"utterly moronic racist nonsense" - Strutt & Parker Notting Hill estate agents advertising

[Pickman's model]

Is that a joke?

do you find it funny?

 

[Pickman's model]

salem simple question: do you find it funny? i'm not asking you to dissect the post, a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Pickman's model]

Is that a joke?

are you having difficulty expressing yourself?

 

[salem]

No. No I don't find it funny.

I see you've edited your post so it makes a little more sense now though. So I've answered your question. Perhaps you can address mine? Would it have been less offensive if they'd specifically asked a black person to be the estate agent rather then just leave things as they ended up? Yes/No?

 

[Pickman's model]

No. No I don't find it funny.

I see you've edited your post so it makes a little more sense now though. So I've answered your question. Perhaps you can address mine? Would it have been less offensive if they'd specifically asked a black person to be the estate agent rather then just leave things as they ended up? Yes/No?

good. because it wasn't a joke.

i wouldn't have found it any less offensive.

 

[salem]

What is your point Pickman's model ? 5 posts without one it seems. Are you going to address my question or any of the points I raised? Or just talk your preconceived nonsense as normal.

 

[Pickman's model]

What is your point Pickman's model ? 5 posts without one it seems. Are you going to address my question or any of the points I raised? Or just talk your preconceived nonsense as normal.

i answered your fucking question. don't you like the answer?

 

[salem]

Sorry Pickman's model I don't understand your boreish psuedocryptic nonsence. You asked me for a simple yes/no answer and I obliged. In post #124 I asked you for a yes/no answer - perhaps you could offer me the courtesy of a response?

 

[butchersapron]

Of course it's a serious question.

People here are taking offence as they've used a local dance teacher and a local estate agent who happen to black and white respectively. It seems that those people who are offended have decided that this is pandering to stereotypes.

It seems that the 9 people working in that office are white so they couldn't have shown a black estate agent without getting an actor in. Would that have been less offensive? Lets say they did had a 10th employee who was black. Would it have been less offensive to have asked him to be in the advert instead so as to avoid this thread?

Perhaps they could have asked Mark Elie if he had any white people working for him who they could use for the advert instead - letting them avoid offending the people on this thread.

Changing the content effects the meaning - the use of definite visual rhetoric produces a myth. The myth(s) this pic produced would be very different if the components were changed. So yes, the whole thing would have a very different meaning it it had a different meaning.

 

[Pickman's model]

Sorry Pickman's model I don't understand your psuedocryptic nonsence. You asked me for a simple yes/no answer and I obliged. In post #124 I asked you for a yes/no answer - perhaps you could offer me the courtesy of a response too?

i don't know you can answer yes/no to a 'would it be less offensive then?' question. i wouldn't find it any less offensive but i have no idea whether coley or farmerbarleymow or editor would.

 

[editor]

People here are taking offence as they've used a local dance teacher and a local estate agent who happen to black and white respectively. It seems that those people who are offended have decided that this is pandering to stereotypes.

It's not just people "here" taking offence.

 

[youngian]

Anyone without a vested business interest in this ad - client/agency - can recognise it's racist. Immediately.

What surprises me is that it even saw the light of day. Surely the writer/art director/creative group head/CD/planners/suits would have all flagged it up. It really shouldn't have made it off the layout pad. It certainly shouldn't have been presented to the client.

This is what I'm not getting, even 1960s Don Draper wouldn't let that through. Unless of course there is an identifiable demographic fed-up with political correctness and banning golliwogs who have a spring in their step this year.

 

[salem]

Changing the content effects the meaning - the use of definite visual rhetoric produces a myth. The myth(s) this pic produced would be very different if the components were changed. So yes, the whole thing would have a very different meaning it it had a different meaning.

Do you think when planning this advert they intended to 'produce a myth'? If they were using stock images there might be some mileage in the argument. However it's not just a random black/white person. It's specifically the artistic director of a local dance charity and a local estate agent who happen to be black and white. I really don't think that they chose the dancer because he was black and they didn't have much choice in using a white estate agent.

So the point I was getting at was that they could have gone out of their way to find a different person to represent the dancer or estate agent thus avoiding the backlash but surely that would have been more offensive then showing a locally successful dancer and an estate agent who just so happen to fall into the stereotypes of those taking offensive of being black and white.

 

[salem]

It's not just people "here" taking offence.

OK I haven't seen it elsewhere but if it's getting attention elsewhere then take my post as meaning people who are taking offensive wherever.

 

[DotCommunist]

its basic semiology, and intent doesn't change meaning.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you think when planning this advert they intended to 'produce a myth'? If they were using stock images there might be some mileage in the argument. However it's not just a random black/white person. It's specifically the artistic director of a local dance charity and a local estate agent who happen to be black and white. I really don't think that they chose the dancer because he was black and they didn't have much choice in using a white estate agent.

So the point I was getting at was that they could have gone out of their way to find a different person to represent the dancer or estate agent thus avoiding the backlash but surely that would have been more offensive then showing a locally successful dancer and an estate agent who just so happen to fall into the stereotypes of those taking offensive of being black and white.

It's irrelevant if they intended to or not. The symbols they chose exist in a field of previous significations. Doing that with either no awareness of or edgy embrace (which is what i think took place here - the latter) of those previous myths and significations produces the same results.

Why chose a dancer and why choose an estate agent? These are results of previous symbolic representations - of previous myth. Look at history here, not simply the thing itself or you are going to miss all the nuances and all the stuff that's actually got people angry.

 

[editor]

OK I haven't seen it elsewhere but if it's getting attention elsewhere then take my post as meaning people who are taking offensive wherever.

The article on my blog has been read by well over 5,000 people it's been liked hundreds of times on FB so it's clear that some people do find it offensive, despite a rather curious rearguard denial action in the comments section by an ad hoc United Estate Agents Confederation.

 

[salem]

i don't know you can answer yes/no to a 'would it be less offensive then?' question. i wouldn't find it any less offensive but i have no idea whether coley or farmerbarleymow or editor would.

Thanks. So you'd find it equally or more offensive if they'd used someone instead of these two people.

As I pointed out they didn't really have much choice on the colours of the respective people in the advert so I think they were right not to try and change it and it seems you agree. Therefore do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?

its basic semiology, and intent doesn't change meaning.

You can see what you want to see I suppose.

It's irrelevant if they intended to or not. The symbols they chose exist in a field of previous significations. Doing that with either no awareness of or edgy embrace (which is what i think took place here - the latter) of those previous myths and significations produces the same results.

Why chose a dancer and why choose an estate agent? These are results of previous symbolic representations - of previous myth. Look at history here, not simply the thing itself or you are going to miss all the nuances and all the stuff that's actually got people angry.

Why not choose a dancer and an estate agent? The message seems clear and simple to me, they're doing the boring job of estate agency and have contrasted it with something more exciting. The 'them' is the estate agency and the more exciting' side resonates with 'you'.

I think it's incredibly relevant if the meaning was intended or not. Do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?

 

[Blagsta]

Of course it's a serious question.

People here are taking offence as they've used a local dance teacher and a local estate agent who happen to black and white respectively. It seems that those people who are offended have decided that this is pandering to stereotypes.

It seems that the 9 people working in that office are white so they couldn't have shown a black estate agent without getting an actor in. Would that have been less offensive? Lets say they did had a 10th employee who was black. Would it have been less offensive to have asked him to be in the advert instead so as to avoid this thread?

Perhaps they could have asked Mark Elie if he had any white people working for him who they could use for the advert instead - letting them avoid offending the people on this thread.

It's not about the individuals involved. It's about the symbolism. You're basically asking if the symbolism was different would the meaning be different. Well, duh.

 

[salem]

It's not about the individuals involved. It's about the symbolism. You're basically asking if the symbolism was different would the meaning be different. Well, duh.

OK so if it's about symbolism rather then intent do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?

 

[editor]

Why not choose a dancer and an estate agent? The message seems clear and simple to me, they're doing the boring job of estate agency and have contrasted it with something more exciting. The 'them' is the estate agency and the more exciting' side resonates with 'you'.

You're projecting all over the shop here.

Far from looking bored the estate agent looks very happy indeed. Positively beaming in fact.

 

[butchersapron]

Why not choose a dancer and an estate agent? The message seems clear and simple to me, they're doing the boring job of estate agency and have contrasted it with something more exciting. The 'them' is the estate agency and the more exciting' side resonates with 'you'.

I think it's incredibly relevant if the meaning was intended or not. Do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?

The choice to use these two roles was not one free of history - and that history is one that has represented different people in different ways. It's both re-inforcing the old myth and putting it on a new exciting democratic opportunity filled pedestal. And i wasn't saying they should not have used those two roles - i was asking why they ended up choosing them. What previous re-inforcement has taken place to end up at that exact spot.

No, their intentions are not that relevant to how the myth is constructed - some very important social processes and phenomena operate on an assumed/unquestioned/subconscious basis. That's why it'soften so hard to challenged them - because they are embedded in common sense.

Of course they should - unless they wanted the aren't we edgy bollocks.

 

[Pickman's model]

Thanks. So you'd find it equally or more offensive if they'd used someone instead of these two people.

As I pointed out they didn't really have much choice on the colours of the respective people in the advert so I think they were right not to try and change it and it seems you agree. Therefore do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?

they had a huge amount of choice. why not use david cameron and say 'some notting hill people become prime minister'? your question based on a false premise.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're projecting all over the shop here.

Far from looking bored the estate agent looks very happy indeed. Positively beaming in fact.

'smug'

 

[Blagsta]

Do you think when planning this advert they intended to 'produce a myth'? If they were using stock images there might be some mileage in the argument. However it's not just a random black/white person. It's specifically the artistic director of a local dance charity and a local estate agent who happen to be black and white. I really don't think that they chose the dancer because he was black and they didn't have much choice in using a white estate agent.

So the point I was getting at was that they could have gone out of their way to find a different person to represent the dancer or estate agent thus avoiding the backlash but surely that would have been more offensive then showing a locally successful dancer and an estate agent who just so happen to fall into the stereotypes of those taking offensive of being black and white.

If an advertising agency is unaware of the semiology of their ads then they shouldn't be in business.

 

[Blagsta]

OK so if it's about symbolism rather then intent do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?

You're assuming that artwork just "happens" accidentally.

 

[butchersapron]

If an advertising agency is unaware of the semiology of their ads then they shouldn't be in business.

Yes, i find the idea they were unaware both of the theory and the practice here to be laughable. It's exactly what they are taught.

 

[Blagsta]

Yes, i find the idea they were unaware both of the theory and the practice here to be laughable. It's exactly what they are taught.

Of course they were aware. It's graphic design 101.

 

[salem]

OK well I suppose we'll just have to disagree then. Perhaps one of you guys should inform Mark Elie know that he is being used this way.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course they were aware. It's graphic design 101.

Of course they were aware. Everyone involved will have been fully aware. But they did it anyway.