top of page
The rise of interracial couples in advertising
While it may not seem like a prominent issue in today's society, the issue of representation in advertising is still very relevant. LGBTQ+ couples are just beginning to appear in advertisements, but what's even more surprising are the lack of mixed couples in advertising. It has only been 53 years since the supreme court decision, Loving v. Virginia, which deemed that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional in a unanimous vote. After this, despite the booming of the ad industry, there were still not many ads for these kinds of relationships. This concept has instead remained taboo, and it has only been in the recent years of advertising that the U.S. has begun to see more representation in this industry. Are companies simply beginning to understand that there is a new market of people they should be appealing to? Are they using these advertisements to show their support for mixed race couples? Even if some companies use this diversity in their ads to make money, do these ads bring out a positive cultural view that leads towards acceptance of mixed race couples? To answer these questions we must first visit the beginning of advertising history.
To the left are Richard Loving and his wife Mildred Jeter. They are the people who won their case for their marriage in Loving v. Virginia. Although the decision was unanimous by the Supreme Court, there was no sudden cultural change surrounding mixed race marriages.
The History of African Americans in Advertising
Advertisers have not always been aware of all their potential consumers when they begin to sell their product. A main example is when companies started targeting African American consumers. We can clearly see the ignorance of companies in the 1954 film "THE SECRET OF SELLING THE NEGRO", a grossly fitting name for the content of the film.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
The movie is about the untapped potential of the African American market and how advertisers should begin to represent this group in their ads. At first, it was very clear that advertisers only saw black people as the amount of money they had in their wallets, it started to become more disguised. As the timeline progresses, we can see that the advertisements start to appeal more to their intended audience, African Americans; however, we cannot tell if their intentions are to represent their consumers or just to make money. Despite this, it still led to a move away from the sole use of white people in advertising. Originally, African Americans appeared in advertisements that looked like these:
Later on, advertisements like these appeared:
While the final, more recent, ads show African Americans as more than just stereotypical props, it is important to remember why they were created in the first place. This creates a struggle between the benefits of seeing black people in the media versus the motives of the company. Even if the intentions were to make money off of the representation, African Americans became more common and accepted in advertising because of this. There is a similar pattern when looking at the increase of interracial couples in commercials and other broadcasts.
Advertisers have skipped this step of stereotyping mixed-race couples, but it can still be questioned what their intentions were in doing so. A company's goal is to appeal to everyone who buys their products, so they use these advertisements to show who they want buying their product and to convince people that they should be buying from their business. People are more likely to connect with advertisements when they can see someone who looks like them, and companies take this into consideration when creating their advertisements. Therefore, it can be concluded that while some companies simply want to represent their consumers, others have realized that this is more of a requirement in the modern age. Despite their motives, the increase of interracial couples in advertising is certainly not a bad thing. Taking a look at these advertisements below better emphasizes this point.
Examples of These Advertisements
IKEA
In 2002, IKEA released an advertisement with a white man and a black woman passionately kissing on their dining room table. Not only was this advertisement released 12 years before the Cheerios advertisement (shown below), there is no evidence that the advertisement received significant backlash. This seems strange but, because IKEA is an international company and is mostly marketed towards younger families who are buying furniture, it is clear why there would be less controversy. IKEA is the same company that published an advertisement in 1994 that featured a homosexual couple purchasing furniture together. Therefore, it is clear that IKEA is more focused on portraying all possible buyers, than catering to the small minority of people who will disagree with their views.
Cheerios
In contrast with IKEA, cheerios is marketed to everyone. Therefore, their advertisement in 2013 received much more backlash than IKEA's. The advertisement featured a little girl pouring cheerios on her dad's chest because cheerios are "good for the heart". The simple cast of an interracial family is what set off a chain of controversy among consumers. The company had to remove commenting on their original YouTube video because of the amount of racist comments they received. In response, there was an outpour of support and the company released a second advertisement in 2014 with the same cast. The New York Times writes, "General Mills 'were a little surprised' by the intensity and volume of attacks on the original ad, but said... that “over all, the response was very, very positive”. Therefore, with both support from consumers and from the personal view of the company, they did not struggle because of the controversy.
Old Navy
In 2016, Old Navy faced the same negative comments as General Mills did with their Cheerios ad. Despite there being an influx of mixed race couples in advertising, Old Navy received backlash from consumers who believed there was a bigger, anti-white, message to their ad. Both Old Navy and General Mills have a very general audience, so it makes sense that there would be some consumers who disagree. Despite this, there was an over-whelming majority that stood with the advertisement and it's actors. Again, this controversy was met with many supporters who encouraged the company to stick with their views.
Ancestry
Finally, this Ancestry ad faced a different scenario than the other three. Despite featuring an African-American woman named Abigail and a white man, the company was almost instantly forced to take down the advertisement. The promotion for Ancestry showed a white man explaining to Abigail that, "[they] can escape, to the north" and "there's a place we can be together". Not only did these people not exist, it romanticized the era of slavery and featured a "white savior". Needless to say, this is not what happened during the antebellum period of the United States. There was instant backlash to the advertisement and proved that a company could not just cash in on representation in their advertisements.
What can we conclude from this?
All except the ancestry ad have seemed to have a positive impact on the view of mixed race couples in the United States. It is likely that had any of these companies faced more negative comments than positive ones they would have removed their advertisements from the internet. This can be seen in the way that Ancestry responded to the backlash and in the quick response to remove negative comments on YouTube by General Mills. Fortunately, these companies have received mostly positive responses to their ads which has encouraged them to continue them. Despite interracial couples being more generally accepted today, I believe that there are still many people who are not exposed to these relationships. Therefore, disregarding the money involved in a companies decisions, showing these relationships to the general public will be beneficial to society in the United States. Advertisements have a significant impact on how people view the world, and if these families are shown to be just like the traditional white family we see on tv, then it will create a more accepting view among the public. It does not matter if someone agrees that interracial marriages are okay, it matters that they are seen in the media that is consumed by average people. Thus, a company that chooses to represent mixed race couples in their advertisements in a non-stereotypical and un-insulting way will have a positive impact on the culture surrounding these couples. It is important to be aware of the influence money has on a business and how it advertises, but this does not negate the benefits that representation has in modern-day media.
Advertising History
Examples
Conclusion
bottom of page