The posters, displayed in tube stations across London, depict a mixed-race marriage in which the black bride’s father is presumably not present. This can be interpreted as perpetuating the racist and untrue stereotype that black fathers are often absent.
Happily, many people recognised this, and called Heinz out on social media, leading the story to be published in the news and putting Heinz in an uncomfortable spotlight. They were right to do so, because this stereotype is dangerous. It, by extension, places the blame for the very real racial disparities (in, say, employment, education, income) on black fathers and ignores the true, ugly culprit: structural racism. The misconception was invented by a white sociologist in the 1950s and has been definitively proven to be false.
And, in the public eye, the intention doesn’t matter, only the impression it creates.
It's shocking that Heinz let this slip through. Even if we give it the benefit of the doubt and called it a genuine blunder (which may be possible, since they seem to have mixed up the wedding seating arrangements too), this is no excuse. It is a billion-dollar company with a massive advertising team and supposedly thorough EDI measures – not to mention a great social responsibility. And, in the public eye, the intention doesn’t matter, only the impression it creates.
Following the outpour, Heinz released a measured and reasonable statement of apology. “We understand how this could have unintentionally perpetuated negative stereotypes, and extend our deepest apologies,” it said. Good damage control, the big marketing cheeses are thinking. But brands (and people, but brands in particular because of the financial importance of a good reputation) tend to act out of self-interest; I have a sneaky feeling Heinz only apologised to save face, so that people won’t hate it and will keep buying their products.
But at the same time, do its motivations matter? Whether they believe it or not, it still managed to send the message that this kind of ad was dangerous and inappropriate. The fact that it felt compelled to apologise actually demonstrates the power the public can have in the face of big brands. Perhaps collectively, we can contribute to dismantling stereotypes. Because in the end, issues like this are dictated by profit; the buyers have the power because the buyers do the buying. And in this instance, the buyers cared.
