Time’s Person of the Year: Stereotypical White People
December 18, 2006 by Eric Eggertson
Filed under Marketing
I bet Time Magazine thought that declaring consumer generated media contributors 2006’s person of the year would prove the magazine “gets it”.
But if you look at the visuals attached to the Person of the Year online post, you see average white people doing some normal and some whacky things. I’m assuming they’re not models, which makes their rigid representation of demographic categories even more stereotypical and off putting. (If they are models, then Time just doesn’t get it.)
The women are represented by an attractive DJ, a cheerleader, an attractive woman taking her own picture, and a grandmother. Did I mention the cheerleader and grandmother are attractively average, in the way you’d expect actors in TV ads to be?
Of course, in a lot of ways Time clearly understands the social media phenomenon. Their photo contest earlier in December features some compelling photos submitted by their readers – some as good as what the pros are shooting. And their coverage shows they understand what’s behind social media and consumers breaking out of their passive role in deciding how issues and events are reported.
So why did they choose such unimaginative images of average America: the white doctor; the white air-guitaring teenager; the white counter-culture punk-like musician? And the non-whites seem like ethnic cut-out dolls: an African American singer in dark glasses; a hard-working Asian at a computer; and a racially ambiguous guy in dreadlocks. Even the guy with the mohawk and tattoos could be taken straight from an unimaginative public opinion research firm’s psychographic profile for Rebel without a Job.
Time made a good decision recognizing the revolution that’s taking place in “consumer-generated media”. The execution on the photos undercuts their message.
I haven’t found any info on the photo shoot, so I’m not commenting about whether photographer Michael Grecco had a point to make about the YouTube generation that might explain the stereotypical look of Time’s photos. Until I see something approaching a good explanation, I’m marking this as a mis-step.
Take-away: The images you use tell the story as much as your text. If you’re going to play with racial stereotypes, make sure your audience knows you’re not buying into the stereotypes. This lesson applies to companies as much as it applies to media companies like Time-Warner.
Screenshot from Time.com.
See also: Josh Hallett, ZDNet Digital Markets
Tags: demographics, diversity, media, photography, social media, timewarner
Eric –
You claim that when it comes to CGM, Time “gets it.”
Yet, when they put an on-line post of the story, they stick to static images instead of grabbing them randomly from a Flickr stream.
They could have screened thousands of photos (to avoid the liability of nudity or pranking), and let them wash in and out of the story.
But sadly, they don’t get it.
They get it. They also don’t get it.
(I messaged Ike about this, and we both agreed the Time piece shows an understanding of the importance of social media and consumer-generated media, but they don’t seem to be adept at putting it to use.)
Hey Eric, you should be proud.
John Dvorak over at PC Magazine apparently reads your blog!
Very perceptive post, Eric. I haven’t read the Time piece, but I’ve seen some of the commentary. It does seem like “they get it” and “they don’t get it.” I think that’s true of a lot of the mainstream media. But there’s no question that a lot more of them are paying attention now to “social media” and all that goes with it. We’re in the midst of a revolution of impressive proportions, so it’s not surprising that there’s a lot of debate about just where the edges of this new movement are. I suspect that in a few years, we’ll laugh about the idea that anyone ever doubted the strength of this new movement, just like we can’t imagine life anymore before the computer entered our world. But for some of us, it doesn’t seem that long ago.