Pages

Monday, 16 January 2012

Two Things I've Noticed Recently

I've mentioned before that my children love - no, adore Miffy. In case you haven't met her, Miffy is a rabbit. A small, white rabbit.


Did I mention that Miffy is a white rabbit? Well, she is. Not the peachy, browny, not-actually-white-at-all-but-lets-call-it-white-anyway shade that some of us humans are, but glowing, arctic WHITE.

You know, like a rabbit.

Yeah. So - this is fine with me, obviously. We got series one of Miffy on DVD a while ago, and we loved it. I don't look at the pictures of Miffy and her friends and feeling uncomfortable about race, or worried about what it's doing to my children.  This is partly because actually, Miffy is very diverse programme. It does not only show rabbits interacting; no! Miffy's friends include pigs (pink, of course) bears (brown) and a dog (also brown).  Here are miffy and her friends, circa series one:


So, yes, very diverse. My point is -  I'm not watching Miffy and wondering 'why are all the rabbits white?'. Instead, I am asking more fundamental questions, like 'why is that rabbit talking?' 'why is that rabbit going to school?'  and 'in the wild, wouldn't that dog actually be attacking the rabbit?' 


Along comes series two, and a new character called Melanie. I'm sure the series creators had the best of intentions, but - how can I explain this? I photographed my TV so I could show you what I mean:


Yeah. Now I'm feeling uncomfortable about race. Epic fail, Miffy, epic fail.
*******************

And speaking of pointless, borderline-offensive tokenism: what's up with nappy packaging? What I'm about to describe may be a UK-only thing, (well, obviously in other parts of the world you don't call them nappies at all, but you know what I mean). Or it might be old news to you. But anyway. Here's what newborn nappy packaging looks like over here (this is every brand I could find):












Notice anything? Yeah, all those newborns are white. Here's one exception: 
A very cute kid of indeterminate ethnicity
However. Once you move into the bigger sizes, there are brown kids all over the packets. For example (this is only a sample; there are still white kids in these sizes too, of course)










  But only on the big sizes. It seems to me like all the brown kids are on the big sizes. This can. not. possibly. be a coincidence.  My guess is this: the newborn sizes are the stage where mothers are developing brand loyalty. Those first few sizes, people are still open to switching brands. But after a year or two, who wants to be still thinking about what brand of nappy to put their kid in? Not me, that's for sure. We picked our favourite (which also happens to be the cheapest, which is also not a coincidence) about a year and a half ago. I do not think about what brand to buy now, I just buy it. There could be a big sign saying 'Now with added BPA!' on the package and I would still buy that brand. 

My point is, I don't think it really makes any kind of difference, marketing-wise, what picture the brand puts on the big sizes. So, yeah, when I look at all the white kids on the newborn sizes and then the kids who look like mine on the big sizes, it feels to me like they are saying: We will totally put brown kids on our packets, because we are super-inclusive like that. Just - you know, not at the point in the market where people are developing preferences that result in three years of brand loyalty. 

Did that conversation really happen in marketing departments all across the land? I guess it did.

Am I imagining this? I don't think so. I don't think I'm imagining this.

And then I thought about it, and remembered why I noticed it in the first place. When I was buying tiny nappies, I was looking, (subconsciously at first, then consciously), for a package with children that looked like my own children. I would have bought that brand, if it had existed. And I guess the white mothers mothers with white children want the same thing. And I guess the market says that there are more white children out there than brown children (that's definitely true in the UK).


We are all drawn to children who look like our children, even when - perhaps especially when - we are spending our money. Is that wrong?

I don't think it's wrong. Is it wrong that marketing departments just want to give us what we want? I'm not sure. That's much more complicated.

But it's probably worth noticing, whatever our market power is, whatever colour we are, whatever colour our kids are.

26 comments:

  1. An interesting theory. And probably at least partially correct. However, you also have to say that at some point brand-loyalty surpasses the desire to buy products with images of kids that look like our kids. How much of this stuff is conscious? Does it say anything about us as people? Is the packaging different in different stores? We noticed packaging alot when we first moved to Canada. In addition to the bi-lingual aspects, images are often different. And car companies change the pronunciation of their brand to match the country they are advertising in. I would assume there is some of that between the Australian and the British markets.
    Oh, is this a comment field?? Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooh, look at me replying to SFM, just because I CAN.

      But seriously, when I go to the stores near my house, the diaper packages have brown kids, when I go across town, they have white kids. Now, given the fact that I've never bought diapers at all, obviously, I noticed this without even being "in the market." I haven't noticed a difference given the age of the kids on the package and now I'm going to look closer.

      Delete
    2. Hang on- hang on- you live in CANADA?

      Delete
    3. Julia- that is so interesting. Would be very very interested to know if your part of town has brown babies on the tiny sizes!

      Delete
    4. Okay, looks like this comment threading still needs some work....

      Delete
  2. Oh I've definitely noticed as I still put my guy in a diap at night and suddenly the only brand I buy (because it's the only one that will hold up under a gallon of urine pressure without breaking down) suddenly has a down syndrome brown girl. Totally obvious 'inclusive' check mark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Two for one.

      And yet I am glad that girl is there. But... Only on the giant sizes? Less impressive!!

      Delete
  3. First thing I thought was ... do they not think newborn brown babies are cute enough? Or is white seen as "more pure" for newborn's pristine little booties? I never shopped for newborn diapers, so thanks for pointing this out, Claudia. I will be looking at the NAPPY isle next time I'm at the store.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah... I don't know. My suspicion is that it's not that sinister- gosh, I HOPE not! Maybe more about people wanting to see their own families reflected in what they buy at the point where they are making long-term brand decisions? That would work here because we are very much majority White. I'm less sure about what it means if it is still true where the demographics are very different...

      Delete
  4. Oh my... I've not noticed that, but I think it is true. I do buy diapers, but I'll be looking more closely. I have noticed different packaging when I've traveled, but I'm pretty sure in the US, it looks an awful lot like the photos posted. I actually shop in several parts of town, so if I noticed anything different, I will report back.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've noticed this, and it's been this small 'hmmm' in the back of my mind. Reading this has made it go from 'hmmmm' to 'ARGH'.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting. And yes, I think it's pretty much the same here in the US. I have never seen a baby of color on a newborn package of diapers. WEIRD!

    ReplyDelete
  7. so i;m going to write this down really fast before I forget what i think i want to say...very interesting observations on your part...i've noticed here in the states a sort of opposite (or is my mind wandering?)...we have loads of ads on tv that include, nay, star people of color, yet when you return to the program that the ads are interrupting, it's whitey whiteville. i think the marketing depts here sees that poc have money to spend (in other words, they are not actually such the minority in terms of dollars to spend) so they advertise to them but still ignore them in the actual television shows. its sort of a bummer to be pointing out poc to your daughter only in ads, and then return to tokens, or non-existent diversity when back to the show. does this make sense? wrote it very quickly and after watching the bachelor (for my sins) which has absolutely no diversity whatsoeva!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!! That is awful.

      We don't get broadcast tv but I don't think we have that noticeable dichotomy here. That is all kinds of wrong.

      Delete
    2. I have noticed since Obama's presidency that advertisers across all types are using a much wider variety of people in their ads than every before. I think in a lot of ways advertising is a pretty forward thinking albeit calculating industry and they can move faster than tv.

      Delete
  8. Ooh, interesting. I'll check the baby products here and see what they have in the way of packaging.

    ReplyDelete
  9. People in the US... Please report back!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I will check that in our stores too! Really interesting...

    BTW, love you new design!

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's not like that in the US. At least not in the print ads. I specifically recall Pampers using a very diverse selecting of most ethnicities and also include a baby with Downs Syndrome. It's called "life's little miracles" so as a former advertising person I notice these things. I can't say with certainty about the packages, because I'm one of those seriously freaked out by the chemicals they use people so we'll be using cloth. However I will check it out and report back to you!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I totally notice stuff like that ALL the time. We had one of those Groucho Marx noses and were playing with it, and all I could think was WHY DOES THIS NOSE HAVE TO BE WHITE?? And then I remembered that Groucho Marx was white. But still.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 21 Jan update - Blogger's commenting went a bit haywire this week, I think - the new feature of threaded comments was working great to start with, but then all comments seemed to freeze when they were loaded. I've switched back to the old template - hopefully that has fixed things! My replies above looked less insane when they were threaded properly, I promise!

    ReplyDelete
  14. That Miffy thing is just bad. I am very disappointed in Miffy. I did notice the nappie thing when I lived in the UK- will have a look at the US baby aisle next time I'm in the shops.
    Amy x

    ReplyDelete
  15. Like Cindy's Groucho moment, it really annoys me that whenever you see those stick-your-head-through-the-hole-and-take-a-picture cut outs, the limbs are always white so you get a black face with white hands.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Diversity bunny FAIL.

    Yeah, we have the same diaper packaging here. The one benefit of the doubt I will give is that infants of African descent are often VERY light-skinned in the first year or so. I think newborns are hard to racially identify. So maybe, if they are crossing off a diversity checklist, they want to make it "count" with a slightly older child whose ethnicity is more clear?

    ReplyDelete
  17. We mainly use cloth diapers so I've never noticed who is on the disposable packages. But we do sometimes fill in w/ NatureBaby Care disposables--which were developed in Sweden. Interestingly they are the ones you listed as having "A very cute kid of indeterminate ethnicity." So one of the whitest countries in the world is the only one w/ a (possibly) non-white newborn. I think that is kind of fascinating. Btw-never heard of Miffy but my twins are completely obsessed w/ Peppa Pig...

    ReplyDelete
  18. My wipes have brown babies on them! and I've have no seen preemie or size 1 diapers with brown kids, but size 2 and up indeed. We are around Boston, ya know, for your research purposes...

    ReplyDelete

Over to you!