There are newspapers that sell news for profit - in fact, I think all of them do, though most of them support themselves quite heavily on the almighty advertising dollar. In the Hunt for the almighty advertising dollar they may forfeit the news and add a page three girl. They may enlarge items of interest to their sponsors, or hush down other stories. (in very bad cases, naturally). They do not promise wrinklefree skin or the ability to look cool and land a date. They do not show shocking images and follow up with \"by this sweater\" without clearly market spaces between editorial and ad... Or do they?

Regarding this as a social commentory on white kids sucking up to black cultural iconography, since when was the Internet, Oak Rooms and V-Necks black-cool?

\"They don*t mention the US.\"

I seem to remember they do in fact they make a comment on the whole tobacco industry in the States and the rest of the Western world.

I*ve never seen a fashion brand be that kind of topical. Benetton who also (used to) go for the controversial approach were too blatant. The controversy screamed so much, it drowned out any kind of serious message. And what would we rather have in an ad campaign emptiness or meaning? The argument about hypcorisy since its used to sell clothes is misguided. News sells newspapers for profit. Some are doing it for the greater good but not all. If you can slip a serious comment in there, to start a debate like this, then it*s doing something right.

The racism thing too is also off the mark. Racism in advertising is more about having to throw in a minority or two just to make sure everyone*s covered; being so PC that you*re actually being offensive. The models used in the Diesel campaign came from the concept - they are there for a reason. However, it is a shame that an idea with a fairly strong comment was executed in such a bland way.

So - andromeda - since they are turning the truth \"upside down\" does that mean we are racist - or ignorant?

Tigger -

- I*m not so sure that is what they have done. Is it?

In a timehonored Diesel tradition - which started way back when the campaign first launched - they use their old \"ironic\" language and the even older trick of doing or saying the opposite to what they mean to create a shocking effect.
Remember the first \"for succesful living\" series? \"Give kids guns\" and such slogans were prime examples of their \"opposite ironic\" that can touche a nerve (especially in the US where kids and guns kill half the school during lunch hour). This is just another one.
This year we will shine the light on the economic difference between the first and the Third world by simply flipping the riches upside down. Its on topic! Its very seattle! It finally might make people realise what tossers we are in the rich world.
I think it*s funny that the U.S. is never mentioned in the fake headlines. In Diesels ads - the U.S. seems not have been discovered yet.

Go to a private college anywhere in the US. You will see thousands of WASPy suburbanite kids sucking up black culture like crazy. They buy the clothes they listen to the music etc, etc. This is all pretty amusing to me given that their idea of growing up tough is not having a convertible for the summer and an SUV for the winter.



Diesel ads have taken the efforts of the white suburbanite kids to adopt black working class culture despite their total lack of any connection with the roots of that culture and flipped it on its head in what can only be described as a masterful piece of advertising and social commentary.

Good God. The cheek of it. Can*t work out I*m offended or in awe...

\"The Daily African\"

Diesels spoof newspaper site

that goes with the campaign.

Jeeez... blaming a consumer goods company for trying to get us to consume. How DARE they? Next thing you know, the Pope*ll be telling us how great it is to pray...

I just think that they are lame. Diesel shows us \"what is wrong in this world\" by turning things on their heads - showing a cartoon version of how affluent europeans act towards the poorer part of the planet in their latest example.

At the same time Diesel sells fashion clothing - and encorages us to buy new crap from them each season. Thereby not providing any solution to the wrongs they have just showed us but asking us to stay overconsuming. They aren*t racist. They are hypocritical. This was crossposted at campaignlive.com

Are the Diesel Ads featuring black people enjoying distinctly white/successful lifestyles racist and offensive?

I think so. They are an example of how white marketers imagine black consumers imagine white consumers. Or how whites would like to imagine blacks imagine whites. This demonstrates the power of white media sources to imagine/represent black people as it deems necessary (to sell denim ironically successful/sexy). White hegemony permeated through adland.

Does anyone agree? Are these ads controversial? Have I a leg to stand on?

Who do I complain to?