3 Ways Representation Can Do Harm, And How To Avoid It

When we think about the “Do no harm” code, we usually associate it with healthcare workers and the responsibility they have for those they care for. But it’s not just healthcare workers who can harm the people they come in contact with.

We are increasingly seeing that brands have immense power. The way brands appear in the market with their products, services and experiences has a profound impact on the way consumers see themselves and others around them.

That’s why companies like Unilever took the bold step of removing the word “normal” of their packaging and promotions for their beauty and personal care products worldwide. They found from their own research that 63% of people agreed that the world wasn’t “normal” on packaging and promotions would inspire people to be more positive about their looks.

Representation is another way brands exert their power. Earlier this year, I conducted a research study on the State of Representation in Marketing 2021. The data showed that 74% of consumers say that representation in marketing is important to them and the brands they interact with and buy from.

One respondent wrote that he wanted to let Marken know “the damage they do through underrepresentation.”

Another wish that brands “Know the power and impact of including members of underrepresented groups in your marketing.”

More and more brands are showing that representation is important to them. The challenge is that not all representations are created equal. In fact, some forms of representation can even cause damage. Unfortunately, these forms of harm are common.

As you work to build an inclusive brand that will make the people you serve feel like you, it’s important that you make a commitment not to cause harm. This is especially important when dealing with people from diverse, underserved and marginalized communities who have long been harmed by various aspects of society.

Here are three common ways brands cause harm through representation so you can make sure your brand doesn’t repeat these mistakes.

Strengthening negative stereotypes. Black women are often oversexualized in pictures, and blacks are often associated with animals in racist tropics. With that in mind, it’s understandable why Colombian entertainer J Balvin recently came under fire for the music video for his song Perra, which featured black women on dog leashes.

The backlash was quick, and even came from the Vice President of Colombia – who published an open letter condemning the images and the negative impact they could have. The letter reprimanded the videos “Images of women and people of African descent – constitutionally protected people – who are tied with necklaces, like animals or crawling on the ground like a slave.“She went on to say that the effects of such images could spark violence against women. The video has since been removed from YouTube and Balvin apologized.

While the images your brand produces may not be that extreme or harmful, know that harm can come if people don’t see themselves in a positive light.

For this reason, some brands that want to be more inclusive make a deliberate effort to make sure they don’t reinforce negative stereotypes. Pink Fong, the maker of kids’ videos like Baby Shark, does a great job when it comes to being conscious Do not reinforce negative stereotypes based on gender. I worked with a healthcare company that was careful not to include images that felt like a “White Redeemer Complex” when promoting African American people. Another financial firm I worked with earlier this year included guidelines in its branding guidelines to ensure they don’t depict women or people of color in pictures that make them appear financially illiterate or in a submissive position in their ads.

Avoid this trap by making it clear which messages you don’t want to send and which stereotypes you don’t want to uphold. Then it becomes easier to make sure your team and partners keep an eye out for visual elements that don’t fit the requirements.

Including fair blacks and people of color only. In the last few years in particular, there have been a number of brands that have come under fire for their imagery, which is perceived as culturally insensitive. Heineken, for example, removed advertising for its light beer when the phrase “fire is better” appeared on the screen at the same time as a dark-skinned black woman.

While campaigns like this tend to spark outrage and make brands apologize, far more often it is images that are not objectionable – but also cause damage from a cultural perspective.

A fairly common example of this is that brands present people of color in their campaigns, but only show light-skinned people of color. In the study I carried out on the status of representation in marketing in 2021, several respondents indicated that it was a form of violence not to represent dark-skinned people in campaigns.

One respondent noted: “I wish [brands] were more inclusive and knew that only fair-skinned people are harmful with color. ” Another pointed out: “Each race has different skin colors, characteristics, etc. For example, most brands only show light-skinned people in their ads, even if they are black. “

And another respondent shared the same opinion about People of Color. “I wish brands knew more that there are browns and we want to be represented and not every brown looks like Priyanka, we all have different skin tones.”

Many brands intend no harm in using fair skinned people in their campaigns. Many tend to use racially ambiguous people in their ads to be more inclusive in the hopes that more people can identify with that person.

But it often has the opposite effect. Colorism is a real problem in many cultures around the world. And marketers who don’t have the level of cultural intelligence to know this is a problem are in a position to perpetuate the notion that “lighter is better” when skinned or racial by default in their campaigns show ambiguous people.

Amazon Alexa made a big change to that narrative when they featured a dark-skinned black woman with natural hair in a commercial for the Super Bowl. It spoke to me immediately. I sent it to several other black women and they all had the same positive reaction.

When working on making your images more inclusive, there is a wide range of skin tones and hair textures to consider. It will help make more people you serve feel seen.

Not presenting people with differences in the best light. Last year, famous photographer Annie Leibovitz was criticized for what many felt a bad photo of gymnast Simone Biles for the Vogue cover. Many felt that the photographer did not lighten Biles’ dark skin well and this affected the quality of the photo.

I can’t tell you how many videos and social media posts I’ve seen black models and actresses talking about their problems finding hairdressers and makeup artists who know how to do their hair and makeup on set. They either did it on their own or they look like a hot mess. This twitter thread is full of examples.

If you’re showing black people, people of color, people with curly hair, people wearing larger sizes, the elderly, or someone who is different from you, make sure you have people behind the camera on your team who know what what is done is to showcase this talent in their best light. This means that you have make-up artists, photographers, hairdressers, stylists and editors who know how to stage the people you are showcasing.

Your customers need to reflect themselves or who they aspire to in your brand’s visual imagery. The right representation helps your customers to feel seen and belonged so that they can take the next step with your brand. Avoid those stereotypes that put too many customers off.