• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

Gilbert Syndrome said:
Beats me, I'm honestly stumped about the supposed racial connotations of Uncle Ben beyond him being a black guy who is regarded as an uncle. I presume that that's enough for some people to throw their arms up in the air and cry injustice.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with a company altering its marketing?
 
Myriad said:
Why does anyone need a good reason to replace Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima? They're advertising logos. They're not beloved characters in stories that shaped people's childhoods. They don't represent a cause or a team or a movement. They represent some food brands. They're names and images that huge corporations designed and used to manipulate you. Was anyone upset when the last cardboard cutout of Mr. Whipple was removed from their favorite grocery store?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Context is important. A German-British chemist worked with Mars to sell his parboiled rice and came up with the Uncle Ben's brand in 1946.

It is now problematic for Mars, because "cuddly" racial stereotypes are still racial stereotypes.
 
Darat said:
What is wrong with a company altering its marketing?
Click to expand...

Nothing, if the reasons it is altering them are grounded in logic. In this case, they just seem to be changing the Uncle Ben's logo because outraged white guys with too much time on their hands now find it to be offensive to the black community.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Nothing, if the reasons it is altering them are grounded in logic. In this case, they just seem to be changing the Uncle Ben's logo because outraged white guys with too much time on their hands now find it to be offensive to the black community.
Click to expand...
Marketing decided by logic? Have you ever been involved with marketing, logic is not high on their usual standards.
 
On corporate images and uncles and aunts, I suppose it should come as no surprise that it's become another bicker fest here, but I do wonder why it hits such nerves. Companies will spend zillions of dollars trying to get the right colors and type fonts, redesigning images all the time. You don't have to gin up a binary love versus outrage.

If a company thinks that a meaningful percentage of its customers would prefer a change, they'll make the change. No outrage is necessary, and the company leaders' deep opinions are not necessary. If a company sees a public relations win in responding to a social issue, they'll do it whether it seems to you or to any other individual to make sense.

Uncle Ben does not have to trigger outrage to be considered worthy of a change. If Uncle Ben makes a few people slightly uncomfortable enough to think about another brand, Uncle Ben is a liability. Even if it doesn't affect the people now buying Uncle Ben's rice, if the change attracts a few people who used to buy something else, then it's a profitable change. If making a big issue of dumping Uncle Ben gains the company some good will, Uncle Ben gets dumped, with or without outrage.

None of this has to pass some test of philosophical correctness or parity with other things anyone else does.
 
Darat said:
Marketing decided by logic? Have you ever been involved with marketing, logic is not high on their usual standards.
Click to expand...

While that's true, their logic is simply the manner in which they make things more appealing, or to target a certain demographic.

I did used to do random things like test out new Ribena flavours and attend weird Bird's Eye marketing gigs in my late teens, as it was paid work for doing ridiculous things and trying out free food and drink, or sometimes simply being bored while discussing how MerseyRail could improve their services.

I'm still unclear on how Uncle Ben's image could be seen to be off-putting for black people, as though it'd put them off buying that rice or sauce...

If they put that to the test and actually bothered to ask the public and the response to it being changed was positive, then fair play, but simply assuming it's somehow offensive and thus should be changed seems like a weird overreaction.
 
I wonder what would happen if Ben's image was tweaked like they did with Jemimah. If they kept the same old guy but gave him groovy dreadlocks and dropped the Uncle name - what would be the reaction?

The question is half serious and half silly.
 
bruto said:
On corporate images and uncles and aunts, I suppose it should come as no surprise that it's become another bicker fest here, but I do wonder why it hits such nerves. Companies will spend zillions of dollars trying to get the right colors and type fonts, redesigning images all the time. You don't have to gin up a binary love versus outrage.

If a company thinks that a meaningful percentage of its customers would prefer a change, they'll make the change. No outrage is necessary, and the company leaders' deep opinions are not necessary. If a company sees a public relations win in responding to a social issue, they'll do it whether it seems to you or to any other individual to make sense.

Uncle Ben does not have to trigger outrage to be considered worthy of a change. If Uncle Ben makes a few people slightly uncomfortable enough to think about another brand, Uncle Ben is a liability. Even if it doesn't affect the people now buying Uncle Ben's rice, if the change attracts a few people who used to buy something else, then it's a profitable change. If making a big issue of dumping Uncle Ben gains the company some good will, Uncle Ben gets dumped, with or without outrage.

None of this has to pass some test of philosophical correctness or parity with other things anyone else does.
Click to expand...

My apprehension isn't with the company seeking to keep its paying customers happy, it's with the people (are there any?) who are supposedly looking at Uncle Ben and seeing racial discrimination smiling at them from a packet of rice. We're almost getting into it's racist because he's black territory.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Joe, mate, I'm still waiting for you to explain how Uncle Ben is in any way, shape or form, racist.
Click to expand...

You can't keep waiting.

"LOL explain it to me" isn't a defense when being fake-obtuse is your whole routine.

We're standing in the ocean. You can wait on me to explain to you how water is wet until you drown, I don't care.
 
This article goes in to why the marketing of these products is offensive.

In the late 1800s, the Missouri newspaper editor Chris L. Rutt decided to name his brand of self-rising flour after "Aunt Jemima," a song performed by minstrel actors. A former slave named Nancy Green was later hired to portray Aunt Jemima as a "mammy," a racist caricature that depicts female slaves as smiling, happy homemakers for white families.

[...]

Uncle Ben's was named after a Black domestic servant.

[...]

Uncle Ben has a "contentious history," Stuart Elliott wrote in a 2007 New York Times piece recently cited by Delish. "White Southerners once used 'uncle' and 'aunt' as honorifics for older blacks because they refused to say 'Mr.' and 'Mrs.,'" he said.
Click to expand...
 
William Parcher said:
I wonder what would happen if Ben's image was tweaked like they did with Jemimah. If they kept the same old guy but gave him groovy dreadlocks and dropped the Uncle name - what would be the reaction?

The question is half serious and half silly.
Click to expand...


Is the name itself being changed? Because surely just removing the picture isn't going to help, surely you'd have to change the name also, which obviously would be problematic for the company who has a firm place in the market because people instantly recognize it by name and image.

So are they actually changing the name, if the "uncle" part is what's bugging them?
 
JoeMorgue said:
You can't keep waiting.

"LOL explain it to me" isn't a defense when being fake-obtuse is your whole routine.

We're standing in the ocean. You can wait on me to explain to you how water is wet until you drown, I don't care.
Click to expand...

I can't keep waiting? Or I can? I don't really get that, but okay.

I'm simply asking you a question. What makes it racist? That you cannot answer this question isn't surprising. That me asking this question bothers you isn't surprising, either, Joe.

You seem more interested in trying to half-heartedly insult me than discuss anything with me on here, so why do you bother? You're not a bother to me, so if you're not willing to discuss anything with me then don't communicate with me, it's not hard.
 
Uncle Ben has a "contentious history," Stuart Elliott wrote in a 2007 New York Times piece recently cited by Delish. "White Southerners once used 'uncle' and 'aunt' as honorifics for older blacks because they refused to say 'Mr.' and 'Mrs.,'" he said.

And do we know that this is the reason Uncle Ben is known as Uncle Ben? How do we know he wasn't a black man called Ben who happened to be someone's uncle?
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Uncle Ben has a "contentious history," Stuart Elliott wrote in a 2007 New York Times piece recently cited by Delish. "White Southerners once used 'uncle' and 'aunt' as honorifics for older blacks because they refused to say 'Mr.' and 'Mrs.,'" he said.

And do we know that this is the reason Uncle Ben is known as Uncle Ben? How do we know he wasn't a black man called Ben who happened to be someone's uncle?
Click to expand...

Because the company doesn't know that.....
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
I'm simply asking you a question.
Click to expand...

You're asking a question that has already been answered multiple times and one for which you've already pre-rejected all answers.

Stop playing games. Or at least stop pretending everyone can't see you playing games.

There's been several explanations of why "Domestic Black Imagery" when used as an archetypal character are problematic. At this point your ignorance is a deliberate choice.

No matter what any of say, you'll just ask us to explain it again forever.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
While that's true, their logic is simply the manner in which they make things more appealing, or to target a certain demographic.

I did used to do random things like test out new Ribena flavours and attend weird Bird's Eye marketing gigs in my late teens, as it was paid work for doing ridiculous things and trying out free food and drink, or sometimes simply being bored while discussing how MerseyRail could improve their services.

I'm still unclear on how Uncle Ben's image could be seen to be off-putting for black people, as though it'd put them off buying that rice or sauce...

If they put that to the test and actually bothered to ask the public and the response to it being changed was positive, then fair play, but simply assuming it's somehow offensive and thus should be changed seems like a weird overreaction.
Click to expand...

If it is why does that matter?
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Is the name itself being changed? Because surely just removing the picture isn't going to help, surely you'd have to change the name also, which obviously would be problematic for the company who has a firm place in the market because people instantly recognize it by name and image.

So are they actually changing the name, if the "uncle" part is what's bugging them?
Click to expand...
You may have misunderstood. The critical change would be giving Ben groovy dreadlocks. You retain the exact same picture of Ben but you give him dreadlocks. You also drop the Uncle and just call it Ben's Rice. But the primary impact comes from seeing old Ben in dreadlocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom