Microsoft's Photoshop Blunder: Racist or Shortsighted?
readwriteweb.com
readwriteweb.com
In Poland people read the story, laughed, and moved on. Fact is, it is extremely improbable to meet a man in Poland that looks like the middle guy in the photo. There are black people, but they are African and look different.
But in the States people went ballistic over the story. Racism! No cultural diversity! Ethnic cleansing!
I think Americans need to decide whether they want to pay attention to race or not. You can't have it both ways. If race isn't important, laugh at this story and move on. Stop discussing it and making accusations. Also, stop asking for race in polls, stop doing selective university admissions, stop running special programs for ethnic minorities. Just forget about the whole race thing.
If race is important, by all means discuss, but then why pretend everyone is equal?
don't generalize.
How sensitive are Poles to anti-semitism? There are almost no Jews in Poland because those that survived the Holocaust were driven out (sometimes violently) in the decades following WW2. This was the same time when Blacks in the US fought for and won their civil rights, incidentally. So the US has some thorny problems that aren't fully resolved that Poland doesn't have.
A multinational corporation would never be racist because when the main motivation is profit and you are serving across all demographics the last thing you can afford to be is been racist.
I don’t, however, think that this is the case here. But it was stupid to doctor with the picture. It’s a generic enough photo, so why not just buy a new one for the Polish ad?
Microsoft generally goes to great lengths to ensure people are not offended. It has to, because of the sheer size and diversity of its markets. Raymond Chen has blogged about one apparently innocuous issue [http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/08/22/54679.a...], and there must have been many, many more across Microsoft products.
Marketing works better if you reflect your audience's tastes. Doubtlessly someone calculated that the other image better suited Polish tastes, for which a racially diverse cast only serves as a vivid reminder that the image was marketed for an American audience. This doesn't make either the Poles or the marketing racist. The only thing "racist" was the mistake to clumsily manipulate an existing image instead of using a brand new one. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Supplementary point of information: Poland's ethnic make-up diverges massively from that of the USA -- according to wikipedia the last census suggested there were a grand total of 4500-odd black people living in Poland (pop. 38 million). They have some Vietnamese, but they're still pretty rare; Poland's ethnic minorities are almost all eastern European. So the original ad would push "exotic foreign company" buttons, which is not what you want to do if you're trying to present yourself as a regular local business.
(On the other hand? "Mindlessly stupid" just about begins to sum up what they did with photoshop ...)
Except with Clippy. Ok, ok, I know... I couldn't help myself.
I think the real evidence of racism here is that we're so sensitive to color that we feel compelled to engineer any communications imagery to portray something aside from the real outlook. Pick any marketing slick, and you'll see something very much resembling this.
If you want to point a finger somewhere, point it at the dogma of false diversity.
I've never worked anywhere that this would be unusual at all. It's true that manufactured diversity is used in communications a lot, but workplaces tend to be pretty ethnically heterogeneous as long as they aren't in monocultural regions.
Really, it comes down to statistical sampling. For the canonical marketing slick, you must have a woman, a caucasian (might be that woman), a black person, and an asian and/or hispanic (probably) man. If you take any random set of people from your organization, what are the chances that you're going to get that mix of representation?
The sample size is so small that it's extremely unlikely that any random sample is going to bring in such a broad mix, no matter how broad the total population is. Thus, it's obviously contrived -- and more to the point, engineered to pander to "politically correct" sensitivities.
Was it really necessary to add the parenthetical comment? Is there anyone at HN that would judge a person's abilities by their gender and ethnic background?
I'm in the habit of making such comments because of what I see as a fairly pervasive anti-corporate prejudiced across our society. It appears to me that many, even most, people assume that corporate executives are money-grubbing scum who care not a whit for their customers, employees, or society at large. I'm trying to say this this is not the case with my employer: she's socially conscious, sensitive to the needs of employees, and tries to do the right thing in business.
The comment may not have been necessary -- that was why it was in parentheses -- but I saw a hint of an implication that my workplace was overly homogeneous, a "good ole boys' club". If such a slight was unintended, I apologize.
I'm not insulted, or even upset--I just thought it was odd comment.
And, FWIW, I agree with your parent comment.
If OP has said, "but she's darned good" then that would be clear that the OP believed there was a conception that she would be not good because she was female and/or Asian.
But that's not what he said; he said "who is darned good". I don't see giving someone a compliment without a qualifier as being offensive. Can I not say that my black boss is a great manager to work for, or my Indian business partner is really smart?
"Pander to diversity" is one way to put it, but I'm sure it probably matters even if just subconsciously, given that there are a substantial number of black customers in the US.