Posted on 01/31/2022 12:58:25 PM PST by Kaslin
In today’s marketing environment, a great amount of time and money has been spent researching how companies can better reach their targeted consumers. Products and services are tailored to specific consumer groups to increase sales and grow businesses. As a result, businesses far and wide save money in the long run and better serve those who need them the most. In the business world, these advances are viewed as a victory for all involved. But as has been the case with many recent advances, those on the left – always in search of a quarrel – have found a way to be offended.
In their latest study “Advertising Injustices: Marketing Race and Credit in America," Professor Jim Hawkins and student researcher Tiffany Penner attempt to point out instances of unfair advertising practices. They conclude that U.S. financial service providers discriminate and their basis for making this determination is by assessing the number of minorities on their websites. They note that since African Americans account for 16 percent of auto title lending customers and 23 percent of payday lending customers, while about 35 percent of their combined website photos depict African Americans in their advertisements, these lenders are predatory against minorities.
In contrast, they observe that some 30 percent of mainstream banks don’t use blacks or Hispanics in their ads. They theorize that this advertising disparity is the reason minorities are more likely than white people to take out a high interest loans, and less likely to pursue credit from mainstream lenders.
Apparently, this passes for scholarship these days.
Are banks really in the business of oppressing minorities? To quote noted economist Thomas Sowell, “Implicit in the equating of statistical disparity with discrimination is the assumption that gross disparities would not exist in the absence of unequal treatment.” In other words, the existence of disparities alone is not evidence of discrimination.
Let's just set the stage with a few facts. The racial makeup of the United States is one giant disparity to begin with. According to the 2020 U.S. Census, The United States is now 57.8 percent white, 18.7 percent Hispanic, 12.4 percent Black and 6 percent Asian. And the majority of the minority population lives in lower income areas.
These facts alone are enough to enrage many on the left. Especially those with public platforms. A quick search of “America is too white” on Google will bombard you with anti-white sentiments links: for example, The Economist: “White Americans are Beginning to Realize That They Too Belong to a Race.”
Unfortunately, the ideology of those conducting research highlighting disparities in America starts with a false premise. Their research is conducted not to explore disparities and find the cause, but to find ways to attribute discrimination by whites to any disparities they can find.
It is not racist to advertise directly to the audience that is more likely to use your business. That is smart. On the other hand, making it harder for minorities to have access to non-collateralized loans the way progressives want is bad for blacks, and dumb.
Remember, high interest loans are used in situations when those seeking the loan have poor or insufficient credit history. Generally speaking, Americans – regardless of race – who live in low-income areas are more likely to fall into that category.
The study says Latinos and African Americans are more likely to take out unsecured loans. Could that be why payday lenders are depicting more Latinos and African Americans in their advertising? Or perhaps that could explain why the majority of payday lenders in America are where their customers are? Would a payday lender thrive in an area where almost all of the population uses traditional forms of credit? Probably not.
But this isn’t racism! As stated above, it is smart business.
The irony should not be lost – a study that purports to identify racism may actually be perpetuating it by having so little regard for the intelligence of black consumers. In this view, their cognitive skills are assumed to be limited to only making decisions based solely on the skin color of those they see in ads.
In reality, minorities take into account the wealth of information available outside of advertising. Advertising serves only as a tool to inform consumers which products exist in the marketplace. The internet further provides review sites, research information, library access, YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok influencers, etc.; access that makes the most uneducated more informed than even the most scholarly predecessors were years ago. Investigating information, analyzing data and coming to the best financial decisions for their unique circumstances is well within the grasp of minority groups.
Instead of labeling minorities as victims, ineluctably drawn to an advertisement with models that match their skin color, whether they need the service or not, we need to focus on what matters most. Teaching our next generation – black, white, or brown – sound financial principals, encouraging two-parent households (statistically proven to drastically reduce poverty), and promoting the importance of hard work. These values empower every individual who makes the choice to live by them, regardless of race. Attacking the financial choices of adults is worse than offering no solutions.
People, regardless of race, enter into financial transactions for a myriad of reasons. Pretending that the existence of non-collateralized loans are somehow racist ill-serves needy communities and ignores their ability to make decisions about their own lives.
I thought Eddie Murphy already exposed the racist lending practices in “White Like Me”.
(”What a silly negro!”)
“Advertising serves only as a tool to inform consumers which products exist in the marketplace. “
This guy lives in La La Land!
So. Are they saying based on the demographics in advertising theory..
Interracial gay couple are just a BIT over represented?
STUPID STUDY with MASSIVELY INVALID CONCLUSION! It’s a rare commercial that I see that doesn’t have blacks OVERREPRESENTED (compared to their 12%+ slice of America’s population) in race of participating actors.
STUPID STUDY with MASSIVELY INVALID CONCLUSION! It’s a rare commercial that I see that doesn’t have blacks OVERREPRESENTED (compared to their 12%+ slice of America’s population) in race of participating actors.
Sometimes I flip through channels and the ads make it look like I accidentally tuned into Nigerian TV.
I don’t watch network TV
As soon as a commercial comes on I switch channels.
There is so much free content online
I always put commercials on mute and channels on mute unless I decide to watch something—so I can see what is on without being bombarded with insane leftist propaganda.
Whatever you do, you’re racist. Better let the government take over.
This post wins the thread, hands down!
White infants in the crib are racist—and leftists want to do something about it.
:-(
I despise what American “culture” has become. And it’s all because of the communist media gatekeepers in hollywood and big corporations.
One of my closest friends is pretty high up the food chain of one of the big banks.
He was told that he MUST hire black females, going forward. No one else.
No, TV ads are instructional.
They tell women what to wear on a cruise. They tell women that to live properly, they must make a serious effort to hydrate. Hair hydration is mandatory for a proper life, and a best effort uses a shampoo that includes a serum.
“I thought Eddie Murphy already exposed the racist lending practices in “White Like Me”.”
https://youtu.be/l_LeJfn_qW0?t=79
Go ahead, take the money. Pay us back whenever...or don’t.
‘Interracial gay couple are just a BIT over represented?”
Received a brochure from 1-800-FLOWERS. 13 people depicted.
Two gay couples, black/asian each.
Only one ‘white’ dude, appears to be light skinned mid-eastern.
Bankers don’t care if you are purple with pink polka dots, your money is green. . . .
“Bankers don’t care if you are purple with pink polka dots, your money is green. . . .”
Not any more. No gun money or conservative companies allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.