You are asserting that an ENTIRE country has a problem with black people on the grounds of what ONE company has done in order to save a buck.
And you think that that has merit?
If someone had done the reverse - i.e., altered a photo (or replaced it) to introduce racial variety where there was none (or "not enough"), what might the reaction have been?
This is what I see when I see the first picture:
the age of the black man in the middle (along with his suit) is doubtless meant to convey that he's in charge. The Asian guy is clearly the techie of the group. The woman is the friendly spokesperson/go-between. The presenter has the best laptop, because it's critical to their job. The boss has one (albeit smaller), because he's just supposed to have one, even though he probably doesn't use it much. Also, something like a nice shiny Blackberry (corporate status symbol) wouldn't be visible enough here. The techie doesn't have a machine here because techies are generally perceived to be not very good at communicating, and are in the meeting just to ask/answer a certain class of question. So in a way, the first photo confirms to a quite a few stereotypes, whilst also trying to be "progressive". The positioning of the three actors, plus their body language, is also designed to help convey to a potential customer the sort of image they would expect. For the Polish market they need a more Polish looking picture. That's not racism, that is a simple law of advertisement.
We have adds in the Netherlands with black people in them, because a large part of the Dutch citizens is black. We tend to use Asians less in our adverts, and if we do I sometimes feel embarrassed on how they are portrayed. But no one is pulling the racial card for that.
And you think that that has merit?
If someone had done the reverse - i.e., altered a photo (or replaced it) to introduce racial variety where there was none (or "not enough"), what might the reaction have been?
This is what I see when I see the first picture:
the age of the black man in the middle (along with his suit) is doubtless meant to convey that he's in charge. The Asian guy is clearly the techie of the group. The woman is the friendly spokesperson/go-between. The presenter has the best laptop, because it's critical to their job. The boss has one (albeit smaller), because he's just supposed to have one, even though he probably doesn't use it much. Also, something like a nice shiny Blackberry (corporate status symbol) wouldn't be visible enough here. The techie doesn't have a machine here because techies are generally perceived to be not very good at communicating, and are in the meeting just to ask/answer a certain class of question. So in a way, the first photo confirms to a quite a few stereotypes, whilst also trying to be "progressive". The positioning of the three actors, plus their body language, is also designed to help convey to a potential customer the sort of image they would expect. For the Polish market they need a more Polish looking picture. That's not racism, that is a simple law of advertisement.
We have adds in the Netherlands with black people in them, because a large part of the Dutch citizens is black. We tend to use Asians less in our adverts, and if we do I sometimes feel embarrassed on how they are portrayed. But no one is pulling the racial card for that.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
