Author Topic: “Imbalance” in TV Advertisements  (Read 719 times)

Offline Vice Admiral

My view (and that of most reasonable people) is that the best person should be chosen for a job, regardless of class, colour, religion or sexuality – although occasionally it may be reasonable to favour someone from a disadvantaged background if it is felt that they would have achieved more than a rival, “privileged” candidate if they had had the same advantages. 
 
Similarly, it is fair to suggest that TV ads should represent the British population in equitable proportions, so that no-one group or ethnicity feels excluded or under-represented.

A report in today’s Times informs us, however, that a 2022 survey of the top 500 TV ads indicated that 51% featured black people.  Yet, according to the 2021 census, the black population of England and Wales stands at 4%.  Even if some of these ads also feature white people, that is still over-representation on a massive scale.  (81.7% of the English and Welsh population is white.)

Why is this?

People of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin comprise 6.9 % of the population of England and Wales.  If a quota principle is being followed, there should be getting on for twice as many ads featuring people of south Asian origin as ads featuring black people – yet there are almost none.

I’m genuinely puzzled.  It’s difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that the advertising industry is institutionally racist.

Online RandomGuy99

I think most ads should feature people from all ethic groups but difficult to achieve. If a brand runs a series of ads then they could feature different ethnic groups in different ads.

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,201
  • Likes: 82
  •  
  • Reviews: 104
Because they were massively under represented for decades and there has been an adjustment, which is great. However as usual it has over adjusted but will swing back. Similarly for a while every drama or film included gay and or lesbian characters. That is now beginning to move back.

Just chill and give it time to reach a level.  It is not an issue on which to man the barricades, although the morons will no doubt jump on it.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2026, 05:28:19 pm by RedKettle »

Offline Andywb

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Likes: 35
  •  
  • Reviews: 154
I agree that VA's interpretation is basically correct although there is a statistical nuance that is worth considering. That is that most adverts feature more than one person. The % of adverts featuring white people could be 100% while 51% also feature black people. Both statistics could be true.

Overall, just because the % of black people in the population is 4% does not mean that fair representation dictates that 4% of adverts would be expected to feature a black person. If an individual advert included a large number of people you might expect to see a range of ethnicities represented. If you looked only at adverts featuring a single person then yes you might expect that person to be black in only 4% of adverts.

I have not looked at the original news story, but a more complete analysis would require more information and some complex analysis.

Offline daviemac

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,444
  • Likes: 818
  •  
  • Reviews: 24
People of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin comprise 6.9 % of the population of England and Wales.  If a quota principle is being followed, there should be getting on for twice as many ads featuring people of south Asian origin as ads featuring black people – yet there are almost none.

I’m genuinely puzzled.  It’s difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that the advertising industry is institutionally racist.
How is this withing the rules? please explain.
Hidden Image/Members Only

Offline Adoniron

Lots of ads feature inter-racial couples but it's always a black man and a white woman, never the other way round, and never any Asian or Chinese people. Its just lazy virtue signalling by the advertising industry and not representative of the population. 

Offline Vice Admiral

How is this withing the rules? please explain.
Hidden Image/Members Only

Fair point.  My apologies.

I didn't realise there was an embargo on any discussion that involved race, even in a context that was not in any way malign.  Obviously I was not being racist, and I thought TV ad imbalance would be "safe" terrain.  But, on reflection, it is probably quicksand.

Offline daviemac

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,444
  • Likes: 818
  •  
  • Reviews: 24
Fair point.  My apologies.

I didn't realise there was an embargo on any discussion that involved race, even in a context that was not in any way malign.  Obviously I was not being racist, and I thought TV ad imbalance would be "safe" terrain.  But, on reflection, it is probably quicksand.
The rules really couldn't be clearer, it's in red at the top of the rules page and at the top of the off topic section. No religion, race, or politics.

Hidden Image/Members Only

We have allowed politics in the dedicated politics thread but there is no such allowance for race of religion.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2026, 10:06:14 am by daviemac »

Offline Blackpool Rock

The rules really couldn't be clearer, it's in red at the top of the rules page and at the top of the off topic section. No religion, race, or politics.

Hidden Image/Members Only

We have allowed politics in the dedicated politics thread but there is no such allowance for race of religion.
I recall this was discussed in the politics thread within the last 6 months after the bias claim was flagged by a political party and clearly that's the suitable place for it

My question is whether it would actually be OK to discuss it again on the politics thread (If VA / others want to repost it there) given that it's not a racist discussion but rather a genuine political discussion regarding racial bias or perceived racial bias  :unknown:

Offline daviemac

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,444
  • Likes: 818
  •  
  • Reviews: 24
I recall this was discussed in the politics thread within the last 6 months after the bias claim was flagged by a political party and clearly that's the suitable place for it

My question is whether it would actually be OK to discuss it again on the politics thread (If VA / others want to repost it there) given that it's not a racist discussion but rather a genuine political discussion regarding racial bias or perceived racial bias  :unknown:
If it has already been discussed in the politics thread why does it need a stand alone thread? is it just another attempt to push the boundaries?   :unknown:

If it's already been mentioned in the politics thread I don't see why it can't be raised again, especially if it's something the government should be looking at.

Offline Blackpool Rock

If it has already been discussed in the politics thread why does it need a stand alone thread? is it just another attempt to push the boundaries?   :unknown:

If it's already been mentioned in the politics thread I don't see why it can't be raised again, especially if it's something the government should be looking at.
I agree it doesn't need it's own thread and I was surprised that VA's post wasn't in the politics thread though IMO it was an error of judgement rather than an attempt to push boundaries

VA - If you do want to continue the discussion then perhaps worth reposting it on the appropriate thread  :unknown:

Online DastardlyDick

Advertising Agency's will have instructions to target a certain demogdaphic, to increase sales to that demographic "everybody else is using this product, you should too"  representation has nothing to do with it.

Offline Blackpool Rock

Just looked back through the politics thread and it appears that it was actually me who originally flagged this 9 or 10 months ago, link to my post so it's probably worth anyone else who wants to comment picking up on my original post or the subsequent comments on the appropriate thread and let this thread die

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=339931.msg4359354#msg4359354

Online southcoastpunter

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,146
  • Likes: 168
  •  
  • Reviews: 28
If it has already been discussed in the politics thread why does it need a stand alone thread?

Because it seems that some members ( VA is one of them ) seem to like starting new threads.

Offline daviemac

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,444
  • Likes: 818
  •  
  • Reviews: 24
Because it seems that some members ( VA is one of them ) seem to like starting new threads.
Yeah and and a lot of the time regardless of the rules.

Offline Vice Admiral

Just looked back through the politics thread and it appears that it was actually me who originally flagged this 9 or 10 months ago, link to my post so it's probably worth anyone else who wants to comment picking up on my original post or the subsequent comments on the appropriate thread and let this thread die

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=339931.msg4359354#msg4359354

I don't think I noticed your post – and the responses of others – at the time.  Or, if I did, I'd completely forgotten.  But I see that you and others made almost identical points.
 
Because it seems that some members ( VA is one of them ) seem to like starting new threads.

I wouldn't start a new thread unless I thought the theme was genuinely new.  But, needless to say, that doesn't stop some of my threads being complete duds!