OK, we’re far from the first to point out that the fashion industry has a diversity problem when it comes to presenting itself. It’s just that when you think that when we’re in an era where an African-American could be elected president, it’s fascinating that the New York Times can publish a magazine that tows the fashion industry party line. The full page ads and photo shoots in their 2008 Women’s Fashion Spring supplement contain 144 white, 3 black, 2 Asian and 1 Indian models. (Or that’s what we counted during the Oscars).
We know that these supplements are mainly a vehicle to make money through advertising, but considering that the newspaper comes from a city that is 55% non-white, are we the only ones to consider when 96% of the models are white, aren’t they publishing content that’s a little under-representative of its readership?
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Should we be surprised? Little about the fashion industry (or any of the image industries) mirror reality well. The size, ethnicity, age . . . of models are much more about archteypal constructs than authentic reflections of consumers–that’s part of its appeal to the consumers who actually make the majority of purchases.
As people of color grow in their proportional representation of couture consumers, I would expect the fashion industry will reflect that trend in the imagery they use to sell their goods. It will simply be good business. And bad business to do otherwise.
Additionally, fashion, as art, is theatre. And as we give dramatists (and artists of all stripes in other media) license to to veer from verite’, we should extend the same to designers.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Poor idea flow previously.
Net thought: Imagery used is designed to appeal to their core consumer in a way that stimulates the most revenue. As their core consumer changes, so will the imagery.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
@ Rick, I agree with you. Stop using the word consumer though, it’s not the 1950s…
I once asked the editor at FHM why black and asian faces never seemed to grace the cover of their magazine. His answer was simply, “They don’t sell as many copies.”
February 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Floyd,
If not consumer, what’s your word of choice? I frankly prefer “people”, but in business speak it’s helpful to delineate the participants in the equation . . . targets, buyers, purchasers of good and/or services . . . seriously, I’m looking for some better language.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Hi Rick,
It’s really tricky I agree. I’ve almost come to blows over this where I work.
I simply say “audience” it works in almost any situation.
Personally I find “deploying a campaign to target the 18-25 consumer” distasteful, old fashioned and try to avoid it.
Although, I think consumer is fine if we’re talking about eating or drinking something.
I’m an “and” not an “or” person most of the time.
Mind you, mention the word “viral” and I really do go postal :)
February 26th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Rick, I have to agree. I always regarded the NYT as a pretty “white” paper. We sit here and talk about the New York Times as a “New York” paper, but their metro section has been consistently shrinking while they reinforce what they do best – national news and soft news aimed at a predominately white, affluent demographic. I’m not sure this is as much of a commentary on the fashion industry as it is a reflection on who reads the Times and who advertisers are trying to reach.
Fashion publications have always seemed segmented in the States. If you want to read about urban (read “black”) fashion you have your publications that deal with just that, if you’re looking for indie fashion you have a specific publication as well. It’s just a way to for large publishing companties to sell more ads by creating more specific outlets for targeted advertising.
And just to talk about “New York” papers – the Post and the Daily News are better local papers than the Times. Despite what your feelings are about tabloid style they actually report news that happens to normal, middle class and poor people in New York.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I, for one, agree and appreciate the observation…when I was in the fashion industry, I always fought to use models that reflected diversity and it was always a difficult sell internally. Time to change the perceptions out there!
February 26th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Part of your analysis problem is the concept of white. Are West Asians (i.e. Middle Easterners) white? Also, considering the photoshop that is done to these images, most look “whiter” than they would in real life….that’s a bigger tragedy. The whitewashing of ethnicity and culture is the bigger problem. The manufactured whiteness is tragic.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:16 am
@Floyd re: the wretch factor of demographics, couldn’t agree more : http://www.quo-vadis.tv > musings > people breaks the thought down a bit further.
I use ‘audience’ regularly , but the audience for a message is not the same as the purchaser/consumer, so further parsing is required.
Yeah. “viral” is played. But then so is “played” :o
Ah, language . . .
February 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Hrag, I agree with your point about “whitewashing.” Although Frank’s observation is worthy of a critical discussion I did feel that it didn’t acknowledge the complexity of assumption/perception when identifying ethnicity in media. Then again is this really about ethnicity The other day, while looking through stock images online, I noticed a severe disproportion in the physical body types of the models and even more so in their complexion. Thinner women with lighter skin and blue/green eyes made up most of the images in the database.
I found this to be insidious, to say the least. Such a “produced” whitewashing of reality where it was assumed that an online audience demanded this archetype.
We operate in a global market, one where most of its participants are “persons of color.” This begs the question I think Frank was alluding to “Why this level of determination in emphasizing whiteness?” especially in a cosmopolis like New York City.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Apologies Frank. I intended to write, “Rick”.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:11 am
hAo, i think your comment about the global market is correct – the majority of people who buy things – any ‘thing’ – are not white, but whiteness is absolutely glorified and has an aspirational quality in many non-white communities – in the US and abroad. so where does the power actually lie? With the producers of fashion who perpetuate inequality or the consumers (I use this as a FOIL to producer, Floyd, understanding your hate for the word!!) who continue to support biased views of beauty…I think it’s a little bit of both….
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm