s skin is especially in an advertisement.
To be honest I could care less what groups are represented in an advertisement all I really care about is if the product is going to be useful to me. The fact that so much thought is being put into the color of the skin in advertisements shows that there is still much racism in society today whether people want to admit it or not. Skin color of people in ads really shouldn’t matter to someone when they examine them. In the end, Microsoft’s only real mistake was photo shopping the photo into the ad, as they were just a corporation trying to make money. The real lesson from this should be that it is obvious that racism is still occurring in society today and that racism is clearly shown in various advertisements.
When looking at the differences in the advertisements, from the U.S. version to the Polish one, my knee jerk reaction is to be offended at Microsoft’s actions, as would most viewers. On the surface, the Photoshop of the image appears to be quite shallow, like the company did not want a man of color selling their product. But perhaps an alternative perspective of why the change was made is required.
As a Finance major, my mentality is geared towards generating sales, and therefore generating revenue. The bottom line is that Microsoft is creating advertisements TO MAKE MONEY. With that being said, they must gear their marketing towards the people where the ad will be run. Based on this logic, it is safe to say almost all people in Poland ARE WHITE. Consumers emulate the behaviors of those who are like them, so an ad depicting an African American man for the purpose of GENERATING SALES creates a very unrealistic situation for this region of the world.
When these types of situations arise, as a society we like to jump to conclusions and immediately make someone wrong. I don’t necessarily believe this “finger-pointing” is about making an example of the wrongdoer but rather making something to talk about. We’re all so uptight about offending one another, and with good reason, but the fact of the matter is our hesitation to speak our minds is what keeps the racial barrier alive.
Calling Microsoft racist, as done in many of the student posts to the blog, is a pure stretch of the imagination. I believe we are taught to acknowledge this type of behavior as wrong, which is the reason most people do, and NOT BECAUSE IT PERSONALLY OFFENDS THEM. Obviously, blatant ever-present racism is wrong, and by no means am I condoning it, however a major company like Microsoft would NEVER deliberately design something that could be even remotely interpreted as offensive towards certain groups.
If we were to look at the targeting for specific products, we could make plausible assumptions that jewelry ads wouldn’t be placed in a farming magazine, cosmetic ads wouldn’t be placed in sports magazines, and that fast food ads wouldn’t appear in a health food magazine. The fact of the matter is that companies who advertise look to do so while “getting the best bang for their buck.” They go where they can be effective and they design their ads around what will facilitate sales. The changing of the man’s race was done in an effort to generate sales, not to create uproar of emotion. The root of the change was quite basic; to precisely target the buyers in an area. Besides, Microsoft most likely got more bad press than it was worth in the end.
Well I think that the move that Microsoft made to appeal to the Polish audience was a good marketing technique but it may be ethically immoral. Me personally being a black man have no problem with the strategy but I can see where many questions would arise as to why is it necessary to Photoshop and tarnish a picture just for appeal. Also more questions would be brought up asking why can’t they show more diversity for this ad. Well I am a firm that believer all things will come full circle and eventually all races, ethnic, and culture groups will become accepting of one another and no one will have to deal with being upset because of issues like these. From an initial business stand point it would seem that there doing the right thing. Advertising to appeal to their audience so profits can be high. From an ethics stand point it seems a little sketchy because it shouldn’t matter that an extra white guy is in the photo just for ad appeal, the people of Poland should accept that there is a black man in the ad and they exist in the business world. But as the world goes there have been far worst advertisement schemes that exist and continue to thrive today. One being the example that you presented in class about the White Power skin crème by Olay. But there are some ad schemes that are deemed immoral from an ethics standpoint right in our back yard the U.S. Some being in the cigarette industry. I can remember even from the time when I was a kid the all Newport cigarette ads re directed to only black people and even since coming to college I’ve only seen Newport ads with black people. And it is pretty much the same thing with Marlboro cigarettes. Since I’ve come across them I’ve only white people. Maybe it is true that Marlboro taste and ads are only directed to white people and a more rural lifestyle where as Newport taste and ads are favored more to black people and a more urban lifestyle. Well when all is said and done I feel the this is being blown way out of proportion because Microsoft just wanted to hopefully make a few more bucks because black people aren’t common in Poland. Ultimately is it racism yes but I think that it wasn’t that big of a deal. But in the world of ethics and in many other circles it doesn’t matter if it’s a big deal racism is with out a doubt racism and there I absolutely no excuse for it. Because something small today can grow into a juggernaut and more extensive problem tomorrow.
Clearly it was in poor taste of Microsoft to Photoshop a man’s head and neglect to accurately give him a set of matching hands. But other than that, if this proves to bring in revenue dollars for Microsoft, I think it was a good move. Not that I am understanding of why one would be turned off to a Microsoft product if the picture on box didn’t depict the consumer’s idea of a “typical” corporate setting, but I just believe the whole thing is just an excuse to keep the racial battle roaring. Everyone today, especially in America, is all about being politically correct and reassuring one another of equality among races and ethnicities. So are we to think that people in Poland are raging racists because Microsoft deemed them less likely to associate with a black man? Or that simply no one would buy into the idea of a black man as a corporate executive? These kinds of questions are the reasons that something like this gets so much attention. I am sure that Microsoft had to answer to several unhappy people as a result of this tacky ad. But underneath any swarming accusations, I think we should just look at this at face value. Most likely, with support from some odd statistical research, Microsoft thought the white guy was the better way to go. If the ad was running in the Middle East, you can probably count on the woman being cut from the picture. This isn’t a statement about women and their place in society, but simply a culture that does not portray women in business roles. Maybe all this comes across as insensitive, but I just think being an American makes people (American people) feel like they have the answers and are the ones who need to promote racial mixing upon the rest of the world.
And let’s be honest, if you are buying or not buying a Microsoft product based on the cover, then that is your problem alone. If I’m going to purchase some Microsoft software, I’m looking at Consumer Reports, not the damn models. Maybe if we were talking about clothing, hair products, anything other than computer manufacturer, this issue would hold some creditability. But again, this was just a cheap move to resort to Photoshop before just taking a new picture. I feel sorry for the white guy whose hands weren’t good enough to make the cover.
I’m sure Microsoft will release some nonsense apologetic statement. And with all the focus on this little scandal, people will again forget that war and genocides still occur on the basis of race. Maybe Microsoft can throw some dollars their way. Maybe some valuable education to those who need it would but this in perspective.
Before I point out how blatantly racist and wrong this ad is, I would like to state that this is some of the worst photoshopping I’ve ever seen. The white guy looks like Linda Blair.
That being said, the Microsoft Company in Poland should certainly be called out on and punished for this act of racism. Just because the majority of the Polish population is white doesn’t mean that they should exclude blacks from their advertising. The same could be said of many cultures; white is the predominant race in America, yet we proudly feature people of all races in our advertising.
Yet it’s difficult to blame only the Polish Microsoft Company for this mistake. The essential nature of advertising is what forces us to be so angry about being manipulated. Every day we have advertisements shoved in our faces that attempt to paint an accurate picture of everyday life. The idea that this particular ad is an attempt to portray corporate culture, as if to say that it is more accurate that wealthy white men are more normal than wealthy black men, is ridiculous. If you have ever seen the movie “White Man’s Burden” directed by Desmond Nakano, you would see just how obvious black oppression in the business world, as well as in every day life is. In the film, the “traditional” cultural roles of blacks and whites are reversed. A large number of white people are living in run-down ghettos, are treated poorly by the police and their employers and society in general. Blacks are the prominent race, owning lavish homes and on the top of the social food chain. Watching the movie truly brings to light the poor way that blacks are treated in today’s world—and how easily we let it slide. To see the Polish people shun blacks as if they are afraid a black man’s presence would scare people away from their product is truly one giant step back for humankind.
Ever since I learned that the difference between myself, an Italian American female, and him, an African American male, is a mere 0.01%, the idea of racial difference has lost all meaning for me. I am deeply saddened that we can’t all have the same rights and be treated the same way. It breaks my heart that the color of someone’s skin can change the opportunities they have. If the world could realize that “we are all just monkeys,” it is my hope that something as trivial as 0.01% will stop mattering. I’m learning to see myself in other people and to learn to feel how they feel. The deception and blatant racism that we experience in ads, such as this Microsoft ad, as well as in every day life is keeping us from finding true happiness.
When I first read this article I didn’t know what to think. In saying the whole Microsoft debacle isn’t showing some racism would be saying a lie. I understand that the Polish are predominantly white but to not expose them to another culture is not right either. Microsoft is an American company so therefore their ads should look like how the corporate culture in America looks which includes black people. I think it is also hard because since they replaced a black man with a white man instead of any other race they definitely come across like they are favoring the white race. Also by showing this ad to the Polish they are almost saying it is okay for them to never be exposed to any other cultures. They are reinforcing thoughts that maybe the Polish had about the white race being dominant since those in the picture seem to be in an executive position. Microsoft obviously had an error in judgment in doing this because I wonder how their black employees and customers are going feel after seeing them do this. After seeing this I wonder how many other companies feel the need to change an advertisement to supposedly target certain consumers. In doing this I believe they neglect a large part of potential and current customers. They come across a little racist even if that was not the intent. In changing the race they could be losing so many customers that are not just black but others that do not agree with racism. I wonder what was going through the minds of Microsoft executive heads when they decided to make this decision. Since Microsoft is such a large company I also wonder what is says about how some companies feel the need to go to such drastic measures to try in please one consumer by neglecting another. Obviously racism exists however it is a company’s duty like Microsoft to show that there are many cultures that interact on a daily basis especially in the corporate world. In addition I think that though the ad seems to target Polish business people, those type of people deal with others of different culture. So changing the ad to target them is a lie since they are used to dealing with them. In the long run I don’t think that Microsoft intentions were meant to be malicious toward anyone race though in the future they should consciously think about these things in their advertisements. They should just pick an advertisement without having to change it later. If the man was always white it would never have bothered probably anyone but by feeling the need to change a man’s race it shows some sort of racism in the minds of our society.
When I opened the link I first saw the two pictures and I just found that the black man is replaced by a white but I did not notice that Microsoft only changed the head part. Before I seriously consider about this situation I think this is racism which should not happen in a big company but after reading it for the second time I can understand Microsoft change the black man to a white man but I think it is really inappropriate and ridiculous to change the head part to another one. Many companies have different advertisements or promoting posters in different places. When the companies are trying to sell their products they need to aim at specific targeted customers so they may need to change something. Just like when the ads are in the U.S. it normally has people of different culture because the U.S. has a mixed culture and has people of many different racial groups. If this ad is in an Asian country it would probably is a picture of all Asians. As I know about Poland, a large percentage of their country is white people and they are not really familiar with many other culture and racial groups. I guess this is why the customer requires changing the black person to a white and it is also because of the consideration of marketing purpose. If it is happened in the U.S. where people of different colors get together this is probably racism as the company should treat people of different color the same. In Poland the seller needs to consider about the culture and costumer there so it makes sense they choose a white man instead of a black man which makes the advertisement easier for people in Poland to accept. So I can understand Microsoft uses different advertising pictures of different race of people in different areas.
However, I cannot understand why Microsoft simply changed the head of the black man to a face of a white man and left the black man’s hands in the picture. This is so much like some kind of trick played. I think for a multinational enterprise it is important that Microsoft should show respect to people of different groups. They cannot just simply cut the head part of a black person and paste a white face there. This behavior makes the whole thing like a joke. The company may choose people who can best represent the need in their future costumers and take several groups of pictures to promote the products. When Microsoft was doing this, they should consider about the outcome of it. Whether black or white, they are all human beings. Change the face to a person of another race makes people think that the black man cannot show represent their company or he may discourage people from buying the products simply because of he is black and this it totally wrong. I believe that Microsoft was not to give people this feeling but it is their job to examine the pictures and it is their job to make sure that people can accept this ad. Microsoft made itself involved in this scandal and this may be an alert to other multinational companies.
After reading this article, I am more convinced than ever that the idea of political correctness in today’s society has retarded the ability of companies and organizations to reach out to type of people that are more likely to buy their product or service. Obviously, Microsoft made an extremely stupid mistake in presenting an advertisement with a white man with black hands, but their idea of using men of different races to advertise to two completely demographics is completely practical and reasonable. The underlying issue here is ultimately demographics. In a predominantly Caucasian culture or country, you want to connect with your target consumer, in this case whites. In a nation such as Poland, there are virtually no people of color, as opposed to the United States, where there is a strong minority population. Therefore, it is practical, if not downright necessary, to use advertisements containing people of that particular demographic, otherwise the target audience would have a hard time relating to the advertisement, which would result in a lot of wasted time and money.
Ultimately, Microsoft is no doubt deserving of the scrutiny they received for their silly mistake. A multibillion dollar company has no excuse not to catch something as simple as black hands on a white man, which may not seem like the biggest deal in the world, but some people were obviously very offended. With this said, they should not be criticized for trying to branch out to each respective demographic in each country. Personally, if I saw two of the same ads, one containing a black man and the other containing a white man, I honestly wouldn’t prefer or relate better to one or the other. A Polish person, however, may have gone their entire life without encountering an African American, so they would have a much more difficult time relating to the ad with the black man. The United States is a much more diverse nation than that of Poland, therefore an advertisement concentrated in America would undoubtedly feature a broader range of races.
In conclusion, demographics are the issue at hand, not racism. I can ]not bring myself to blame Microsoft for editing the advertisement to better connect with a particular consumer, but they are to blame for a lack of attentiveness. A multimillion-dollar corporation should not be under scrutiny for a mishap in an advertising campaign that is inexcusable. However, their overarching idea of demographic appeal is completely sensible, and I believe that a company should have the ability to use advertisements that put them in a position to sell their product. In this case, money is the motive, and you can’t knock Microsoft for trying to obtain profit and success of their products.
When I first read this blog post, my immediate initial reaction was that the advertisement issue in question seemed fake. I just find it hard to believe that even if this did happen, no one caught it or complained about it before hand. However, a lot of things in this class have surprised me so far, such as the skin whitening creams. So assuming that this actually happened, I am sure there were studies done and research conducted that for some reason made Microsoft believe that this would be the best way to make more money for their company. Isn’t that what advertising is all about? This was not released by the government; it was not supposed to make everyone feel warm and happy and included. It was just supposed to get people purchasing Microsoft products. And apparently, in Poland, the best way to do that is with people in advertisements that make the consuming public more comfortable. There is no way that this is the first time this has happened, and it will not be the last. There is no way a company would run an ad in a conservative part of America with people who were Middle-Eastern, because they would probably be terrified that no one would purchase their product. So I’m guessing this is what Microsoft did, but it is a scandal because someone caught the switch. Honestly, I don’t think I would have even noticed the hand if it had not been pointed out to me. But, it is obviously a big deal to a lot of people.
Now, just because this is the way advertising works does not mean I necessarily agree with it. I am not trying to argue that this is perfectly acceptable; just that I do not believe Microsoft is completely evil for having done this. They have to do what they have to do to keep up with the standards that are already set. Sometimes I really think that the people that create or consume advertising do not even know or realize the ways in which the message is affecting them. I remember hearing before about a program that people use on the computer which flashes up images of people from all different races and asks you to immediately react to which one you like or do not like. People do not consciously try to be more comfortable around others of the same race as them, but they instinctively are. And maybe this is because of advertising and messages in mass media; these thoughts are subconsciously embedded in our brains over time, and someone, somewhere has to take responsibility for it. In a class on women and minorities, we learned about a culture that had no television or advertising, and the women all had very high self-esteem. However, not long after television was introduced to their culture, many of the women developed eating disorders. Ads do not specifically say “you must be skinny” or “you should buy this because white people like this.” But our brains are wired to subconsciously think about things, such as what the people in the ads look like. These companies definitely take advantage of this and promote more of it. But what does it really matter; we’re all just monkeys anyway.
Post a Comment