# "utterly moronic racist nonsense" - Strutt & Parker Notting Hill estate agents  advertising



## editor (Nov 18, 2014)

Thanks to Rocket no.9 for this. 

But it seems black people = dancers, white people = smart estate agents


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2014)

editor said:


> View attachment 63923
> 
> Thanks to Rocket no.9 for this.
> 
> But it seems black people = dancers, white people = smart estate agents


that's because black people have natural rhythm no doubt.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 18, 2014)

Ripe for some grafitti that.


----------



## JimW (Nov 18, 2014)

What a sorry view of humanity, actually _celebrating _even the conceit of being born to be an estate agent.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that's because black people have rhythm no doubt.


Whereas white people? Well they're clever. And smug. Or something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2014)

anyway that white man can't be too smart if he's not graduated to selling houses or shops.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Whereas white people? Well they're clever. And smug. or something.


smug is the word i think. knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2014)

Their Notting Hill Office staff. No dancers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Ripe for some grafitti that.


i wonder what caption the advertisers would give this one


----------



## paulhackett (Nov 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Their Notting Hill Office staff. No dancers.
> 
> View attachment 63924



Although one of the partners apparently has an exceptionally large penis


----------



## weltweit (Nov 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Their Notting Hill Office staff. No dancers.
> 
> View attachment 63924


"Negotiator!" really? how much actual negotiation is required in letting flats or houses?


----------



## EastEnder (Nov 18, 2014)

"Strutt & Parker Notting Hill estate agents advertising" - every word in that sentence irritates me to some degree. TBF, "hill" on its own, I've no problem with.


----------



## Scutta (Nov 18, 2014)

im sure if you'd ask, it would just be some absurdist joke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2014)

Scutta said:


> im sure if you'd ask, it would just be some absurdist joke.


jokes traditionally funny of course


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 18, 2014)

negative stereotyping of white people as lacking in artistic talent and therefore likely to end up doing a useless, parasitical job instead of something worthwhile


----------



## BandWagon (Nov 18, 2014)

I can't dance and I'm not an estate agent. Shit, I'm in trouble here.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 18, 2014)

Some are born to strut and some to park apparently.

eta Nah rubbish


----------



## Scutta (Nov 18, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> jokes traditionally funny of course


 of course like blacking up.


----------



## BandWagon (Nov 18, 2014)

It's interesting to know if the ad was quite deliberately intended just to get attention - which it has - on the basis that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Clarkson is an expert in that kind of thing.


----------



## Rocket no.9 (Nov 18, 2014)

It's interesting to realise how far and deep we are into a society which noddingly permits such radiant and blatantly vile racist bullshit to pass under the rancid skirts of this blatantly fake-ass po-mo cock-a-snookery. The cognoscenti yawn...Where's my sense of humour. Ah, there it is, by my old rusty machete...


----------



## weltweit (Nov 18, 2014)

They probably thought making the dancer a black guy would be being "inclusive"

I don't believe it was deliberate to get attention, and I don't believe any publicity is good publicity either!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 18, 2014)

BandWagon said:


> I can't dance and I'm not an estate agent. Shit, I'm in trouble here.


Must be mixed race


----------



## BandWagon (Nov 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Must be mixed race


I must be white, I can't jump.


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 18, 2014)

Just because one of the people in the ad is black, does not in any way imply that the ad is racist.

If the races were reversed and the dancer had been the white one and the estate agent the black one, would you still have thought it was racist? Could it be that _you_ are in fact being racist by projecting the "black people are good at dancing" stereotype onto an entirely innocent advert?

This thread is political correctness gone mad


----------



## ddraig (Nov 18, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Just because one of the people in the ad is black, does not in any way imply that it is racist.
> 
> If the races were reversed and the dancer had been the white one, would you still have thought it was racist?
> 
> This thread is political correctness gone mad


how did you manage to pack so much shit in 3 lines?!?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 18, 2014)

ah! 
"YOUR THE RACISTS!!" added!
well done


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 18, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Just because one of the people in the ad is black, does not in any way imply that the ad is racist.
> 
> If the races were reversed and the dancer had been the white one and the estate agent the black one, would you still have thought it was racist? Could it be that _you_ are in fact being racist by projecting the "black people are good at dancing" stereotype onto an entirely innocent advert?
> 
> This thread is political correctness gone mad



Stop wasting our time, and your own.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 18, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Just because one of the people in the ad is black, does not in any way imply that the ad is racist.
> 
> If the races were reversed and the dancer had been the white one and the estate agent the black one, would you still have thought it was racist? Could it be that _you_ are in fact being racist by projecting the "black people are good at dancing" stereotype onto an entirely innocent advert?
> 
> This thread is political correctness gone mad



The point is it's not reversed, and either you're trolling or a colossal twat


----------



## weltweit (Nov 18, 2014)

Cheapskates all, should have had :


----------



## ddraig (Nov 18, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Just because one of the people in the ad is black, does not in any way imply that the ad is racist.
> 
> If the races were reversed and the dancer had been the white one and the estate agent the black one, would you still have thought it was racist? Could it be that _you_ are in fact being racist by projecting the "black people are good at dancing" stereotype onto an entirely innocent advert?
> 
> This thread is political correctness gone mad


how would it be at all racist if the models/actors roles were reversed?


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 18, 2014)

ddraig said:


> how would it be at all racist if the models/actors roles were reversed?



It wouldnt be, just as it isnt with the roles as they are


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 18, 2014)

_'Racist developers go home' _

I can see it now.


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 18, 2014)

The thing is, they've gone for the faux self deprecating comedy, like (the now chic) nerds did when Apple stuff came out, assuming society will do a damascine turn and suddenly these Estate Agent parasites will become accepted members of society.

(Just in case the overt racism didn't hammer home the out of touch-ness of the thing )


----------



## Smangus (Nov 18, 2014)

From looking at the staff photos it looks like the racists are in the HR Dept


----------



## se5 (Nov 19, 2014)

Smangus said:


> From looking at the staff photos it looks like the racists are in the HR Dept



Probably dont have an HR department - hiring is probably done on the basis that they are good chaps in their own image


----------



## T & P (Nov 19, 2014)

I'm sure they're beautiful human beings on the inside, but they all look like prize cunts.


----------



## prunus (Nov 19, 2014)

T & P said:


> I'm sure they're beautiful human beings on the inside, but they all look like prize cunts.


 
Let's find out.  I'll bring the knives.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2014)

The comments have got quite interesting. Looks like a league of estate agents have sprung into action. 

http://www.urban75.org/blog/utterly...-by-notting-hill-estate-agents-strutt-parker/


----------



## MrSki (Nov 19, 2014)

> Why do I assume that Charles works for Strutt and Parker?
> 
> Oh, I don’t know. Maybe it was a hunch. Maybe it was instinct.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bungle73 (Nov 19, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Just because one of the people in the ad is black, does not in any way imply that the ad is racist.
> 
> If the races were reversed and the dancer had been the white one and the estate agent the black one, would you still have thought it was racist? Could it be that _you_ are in fact being racist by projecting the "black people are good at dancing" stereotype onto an entirely innocent advert?
> 
> This thread is political correctness gone mad


100% agree.  There's no "racism" here; only that that exists in the minds of people who seemingly have nothing better to do than run around finding "racism" where it clearly does not exist.

Let's face it, the only reason for ire here is because it's an ad for a firm of estate agents. How pathetic, and predictable.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> 100% agree.  There's no "racism" here; only that that exists in the minds of people who seemingly have nothing better to do than run around finding "racism" where it clearly does not exist.
> 
> Let's face it, the only reason for ire here is because it's an ad for a firm of estate agents. How pathetic, and predictable.



Stop wasting our time, insulting our intelligence and making yourself out to be a fool.


----------



## Bungle73 (Nov 19, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Stop wasting our time, insulting our intelligence and making yourself out to be a fool.


I don't need to insult your intelligence; you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself.

People who like to play the prejudice every 5 minutes for no particular reason really are pathetic, and more than that they devalue people who suffer from actual prejudice.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> 100% agree.  There's no "racism" here; only that that exists in the minds of people who seemingly have nothing better to do than run around finding "racism" where it clearly does not exist.
> 
> Let's face it, the only reason for ire here is because it's an ad for a firm of estate agents. How pathetic, and predictable.


why do you think as a (presumably) a white man, that it is ok for you to say this and judge it so?


----------



## Bungle73 (Nov 19, 2014)

And says a lot that as soon a couple of people come on here saying that they is no racism they get abuse.  Pathetic.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I don't need to insult your intelligence; you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself.
> 
> People who like to play the prejudice every 5 minutes for no particular reason really are pathetic, and more than that they devalue people who suffer from actual prejudice.


nice insults there!
you are showing yourself to be very intolerant


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I don't need to insult your intelligence; you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself.
> 
> People who like to play the prejudice every 5 minutes for no particular reason really are pathetic, and more than that they devalue people who suffer from actual prejudice.



No particular reason that you give a shit about you mean? Not your problem, doesn't impact you or anyone you care about.
Seriously, your are a complete arse.


----------



## Bungle73 (Nov 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why do you think as a (presumably) a white man, that it is ok for you to say this and judge it so?


Because I've got eyes and  brain.

So you saying that you only see racism if you're black.  That's racist in itself.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> And says a lot that as soon a couple of people come on here saying that they is no racism they get abuse.  Pathetic.


are you going to answer any points or just act all attacked and offended?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> And says a lot that as soon a couple of people come on here saying that they is no racism they get abuse.  Pathetic.



Given that you are throwing the insults around you are also proving yourself a hypocite. Good work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Their Notting Hill Office staff. No dancers.
> 
> View attachment 63924



TBF it's obvious why the cunt in the top lefthand corner became an estate agent - years of being mocked for having the surname "Meacock"


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 19, 2014)

Why is the first part of the thread title in quotation marks?


----------



## snadge (Nov 19, 2014)

My mate who is black is a shit dancer


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Just because one of the people in the ad is black, does not in any way imply that the ad is racist.
> 
> If the races were reversed and the dancer had been the white one and the estate agent the black one, would you still have thought it was racist? Could it be that _you_ are in fact being racist by projecting the "black people are good at dancing" stereotype onto an entirely innocent advert?
> 
> This thread is political correctness gone mad



In your rush to use the phrase "political correctness gone mad", you appear to have totally missed the point. 

Well done! Only with serious practice can you have become such a well-honed twat!


----------



## trabuquera (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> People who like to play the prejudice every 5 minutes for no particular reason really are pathetic, and more than that they devalue people who suffer from actual prejudice.


 
You absolutely, seriously, sincerely do not see a problem with an advertisment applying the line "born to dance" to someone of African / Caribbean origin, while an image of a white professional is subtitled "born to sell houses" ? Do you not know anything of the entire history of the stereotype that black people are "born to dance" (natural rhythm etc) or that very many black people in the UK, US and around the world are heartily sick of that stereotype?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

snadge said:


> My mate who is black is a shit dancer



He dances with shit? Ew!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> how did you manage to pack so much shit in 3 lines?!?



Constipation?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2014)

trabuquera said:


> You absolutely, seriously, sincerely do not see a problem with an advertisment applying the line "born to dance" to someone of African / Caribbean origin, while an image of a white professional is subtitled "born to sell houses" ? Do you not know anything of the entire history of the stereotype that black people are "born to dance" (natural rhythm etc) or that very many black people in the UK, US and around the world are heartily sick of that stereotype?


personally i'm equally sick of the myths that (a) all estate agents are white and (b) all white people are grasping greedy cunts, both of which this sorry advert also suggests.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The point is it's not reversed, and either you're trolling or a colossal twat



Latter, IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> 100% agree.  There's no "racism" here; only that that exists in the minds of people who seemingly have nothing better to do than run around finding "racism" where it clearly does not exist.
> 
> Let's face it, the only reason for ire here is because it's an ad for a firm of estate agents. How pathetic, and predictable.



Well done, Bungle. Yet another thread where you reveal yourself to be truly the _capo di tutti capi_ of utter tools!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The point is it's not reversed, and either you're trolling or a colossal twat


i'll go for option b


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> And says a lot that as soon a couple of people come on here saying that they is no racism they get abuse.  Pathetic.



Possibly because racism is insoluble. The only place it doesn't exist is within a monocultural environment. That's straightforward "human behaviour 101" - where there's difference there will be a social hierarchy based on visible difference.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why is the first part of the thread title in quotation marks?


think as might be wot someone else said, ie a quote


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> think as might be wot someone else said, ie a quote



By who? Nothing explaining it in the OP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Because I've got eyes and  brain.
> 
> So you saying that you only see racism if you're black.  That's racist in itself.



No, genius, she's saying that you, as a white male, would be less likely to *distinguish* racism, because you're part of a majority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why is the first part of the thread title in quotation marks?



To annoy you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why is the first part of the thread title in quotation marks?


editor


----------



## ddraig (Nov 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> By who? Nothing explaining it in the OP.


from comment on that link



> FYI, I’m quoting a black historian in the title. And I see his point.
> 
> At best it’s crass and clumsy stereotyping, at worst it’s racist, although I’d agree it’s not intentional – just stupid and insensitive.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> think as might be wot someone else said, ie a quote


By Rocket no.9


----------



## snadge (Nov 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He dances with shit? Ew!!!




Just trying to irk the grammar police.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2014)

snadge said:


> Just trying to irk the grammar police.


if you want to do that, call them the grammer police.


----------



## snadge (Nov 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if you want to do that, call them the grammer police.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> from comment on that link





editor said:


> By Rocket no.9



Where's that quote from though? 

Clicking on that link just brings up member details for Rocket no.9


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Where's that quote from though?
> 
> Clicking on that link just brings up member details for Rocket no.9


From his Facebook page but I won't be disclosing that here for obvious reasons. Why is it so important?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I don't need to insult your intelligence; you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself.
> 
> People who like to play the prejudice every 5 minutes for no particular reason really are pathetic, and more than that they devalue people who suffer from actual prejudice.




play it like a card?

you've managed to 'you are the real racist' it as well. Top marks bugle.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Why is it so important?



Well the usual form is to provide a link to quotations to give context to what's being quoted and show it's an accurate representation. There's none of that.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Well the usual form is to provide a link to quotations to give context to what's being quoted and show it's an accurate representation. There's none of that.


Feel free to PM him.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 19, 2014)

138 pictured working at their head office & they are all white.
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-head-office/


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2014)

MrSki said:


> 133 pictured working at their head office & they are all white.
> http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-head-office/



Everyone else is too busy dancing.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 19, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Everyone else is too busy dancing.


I wonder how many companies with a head office in London with over a hundred staff have managed to mirror the racial diversity of the city so well.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2014)

If ever there was a good reason for a flash mob dance picket of their offices this is one.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 19, 2014)

Apparently the agency wants to broaden out from selling flats to astroturfing.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 19, 2014)

Oh and it's good that's it's been made clear that completely changing the whole setup is a really telling reductio ad absurdum (look it up racists). If they had a white man dancing with a bone through his nose and waving a spear would you say that was racist? No well neither is it if they have a black man doing it then! QED!!!!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh and it's good that's it's been made clear that completely changing the whole setup is a really telling reductio ad absurdum (look it up racists). If they had a white man dancing with a bone through his nose and waving a spear would you say that was racist? No well neither is it if they have a black man doing it then! QED!!!!




I would love to deconstruct that ad further...I doubt it would be helpful though...it would prove me a complete racist obviously.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 19, 2014)

Actually Rutita1 I would welcome a more detailed deconstruction and discussion of the ad, it isn't clear to me what their specific objectives were, personally I doubt they intended to be racist so in that way they will have failed (and I don't hold that any publicity is good) and finally Estate Agents are universally disliked on a par with politicians so perhaps an ad featuring one is also doomed. etc


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2014)

Look at the ad again, do you see the average Brixtonite on either side of the page?

Every Black person a dancer, male, Mr motivater style/flamboyant, athletic, not too serious ...every White person, male, a suit wearing capitalist/fresh faced business type?

The echoes are seriously deep.

I have framed these points as questions not to condescend but to reflect some of the first things that occur to me.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 19, 2014)

I don't know who the average Brixtonite is so I have a disadvantage there . My first impression of the ad was simply to wonder what the point of it was? It struck me that they were trying to be funny, because an ad simply saying XYZ are estate agents would have just been too dull although more accurate. My first thought was not though that all black people in Brixton are dancers and all white people estate agents.


----------



## fishfinger (Nov 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't know who the average Brixtonite is so I have a disadvantage there . My first impression of the ad was simply to wonder what the point of it was? It struck me that they were trying to be funny, because an ad simply saying XYZ are estate agents would have just been too dull although more accurate. My first thought was not though that all black people in Brixton are dancers and all white people estate agents.


Notting Hill is not Brixton. Although it doesn't matter where the estate agents are. The ad is racist because it uses a lazy stereotype of black people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Notting Hill is not Brixton. Although it doesn't matter where the estate agents are. The ad is racist because it uses a lazy stereotype of black people.


tbh it doesn't show white people in a very good light either.


----------



## Winot (Nov 19, 2014)

Someone's been reading this thread.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 19, 2014)

you can just post the link to the time of the tweet and the whole thing shows up here


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2014)

Loads of people were tweeting about it yesterday nowt to do with here


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 19, 2014)

paulhackett said:


> Although one of the partners apparently has an exceptionally large penis



Nice sideline as a Kelsey Grammar impersonator too


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't know who the average Brixtonite is so I have a disadvantage there . My first impression of the ad was simply to wonder what the point of it was? It struck me that they were trying to be funny, because an ad simply saying XYZ are estate agents would have just been too dull although more accurate. My first thought was not though that all black people in Brixton are dancers and all white people estate agents.



No Idea why I wrote Brixtonite there but I think the point is still the same. Given it's actually Notting Hill I think a bit more thought went into the characterisation of the Black dancer too. _'Those bubbly Black people just live for carnival don't you know!' _It's deliberate.

In terms of your first thoughts; advertising doesn't work on a concious thought level, it works on association and suggestion.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> 100% agree.  There's no "racism" here; only that that exists in the minds of people who seemingly have nothing better to do than run around finding "racism" where it clearly does not exist.
> .


You're right. There's no 'racism' here. Just racism.


----------



## marshall (Nov 20, 2014)

Anyone without a vested business interest in this ad - client/agency - can recognise it's racist. Immediately. 

What surprises me is that it even saw the light of day. Surely the writer/art director/creative group head/CD/planners/suits would have all flagged it up. It really shouldn't have made it off the layout pad. It certainly shouldn't have been presented to the client. 

What's the adage, 'a writer's best friend is the waste paper basket'? That's certainly where this 'concept' should have been filed.


----------



## Bonfirelight (Nov 20, 2014)

Is Notting Hill particularly well know for dancing \ Mark Elie locally renowned?

If so then I can cut them some slack I guess. "Some people were born to [local well known resident & occupation] others to flog houses" isn't terrible in principle.. They do look like a flock of twats though tbf, so I won't give them too much benefit.


----------



## marshall (Nov 20, 2014)

Yeh, from the looks of them, it would appear the ad was produced in-house.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> This thread is political correctness gone mad


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2014)

Bonfirelight said:


> Is Notting Hill particularly well know for dancing \ Mark Elie locally renowned?
> 
> If so then I can cut them some slack I guess. "Some people were born to [local well known resident & occupation] others to flog houses" isn't terrible in principle.. They do look like a flock of twats though tbf, so I won't give them too much benefit.




notting hill carnival ennit.


----------



## Bonfirelight (Nov 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> notting hill carnival ennit.


Hmm, if that's the angle then I think its a bit more dodgy. 
I know the ballet school have a presence in NH, but was wondering if that was something NH was known for in general.


----------



## sim667 (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> "Negotiator!" really? how much actual negotiation is required in letting flats or houses?


 






"I will find you, and I will take out a fixed term mortgage on you."


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 20, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> _'Those bubbly Black people just live for carnival don't you know!' _



Comments like this ^ just demonstrate _your own_ racist prejudices, this has nothing to do with what the ad says

so according to the U75 PC-brigade, it is racist to cast a black man in the role of a dancer. Unbelievable....

I wonder how Mark Elie would feel if he saw this lunatic thread, since he is being accused in his absence of complicity with racism against his own race.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 20, 2014)

Drivelling on about 'political correctness' is a sure sign of an idiot.


----------



## EastEnder (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> so according to the U75 PC-brigade, it is racist to cast a black man in the role of a dancer. Unbelievable....


I can't tell whether you're being disingenuous or simply naive. In a world without racism that advert would be fine, at least in so far as the race of the characters that is. But we don't live in that world, not by a very long way. They could've used two black people or two white people, but they went with one black man & one white man. They're both stereotypes - the black dancer & the white office worker. Perhaps the black dancer is an office worker by day and the white office worker is a dancer by night, who knows. It's not like the advert includes detailed biographies. Adverts are designed to create an immediate & conspicuous point, and whether this particular advert consciously intended to contrast race & occupation, that is inevitably the end result.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2014)

fuck me, 'you are the real racist'

need a bingo card for these eejits


----------



## Bonfirelight (Nov 20, 2014)

EastEnder said:


> I can't tell whether you're being disingenuous or simply naive. In a world without racism that advert would be fine, at least in so far as the race of the characters that is. But we don't live in that world, not by a very long way. They could've used two black people or two white people, but they went with one black man & one white man. They're both stereotypes - the black dancer & the white office worker. Perhaps the black dancer is an office worker by day and the white office worker is a dancer by night, who knows. It's not like the advert includes detailed biographies. Adverts are designed to create an immediate & conspicuous point, and whether this particular advert consciously intended to contrast race & occupation, that is inevitably the end result.


Agreed. Looking at their gallery of white power estate agents they would have been a bit limited from their end, and if they chose this guy because him or his dance studio is locally well known then I'd file this under 'should have given more thought to how it might come across ' rather than racist, but I still might be being naive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Comments like this ^ just demonstrate _your own_ racist prejudices, this has nothing to do with what the ad says
> 
> so according to the U75 PC-brigade, it is racist to cast a black man in the role of a dancer. Unbelievable....
> 
> I wonder how Mark Elie would feel if he saw this lunatic thread, since he is being accused in his absence of complicity with racism against his own race.


are you saying mark elie is being accused of being a race traitor?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2014)

Bonfirelight said:


> Agreed. Looking at their gallery of* white power estate agents* they would have been a bit limited from their end, and if they chose this guy because him or his dance studio is locally well known then I'd file this under 'should have given more thought to how it might come across ' rather than racist, but I still might be being naive.



last flat sold was no. 88?


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> are you saying mark elie is being accused of being a race traitor?



he is being accused by the U75 PC-brigade of *complicity with racism*, because he is allowing his image to be used in a racist advert (and profiting from it too)

Of course in the real world this wouldnt be an issue, since outside of the fantasy world of the U75 self-righteously adamant pc-brigade, no normal person would think that the advert in question was racist.

But here, on U75, Mark Elie is being accused of complicity with racism


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Comments like this ^ just demonstrate _your own_ racist prejudices, this has nothing to do with what the ad says
> .



You aren't very good at this.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> he is being accused by the U75 PC-brigade of *complicity with racism*, because he is allowing his image to be used in a racist advert (and profiting from it too)
> 
> Of course in the real world this wouldnt be an issue, since outside of the fantasy world of the U75 self-righteously adamant pc-brigade, no normal person would think that the advert in question was racist.
> 
> But here, on U75, Mark Elie is being accused of complicity with racism


Long way from being a RESPECT member to here eh Joe - what happened?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> he is being accused by the U75 PC-brigade of *complicity with racism*, because he is allowing his image to be used in a racist advert (and profiting from it too)
> 
> Of course in the real world this wouldnt be an issue, since outside of the fantasy world of the U75 self-righteously adamant pc-brigade, no normal person would think that the advert in question was racist.
> 
> But here, on U75, Mark Elie is being accused of complicity with racism


that sounds like a yes to me.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Comments like this ^ just demonstrate _your own_ racist prejudices, this has nothing to do with what the ad says
> 
> so according to the U75 PC-brigade, it is racist to cast a black man in the role of a dancer. Unbelievable....
> 
> I wonder how Mark Elie would feel if he saw this lunatic thread, since he is being accused in his absence of complicity with racism against his own race.



I suggest you read a little history.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

joe in 2005



> might as well type it out....
> To whom it may concern,
> I have been a lifelong viewer of the BBC and have paid my own license fees for 18 years,
> I have never previously had any cause for complaint about any of your programming. Having seen the party
> ...


----------



## moon (Nov 20, 2014)

I really don't know what to say, just to add that the advert is shocking.
Try looking at it and mentally swapping the skin colour of the men, perhaps make them female too... that would have made a more interesting campaign...


Some Notting Hill folk were born to dance





Others to sell flats


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Bonfirelight said:


> Is Notting Hill particularly well know for dancing \ Mark Elie locally renowned?
> 
> If so then I can cut them some slack I guess. "Some people were born to [local well known resident & occupation] others to flog houses" isn't terrible in principle.. They do look like a flock of twats though tbf, so I won't give them too much benefit.



From the British Ballet Organisation website : "Mark Elie is considered by some a local hero, born and bred between Notting Hill and Maida Vale"

Apparently he is the Artistic Director at the charity Portabello Dance

So it is probably fair to say that he is locally renowned.



DotCommunist said:


> notting hill carnival ennit.



I'd think that was more the case if they used a picture of the carnival but they didn't.



Pickman's model said:


> are you saying mark elie is being accused of being a race traitor?



If he knew about the advert and thought it racist he's complicit or maybe he didn't think it racist himself. Maybe he isn't aware? Is there anyone on here familiar with the man or charity who could put it to him?

I think people are reading far too much into this. Estate agents are twats sure and if you want to bring up racism then focusing on the number of white people working at the estate agent is a reasonable argument but to complain because they show a locally relevant black person dancing really does seem to be looking for offence. Should they have chosen someone else for the dancing picture? If they'd hired a black actor in to play the estate agent would that be less offensive? If there was  a black person working there should they have insisted they pose for the advert? Or is the advert just so intrinsicly racist that it's a lost cause?

They probably sold a house for him in the area and offered a % off his fees if he let them use his pic. The advert to me looks to be appealing to people moving into the area who will be sending their kids to ballet schools. I doubt the colour of those pictured would register to the majority of people who saw it.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

"If they'd hired a black actor in to play the estate agent would that be less offensive?" 

If it was different would it have a different meaning? Is that a serious question?


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Of course it's a serious question.

People here are taking offence as they've used a local dance teacher and a local estate agent who happen to black and white respectively. It seems that those people who are offended have decided that this is pandering to stereotypes.

It seems that the 9 people working in that office are white so they couldn't have shown a black estate agent without getting an actor in. Would that have been less offensive? Lets say they did had a 10th employee who was black. Would it have been less offensive to have asked him to be in the advert instead so as to avoid this thread?

Perhaps they could have asked Mark Elie if he had any white people working for him who they could use for the advert instead - letting them avoid offending the people on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Of course it's a serious question.
> 
> People here are taking offence as they've used a local dance teacher and a local estate agent who happen to black and white respectively. It seems that those people who are offended have decided that this is pandering to stereotypes.
> 
> ...


they may have some ancilliary staff who are black. "dear cleaner, would you like to be in an advert posing as an estate agent?"


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> "dear cleaner, would you like to be in an advert posing as an estate agent?"


Is that a joke?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Is that a joke?


do you find it funny?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem simple question: do you find it funny? i'm not asking you to dissect the post, a simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Is that a joke?


are you having difficulty expressing yourself?


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

No. No I don't find it funny.

I see you've edited your post so it makes a little more sense now though. So I've answered your question. Perhaps you can address mine? Would it have been less offensive if they'd specifically asked a black person to be the estate agent rather then just leave things as they ended up? Yes/No?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> No. No I don't find it funny.
> 
> I see you've edited your post so it makes a little more sense now though. So I've answered your question. Perhaps you can address mine? Would it have been less offensive if they'd specifically asked a black person to be the estate agent rather then just leave things as they ended up? Yes/No?


good. because it wasn't a joke.

i wouldn't have found it any less offensive.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

What is your point Pickman's model ? 5 posts without one it seems. Are you going to address my question or any of the points I raised? Or just talk your preconceived nonsense as normal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> What is your point Pickman's model ? 5 posts without one it seems. Are you going to address my question or any of the points I raised? Or just talk your preconceived nonsense as normal.


i answered your fucking question. don't you like the answer?


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Sorry Pickman's model I don't understand your boreish psuedocryptic nonsence. You asked me for a simple yes/no answer and I obliged. In post #124 I asked you for a yes/no answer - perhaps you could offer me the courtesy of a response?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Of course it's a serious question.
> 
> People here are taking offence as they've used a local dance teacher and a local estate agent who happen to black and white respectively. It seems that those people who are offended have decided that this is pandering to stereotypes.
> 
> ...


Changing the content effects the meaning - the use of definite visual rhetoric produces a myth. The myth(s) this pic produced would be very different if the components were changed. So yes, the whole thing would have a very different meaning it it had a different meaning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Sorry Pickman's model I don't understand your psuedocryptic nonsence. You asked me for a simple yes/no answer and I obliged. In post #124 I asked you for a yes/no answer - perhaps you could offer me the courtesy of a response too?


i don't know you can answer yes/no to a 'would it be less offensive then?' question. i wouldn't find it any less offensive but i have no idea whether coley or farmerbarleymow or editor would.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> People here are taking offence as they've used a local dance teacher and a local estate agent who happen to black and white respectively. It seems that those people who are offended have decided that this is pandering to stereotypes.


It's not just people "here" taking offence.


----------



## youngian (Nov 20, 2014)

marshall said:


> Anyone without a vested business interest in this ad - client/agency - can recognise it's racist. Immediately.
> 
> What surprises me is that it even saw the light of day. Surely the writer/art director/creative group head/CD/planners/suits would have all flagged it up. It really shouldn't have made it off the layout pad. It certainly shouldn't have been presented to the client.



This is what I'm not getting, even 1960s Don Draper wouldn't let that through. Unless of course there is an identifiable demographic fed-up with political correctness and banning golliwogs who have a spring in their step this year.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Changing the content effects the meaning - the use of definite visual rhetoric produces a myth. The myth(s) this pic produced would be very different if the components were changed. So yes, the whole thing would have a very different meaning it it had a different meaning.



Do you think when planning this advert they intended to 'produce a myth'? If they were using stock images there might be some mileage in the argument. However it's not just a random black/white person. It's specifically the artistic director of a local dance charity and a local estate agent who happen to be black and white. I really don't think that they chose the dancer because he was black and they didn't have much choice in using a white estate agent.

So the point I was getting at was that they could have gone out of their way to find a different person to represent the dancer or estate agent thus avoiding the backlash but surely that would have been more offensive then showing a locally successful dancer and an estate agent who just so happen to fall into the stereotypes of those taking offensive of being black and white.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> It's not just people "here" taking offence.


OK I haven't seen it elsewhere but if it's getting attention elsewhere then take my post as meaning people who are taking offensive wherever.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2014)

its basic semiology, and intent doesn't change meaning.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Do you think when planning this advert they intended to 'produce a myth'? If they were using stock images there might be some mileage in the argument. However it's not just a random black/white person. It's specifically the artistic director of a local dance charity and a local estate agent who happen to be black and white. I really don't think that they chose the dancer because he was black and they didn't have much choice in using a white estate agent.
> 
> So the point I was getting at was that they could have gone out of their way to find a different person to represent the dancer or estate agent thus avoiding the backlash but surely that would have been more offensive then showing a locally successful dancer and an estate agent who just so happen to fall into the stereotypes of those taking offensive of being black and white.


It's irrelevant if they intended to or not. The symbols they chose exist in a field of previous significations. Doing that with either no awareness of or edgy embrace (which is what i think took place here - the latter) of those previous myths and significations produces the same results.  

Why chose a dancer and why choose an estate agent? These are results of previous symbolic representations - of previous myth. Look at history here, not simply the thing itself or you are going to miss all the nuances and all the stuff that's actually got people angry.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> OK I haven't seen it elsewhere but if it's getting attention elsewhere then take my post as meaning people who are taking offensive wherever.


The article on my blog has been read by well over 5,000 people it's been liked hundreds of times on FB so it's clear that some people do find it offensive, despite a rather curious rearguard denial action in the comments section by an ad hoc United Estate Agents Confederation.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know you can answer yes/no to a 'would it be less offensive then?' question. i wouldn't find it any less offensive but i have no idea whether coley or farmerbarleymow or editor would.


Thanks. So you'd find it equally or more offensive if they'd used someone instead of these two people.

As I pointed out they didn't really have much choice on the colours of the respective people in the advert so I think they were right not to try and change it and it seems you agree. Therefore do *you *think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?



DotCommunist said:


> its basic semiology, and intent doesn't change meaning.



You can see what you want to see I suppose. 



butchersapron said:


> It's irrelevant if they intended to or not. The symbols they chose exist in a field of previous significations. Doing that with either no awareness of or edgy embrace (which is what i think took place here - the latter) of those previous myths and significations produces the same results.
> 
> Why chose a dancer and why choose an estate agent? These are results of previous symbolic representations - of previous myth. Look at history here, not simply the thing itself or you are going to miss all the nuances and all the stuff that's actually got people angry.



Why not choose a dancer and an estate agent? The message seems clear and simple to me, they're doing the boring job of estate agency and have contrasted it with something more exciting. The 'them' is the estate agency and the more exciting' side resonates with 'you'. 

I think it's incredibly relevant if the meaning was intended or not. Do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Of course it's a serious question.
> 
> People here are taking offence as they've used a local dance teacher and a local estate agent who happen to black and white respectively. It seems that those people who are offended have decided that this is pandering to stereotypes.
> 
> ...



It's not about the individuals involved. It's about the symbolism. You're basically asking if the symbolism was different would the meaning be different. Well, duh.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> It's not about the individuals involved. It's about the symbolism. You're basically asking if the symbolism was different would the meaning be different. Well, duh.


OK so if it's about symbolism rather then intent do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Why not choose a dancer and an estate agent? The message seems clear and simple to me, they're doing the boring job of estate agency and have contrasted it with something more exciting. The 'them' is the estate agency and the more exciting' side resonates with 'you'.


You're projecting all over the shop here. 

Far from looking bored the estate agent looks very happy indeed. Positively beaming in fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Why not choose a dancer and an estate agent? The message seems clear and simple to me, they're doing the boring job of estate agency and have contrasted it with something more exciting. The 'them' is the estate agency and the more exciting' side resonates with 'you'.
> 
> I think it's incredibly relevant if the meaning was intended or not. Do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?



The choice to use these two roles was not one free of history - and that history is one that has represented different people in different ways. It's both re-inforcing the old myth and putting it on a new exciting democratic opportunity filled pedestal. And i wasn't saying they should not have used those two roles - i was asking why they ended up choosing them. What previous re-inforcement has taken place to end up at that exact spot.

No, their intentions are not that relevant to how the myth is constructed - some very important social processes and phenomena operate on an assumed/unquestioned/subconscious basis. That's why it'soften so hard to challenged them - because they are embedded in common sense.

Of course they should - unless they wanted the _aren't we edgy_ bollocks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Thanks. So you'd find it equally or more offensive if they'd used someone instead of these two people.
> 
> As I pointed out they didn't really have much choice on the colours of the respective people in the advert so I think they were right not to try and change it and it seems you agree. Therefore do *you *think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?


they had a huge amount of choice. why not use david cameron and say 'some notting hill people become prime minister'? your question based on a false premise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> You're projecting all over the shop here.
> 
> Far from looking bored the estate agent looks very happy indeed. Positively beaming in fact.


'smug'


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Do you think when planning this advert they intended to 'produce a myth'? If they were using stock images there might be some mileage in the argument. However it's not just a random black/white person. It's specifically the artistic director of a local dance charity and a local estate agent who happen to be black and white. I really don't think that they chose the dancer because he was black and they didn't have much choice in using a white estate agent.
> 
> So the point I was getting at was that they could have gone out of their way to find a different person to represent the dancer or estate agent thus avoiding the backlash but surely that would have been more offensive then showing a locally successful dancer and an estate agent who just so happen to fall into the stereotypes of those taking offensive of being black and white.



If an advertising agency is unaware of the semiology of their ads then they shouldn't be in business.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> OK so if it's about symbolism rather then intent do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?



You're assuming that artwork just "happens" accidentally.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> If an advertising agency is unaware of the semiology of their ads then they shouldn't be in business.


Yes,  i find the idea they were unaware both of the theory and the practice here to be laughable. It's exactly what they are taught.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes,  i find the idea they were unaware both of the theory and the practice here to be laughable. It's exactly what they are taught.



Of course they were aware. It's graphic design 101.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

OK well I suppose we'll just have to disagree then. Perhaps one of you guys should inform Mark Elie know that he is being used this way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Of course they were aware. It's graphic design 101.


Of course they were aware. Everyone involved will have been fully aware. But they did it anyway.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> OK so if it's about symbolism rather then intent do you think they should have cancelled the advert when they got the artwork and realised it was a black/white dancer/estate agent?


This isn't some cosy little independent business doing the best they can. They are one of the largest property partnerships in the UK, and their press office boasts that it "generates over 3,000 mentions in national, regional and local publications per annum."



> Strutt & Parker has more than 45 offices, and over 800 staff.[4]
> 
> 
> The total acreage managed is approximately 2 million across the UK
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strutt_&_Parker


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> This isn't some cosy little independent business doing the best they can. They are one of the largest property partnerships in the UK, and their press office boasts that it "generates over 3,000 mentions in national, regional and local publications per annum."
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strutt_&_Parker


if none of their 800+ staff are black, brown or yellow then questions should be asked.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

I didn't realise that:
1) they are a big agency
2) the dancer is a local personality
It makes me wonder if they are doing a wider campaign in which case I wonder who they would use in other locations.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if none of their 800+ staff are black, brown or yellow then questions should be asked.


Their career profiles page = all white.
Management = all white.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> This isn't some cosy little independent business doing the best they can. They are one of the largest property partnerships in the UK, and their press office boasts that it "generates over 3,000 mentions in national, regional and local publications per annum."


I'm aware that they are a chain, however this advert is for a local branch. It won't have had teams at Sacchi's spending months on it.



Pickman's model said:


> if none of their 800+ staff are black, brown or yellow then questions should be asked.


Why make such a statement? Do you have any insider knowledge on whether they are or not or is it just a bit of mudslinging?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I'm aware that they are a chain, however this advert is for a local branch. It won't have had teams at Sacchi's spending months on it.



Irrelevant. Or do you think if it had it would make it better/worse?


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

You can click through to see all their staff here: http://www.struttandparker.com/people/
I clicked on about 8 offices and everyone was white.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> You can click through to see all their staff here: http://www.struttandparker.com/people/
> I clicked on about 8 offices and everyone was white.


Every one else too busy dancing to take on the serious responsibility of estate agencying i expect.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

There's still lot to respond to on the blog article if anyone wants to join in, by the way:
http://www.urban75.org/blog/utterly...-by-notting-hill-estate-agents-strutt-parker/


----------



## dweller (Nov 20, 2014)

Vile poster.


----------



## moon (Nov 20, 2014)

Sanjay Patel??
Also only 1 female equity partner??!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Why make such a statement? Do you have any insider knowledge on whether they are or not or is it just a bit of mudslinging?


yes


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

God, imagine being _born to sell flats though._


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant. Or do you think if it had it would make it better/worse?



Well I think an advert for a local branch of a company would have less scrutiny then a national advert campaign. The resources available for it would be more limited, it's more likely a junior would be working on it and so on. If I were to take offence I'd think it worse if the campaign had more resources behind it.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> God, imagine being _born to sell flats though._


I can't believe I'm on here defending a bunch of bloody estate agents. Still you don't get much more of an underdog on here!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I can't believe I'm on here defending a bunch of bloody estate agents.


i can


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Actually your web properties account for half the first page search engine results for _Strutt & Parker Notting Hill _in the past month. The shock and anger here don't seem to be spreading too far.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think an advert for a local branch of a company would have less scrutiny then a national advert campaign. The resources available for it would be more limited, it's more likely a junior would be working on it and so on. If I were to take offence I'd think it worse if the campaign had more resources behind it.


Even though the message would be exactly the same?

btw, are you sure this isn't a national campaign with national resources thrown in and local celebs on the left hand side in each area? Which, in your odd way of looking at it, would make it worse again.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Well I think an advert for a local branch of a company would have less scrutiny then a national advert campaign. The resources available for it would be more limited, it's more likely a junior would be working on it and so on. If I were to take offence I'd think it worse if the campaign had more resources behind it.


Err, their Notting Hill branch has a staff of at least nine people and deals with some large properties worth many millions so they're hardly some little clueless outfit. And how do you know the advert was done by their team anyway? A: You don't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> You can see what you want to see I suppose.



there's a lot more to it than me reading what I want to see. Images, phrases, words all have chains of meaning and associations. To take an absurd example: would it be appropriate to use a swastika in any advertising except for a war film/book/play? if not, why not?


----------



## moon (Nov 20, 2014)

Apparently it takes 10,000 hrs of practice to become an expert in anything.
People simply aren't 'born' to do anything.
They can however be encouraged, discouraged, given opportunities or obstacles.


----------



## Bonfirelight (Nov 20, 2014)

moon said:


> Apparently it takes 10,000 hrs of practice to become an expert in anything.
> People simply aren't 'born' to do anything.
> They can however be encouraged, discouraged, given opportunities or obstacles.


Except to die. And run.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> God, imagine being _born to sell flats though._



that idea certainly makes me feel more charitable towards my upbringing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

Has anyone made the if I can't sell flats it's not my revolution joke yet?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2014)

moon said:


> Apparently it takes 10,000 hrs of practice to become an expert in anything.
> People simply aren't 'born' to do anything.
> They can however be encouraged, discouraged, given opportunities or obstacles.


I was born to be wild


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

Interestingly enough, almost of the comments defending the advert and/or abusing those who do find it offensive are coming from fellow estate agents or employees of Strutt & Parker.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Even though the message would be exactly the same?
> 
> btw, are you sure this isn't a national campaign with national resources thrown in and local celebs on the left hand side in each area? Which, in your odd way of looking at it, would make it worse again.



Yes. I'd expect a major nationwide campaign to have more people looking for potentially offensive content. I don't think it's as offensive or at least obviously offensive as you think.

And if it's part of a nationwide campaign it's still just a local interpretation of it. Therefore more likely to be delegated to a junior rather then have the top team and market research etc.



editor said:


> Err, their Notting Hill branch has a staff of at least nine people and deals with some large properties worth many millions so they're hardly some little clueless outfit. And how do you know the advert was done by their team anyway? A: You don't.


I didn't say the advert was done by their team. But I suspect that if this particular advert was a nationwide one it'd have more resources then one made for a single local branch.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I didn't say the advert was done by their team. But I suspect that if this particular advert was a nationwide one it'd have more resources then one made for a single local branch.


What's that suspicion based on?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Yes. I'd expect a major nationwide campaign to have more people looking for potentially offensive content. I don't think it's as offensive or at least obviously offensive as you think.
> 
> And if it's part of a nationwide campaign it's still just a local interpretation of it. Therefore more likely to be delegated to a junior rather then have the top team and market research etc.



It's irrelevant how many people are looking for it. What a nice way to frame it though. _Looking _for it. Rather than this shit being posted on their streets.

Again - so what? How does the message change?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I was born to be wild


if you do some homebrew perhaps you'd be born to be mild


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I was born to be wild




I was born in a crossfire hurricane


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> What's that suspicion based on?


his gut


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2014)

Ooh, they've got pots of money for their advertising - and a big agency behind them:


> *Strutt & Parker, the property company, is running a review of its creative advertising arrangements, ahead of a push to become the "go-to" brand in the market.*
> 
> The business, which is an independent estate agent and property consultant, has issued a brief to agencies incorporating advertising and digital work. Creativebrief is running the review.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

Even if it was a London wide advert, the company has profiles for 138 employees at its head office. They are all white. Why use a black man in an advert if you seem to not want to employ anyone who is not white? They claim to have a diversity policy but it has not got round to having staff that reflect the city where they work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> Ooh, they've got pots of money for their advertising - and a big agency behind them:


with £3.5bn of property on their books you'd have thought they could hire at least one black, brown or yellow person.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> What's that suspicion based on?


Simple fucking logic. An advert for a local branch is going to have limited resources compared to an advert to be syndicated nationwide. It's not fucking rocket science.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Simple fucking logic. An advert for a local branch is going to have limited resources then an advert to be syndicated nationwide. It's not fucking rocket science.


more limited resources than surely.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

moon said:


> I really don't know what to say, just to add that the advert is shocking.
> Try looking at it and mentally swapping the skin colour of the men, perhaps make them female too... that would have made a more interesting campaign...
> 
> 
> ...


The guy they chose is the artistic director of a local dance charity. It wouldn't make sense if they chose a random white woman.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> more limited resources than surely.


Yes - thanks! I'll edit accordingly!


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

Is it possible some bright whizz thought a controversial advert in Notting Hill could garner more publicity because of the viral nature of discussion of the controversy on social media?

Not that I believe any publicity is good publicity because I don't.. but estate agents are already hated and they know it!


----------



## Sea Star (Nov 20, 2014)

editor said:


> Whereas white people? Well they're clever. And smug. Or something.


tedious *and *smug it appears....


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> The guy they chose is the artistic director of a local dance charity. It wouldn't make sense if they chose a random white woman.


they might have had to do an inoffensive ad if they had


----------



## moon (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> The guy they chose is the artistic director of a local dance charity. It wouldn't make sense if they chose a random white woman.


Do you always read the small print?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> The guy they chose is the artistic director of a local dance charity. It wouldn't make sense if they chose a random white woman.


And that was the only options to illustrate these two roles? Of course it wasn't. What's missing here is why they choose dance to oppose to estate agencies. Why this? Well,that and all the other historical things salem has missed.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And that was the only options to illustrate these two roles? Of course it wasn't. What's missing here is why they choose dance to oppose to estate agencies. Why this? Well,that and all the other historical things salem has missed.


Do you think they went looking specifically for a black person? What do you think they should have used to illustrate the role if not the artistic director of a local group? I can't think of any option better suited and to take the second option because "oh noes we can't show a black man dancing" is just fucking offensive.



moon said:


> Do you always read the small print?


What do you mean?


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> What do you mean?


the vast majority of people who see the advert will have no idea who the guy is, and no reason to find out.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Do you think they went looking specifically for a black person? What do you think they should have used to illustrate the role if not the artistic director of a local group? I can't think of any option better suited and to take the second option because "oh noes we can't show a black man dancing" is just fucking offensive.



Irrelevant. The choices made were an opt-in to historic racist nonsense. And, as i said, i think knowingly so. The message, the myth exists outside of their choices though.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant. The choices made were an opt-in to historic racist nonsense. And, as i said, i think knowingly so. The message, the myth exists outside of their choices though.


So that's a yes?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> So that's a yes?


No, it's an _irrelevant to what the message/myth now is if they did or not.

_


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Do you think they went looking specifically for a black person? What do you think they should have used to illustrate the role if not the artistic director of a local group? I can't think of any option better suited and to take the second option because "oh noes we can't show a black man dancing" is just fucking offensive.




Show a black man dancing - or openly say _born to dance?  _What actually does this ad say salem? On the literal level as we can see you're not getting the semiotic level.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's an _irrelevant to what the message/myth now is if they did or not.
> _


So is that yes or no to my question?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> So is that yes or no to my question?


can you only work in binaries?


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> can you only work in binaries?


Ironically it's something I picked up from you earlier in this thread!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Ironically it's something I picked up from you earlier in this thread!


yeh where i had a question which worked within the binary system you favour. but this is a wider question that can't be so easily answered with one word.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Yes. I'd expect a major nationwide campaign to have more people looking for potentially offensive content. I don't think it's as offensive or at least obviously offensive as you think.
> 
> And if it's part of a nationwide campaign it's still just a local interpretation of it. Therefore more likely to be delegated to a junior rather then have the top team and market research etc.
> 
> ...



It's like you can see no further than the end of your own nose.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> It's like you can see no further than the end of your own nose.


that far, eh?


----------



## marshall (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Well I think an advert for a local branch of a company would have less scrutiny then a national advert campaign. The resources available for it would be more limited, it's more likely a junior would be working on it and so on. If I were to take offence I'd think it worse if the campaign had more resources behind it.



I think their agency is Saatchi Masius, a division of Saatchi & Saatchi. I'm guessing they're responsible for the creative? Hardly small or 'limited' in terms of resource.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 20, 2014)

They probably employ at least black security guard or cleaner. I say employ, an outsourcer pays them minimum wage in that building. Some of us are born to hold down several low paid office cleaning jobs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> Comments like this ^ just demonstrate _your own_ racist prejudices, this has nothing to do with what the ad says



Except that rutita is about the least racist person I've come across on Urban. That being the case, your analysis (if it can be called that) would appear to be flawed.



> so according to the U75 PC-brigade, it is racist to cast a black man in the role of a dancer. Unbelievable....



Only if you're ignorant enough to not take into account the *comparative* representations of the black man and the white man in the advert. You clearly *are* ignorant enough.



> I wonder how Mark Elie would feel if he saw this lunatic thread, since he is being accused in his absence of complicity with racism against his own race.



Hopefully he'd feel, if he had any wit at all, a sense of shame that he'd allowed himself to be used by cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> he is being accused by the U75 PC-brigade of *complicity with racism*, because he is allowing his image to be used in a racist advert (and profiting from it too)
> 
> Of course in the real world this wouldnt be an issue, since outside of the fantasy world of the U75 self-righteously adamant pc-brigade, no normal person would think that the advert in question was racist.
> 
> But here, on U75, Mark Elie is being accused of complicity with racism



No he isn't, bird-brain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Long way from being a RESPECT member to here eh Joe - what happened?



George Galloway?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Do you think when planning this advert they intended to 'produce a myth'? If they were using stock images there might be some mileage in the argument. However it's not just a random black/white person. It's specifically the artistic director of a local dance charity and a local estate agent who happen to be black and white. I really don't think that they chose the dancer because he was black and they didn't have much choice in using a white estate agent.
> 
> So the point I was getting at was that they could have gone out of their way to find a different person to represent the dancer or estate agent thus avoiding the backlash but surely that would have been more offensive then showing a locally successful dancer and an estate agent who just so happen to fall into the stereotypes of those taking offensive of being black and white.



With regard to "planning the advert", if they used an agency, the staff there would be absolutely _au fait_ with the concept of semiotics, and the use of signifiers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

You don't need a cse in sociology to see what that ad's about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its basic semiology, and intent doesn't change meaning.



Yup. The sort of stuff that every fucker who does Media Studies or an advertising-related post-grad course will learn very early on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't need a cse in sociology to see what that ad's about.



Do you mean GCSE, or are you showing your age?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

One step down from O-level, so seemed appropriate.

And yes.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2014)

PC-brigade. House!


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No he isn't, bird-brain.



you are claiming that he willingly participated in a racist advert, allowing his image to be used for racist purposes (even profiting from it)

ie, you are claiming that he is guilty of complicity with racism


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hopefully he'd feel, if he had any wit at all, a sense of shame that he'd allowed himself to be used by cunts.



You hope that this black man should feel ashamed because he participated in this advert. You think that he should not have done the advert, and that his participation was a shameful act of complicity with racism.

Interesting, it is clear who the *real* racists are


----------



## ddraig (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You hope that this black man should feel ashamed because he participated in this advert. You think that he should not have done the advert, and that his participation was a shameful act of complicity with racism.
> 
> Interesting, it is clear who the *real* racists are


wow! proper full house!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> you are claiming that he willingly participated in a racist advert, allowing his image to be used for racist purposes
> 
> ie, you are claiming that he is guilty of complicity with racism



Complete strawman.

How can we know what he thought and how he thought the image would be used?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You hope that this black man should feel ashamed because he participated in this advert. You think that he should not have done the advert, and that his participation was a shameful act of complicity with racism.
> 
> Interesting, it is clear who the *real* racists are


Yeah. It is. Painfully.

What broke you from your anti-racism btw?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You hope that this black man should feel ashamed because he participated in this advert. You think that he should not have done the advert, and that his participation was a shameful act of complicity with racism.
> 
> Interesting, it is clear who the *real* racists are


What are you saying? Because he's black, he can't be criticised? 

I hope he's really embarrassed. But he's probably a jobbing actor who was glad of the cash, and may well not have known exactly how the ad would turn out, I don't know. My scorn is mostly reserved for those who commissioned, conceived and executed the ad, not the hired hands, and that includes the other actor in it, who I also hope is really embarrassed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You hope that this black man should feel ashamed because he participated in this advert. You think that he should not have done the advert, and that his participation was a shameful act of complicity with racism.
> 
> Interesting, it is clear who the *real* racists are



Don't push your luck. You are seriously not clever or informed enough to play this game.

You are focusing on him, why? Because you don't have anything useful to say in defense of that advert and the people responsible for making it...your focus on the morals/ethics of Mr Elie is very telling, your insistance that we are attacking him and his decisions is a classic shift too, awarding him the burden of responsibility and accusing us of doing that...that's right, you are text book.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But he's probably a jobbing actor who was glad of the cash, and may well not have known exactly how the ad would turn out, I don't know.




Have you read the thread?

http://www.portobellodance.org.uk/artistic-director/
http://bbo.org.uk/news/29/

He isn't just some actor or stock photo model. I'm sure he'd appreciate being called a "jobbing actor who was glad of the cash" though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

Ok. That doesn't change much, tbh. He's a jobbing dancer in need of the cash. Rutita's right - why are you making this about him?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rutita's right - why are you making this about him?



Divide and conquer, same as it ever was.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> you are claiming that he willingly participated in a racist advert, allowing his image to be used for racist purposes (even profiting from it)



Except that I haven't claimed anything of the sort. The above are words you're putting in my mouth because you're unable to argue your case on the facts.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. That doesn't change much, tbh. He's a jobbing dancer in need of the cash. Rutita's right - why are you making this about him?



Well she said that to someone else, but I think it's relevant because he's the guy whose been chosen to feature in the advert.

I'd think he was chosen because he was an interesting counterbalance to the estate agents, a dancer catches the eye, he's a locally successful bloke who seems to be pretty well respected etc.

You seem to think he's been chosen because he's black and to make some kind of point about black people being good at dancing and white people being natural estate agents or something. Oh and he's a jobbing actor in need of some cash.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You hope that this black man should feel ashamed because he participated in this advert. You think that he should not have done the advert, and that his participation was a shameful act of complicity with racism.



No, I hope he'll feel ashamed when he sees the use to which his image has been put - a sense of "shit, I should have checked out what they were going to do with it first".
The bulk of the above that you've written is about your own inability to see racism. Not about Mr. Elie, or about me. About you.



> Interesting, it is clear who the *real* racists are



Only if you're wearing blinkers or are pigshit thick, Joe.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Well she said that to someone else, but I think it's relevant because he's the guy whose been chosen to feature in the advert.
> 
> I'd think he was chosen because he was an interesting counterbalance to the estate agents, a dancer catches the eye, he's a locally successful bloke who seems to be pretty well respected etc.
> 
> You seem to think he's a jobbing actor chosen because he's black and to make some kind of point about black people being good at dancing and white people being natural estate agents or something.


How on earth would anyone get that idea?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

I (wrongly, it seems now) assumed he was a jobbing actor because that is what most people in adverts are. And it's a massive source of income for a struggling actor. It can net a couple of grand for a day's work. 

But that makes no difference to anything.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I (wrongly, it seems now) assumed he was a jobbing actor because that is what most people in adverts are. And it's a massive source of income for a struggling actor. It can net a couple of grand for a day's work.
> 
> But that makes no difference to anything.



So you don't think it's relevant that they've put up a local dancer / estate agent  rather then just picked a random picture of a black person to illustrate the advert. The fact that they've chosen the artistic director of the local dance academy who happens to be black rather then specifically chosen a black actor/stock photo person makes a huge difference IMHO.

And a couple of grand  to appear in a poster for a local branch of an estate agent. You've got to be kidding me right?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You hope that this black man should feel ashamed because he participated in this advert. You think that he should not have done the advert, and that his participation was a shameful act of complicity with racism.
> 
> Interesting, it is clear who the *real* racists are



I don't even.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> So you don't think it's relevant that they've put up a local dancer / estate agent  rather then just picked a random picture of a black person to illustrate the advert. The fact that they've chosen the artistic director of the local dance academy who happens to be black rather then specifically chosen a black actor/stock photo person makes a huge difference IMHO.
> 
> And a couple of grand  to appear in a poster for a local branch of an estate agent. You've got to be kidding me right?


The main thing is that they don't look like massive racists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> So you don't think it's relevant that they've put up a local dancer / estate agent  rather then just picked a random picture of a black person to illustrate the advert. The fact that they've chosen the artistic director of the local dance academy vs chosen a black actor/stock photo person makes a huge difference IMHO.
> 
> And a couple of grand  to appear in a poster for a local branch of an estate agent. You've got to be kidding me right?


You might be surprised by the budgets for ads. Actors have to agree not to appear in anything similar for x period in time, so they can get a lot of money. In this case, I'll have a little wager with you if you like - see if you can find out - I'll wager he was paid at least £1,000 to do this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

Even other notable residents of Notting Hill? Why does this guy epitomise one of the locals?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> So you don't think it's relevant that they've put up a local dancer / estate agent  rather then just picked a random picture of a black person to illustrate the advert. The fact that they've chosen the artistic director of the local dance academy who happens to be black rather then specifically chosen a black actor/stock photo person makes a huge difference IMHO.
> 
> And a couple of grand  to appear in a poster for a local branch of an estate agent. You've got to be kidding me right?




And then they've said "some people are born to..." 

Join the fucking dots


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Even other notable residents of Notting Hill? Why does this guy epitomise one of the locals?


Exactly - what questions need to have been asked _well before this point,_ to say, what reps this community and how can we rep it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

Anyway, fuck it. Salem's making me make this all about him. @ self.


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 20, 2014)

I have attempted to contact Mr Elie via the contacts section on the Portobello dance website to see how he feels about all this, particularly how he feels about knowing that there are some white people on the internet who think he, as a black man, should be ashamed of himself for modelling his profession in the way that he has in this estate agent's advert. It will be interesting to see if i get a response.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> I have attempted to contact Mr Elie via the contacts section on the Portobello dance website to see how he feels about all this, particularly how he feels about knowing that there are some white people on the internet who think he, as a black man, should be ashamed of himself for modelling his profession in the way that he has in this estate agent's advert. It will be interesting to see if i get a response.


I hope you've furnished him with direct quotes you lying bastard.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> And then they've said "some people are born to..."
> 
> Join the fucking dots



Some people don't want to...it's uncomfortable and rage inducing. I don't blame people for wanting to avoid this shit but ffs I refuse to be brow beaten into believing the things I know to be true are not.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> I have attempted to contact Mr Elie via the contacts section on the Portobello dance website to see how he feels about all this, particularly how he feels about knowing that there are some white people on the internet who think he, as a black man, should be ashamed of himself for modelling his profession in the way that he has in this estate agent's advert. It will be interesting to see if i get a response.




You really are an utter cock


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

Did you make a list of who is white and who not white out of these people on the internet? 

Fuck's sake.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> I have attempted to contact Mr Elie via the contacts section on the Portobello dance website to see how he feels about all this, particularly how he feels about knowing that there are some white people on the internet who think he, as a black man, should be ashamed of himself for modelling his profession in the way that he has in this estate agent's advert. It will be interesting to see if i get a response.


Ffs, it's mushroom season - given that's all you ever do, why not go do that?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> I have attempted to contact Mr Elie via the contacts section on the Portobello dance website to see how he feels about all this, particularly how he feels about knowing that there are some white people on the internet who think he, as a black man, should be ashamed of himself for modelling his profession in the way that he has in this estate agent's advert. It will be interesting to see if i get a response.



You did what?
1.How many of us are White on this thread exactly?
2. Please share with us the direct quotes you have used to completely misrepresent the discussion here.
3. Your projections and attempts to misrepresent the discussion, plus your focus on Mr Elie says bundles about you...you hold him repsonsible, not us. Why do you do that? who's responsibility is racism exactly?


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I hope he'll feel ashamed when he sees the use to which his image has been put - a sense of "shit, I should have checked out what they were going to do with it first".



You are assuming that he didnt know what his image was to be used for, - on what basis do you make this assumption?

Perhaps he knew exactly what the advert looked like before it was put up, and perhaps he was completely happy with it, if that was the case how would that effect your view of him? What if he doesnt agree with your assessment that the advert is racist?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

Actually, I'm being thick. I'd actually wager that they will have paid at least £10,000 for him to appear in the ad. And they'll have their name on stuff in the dance academy. 

Less than the commission on the sale of one house. And all the while, they will actively push to get the remaining poorer people out of the area - the parents of many of the kids in the classes, no doubt. Complete the transformation.


----------



## JimW (Nov 20, 2014)

What a coincidence, I just got a PM from Mark Elie saying joe_infinity is a cock


----------



## joe_infinity (Nov 20, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> You did what?
> 1.How many of us are White on this thread exactly?
> 2. Please share with us the direct quotes you have used to completely misrepresent the discussion here.
> 3. Your projections and attempts to misrepresent the discussion, plus your focus on Mr Elie says bundles about you...you hold him repsonsible, not us. Why do you do that? who's responsibility is racism exactly?



1.At least 2 that i know of
2.I provided links to this discussion and to the blog article+comments (this thread demonstrates very clearly what the attitudes towards his role in the advert are, it doesnt leave any room for misinterpretation)
3.Eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You are assuming that he didnt know what his image was to be used for, - on what basis do you make this assumption?
> 
> Perhaps he knew exactly what the advert looked like before it was put up, and perhaps he was completely happy with it, if that was the case how would that effect your view of him? What if he doesnt agree with your assessment that the advert is racist?


I think we'll live. Maybe a few people would have a few things to think about. And we'll know that on top of your anti-climate change, anti-vaccination and associated other loon-theories nonsense you're also a right wing_ pc gone mad_ prick.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You are assuming that he didnt know what his image was to be used for, - on what basis do you make this assumption?
> 
> Perhaps he knew exactly what the advert looked like before it was put up, and perhaps he was completely happy with it, if that was the case how would that effect your view of him? What if he doesnt agree with your assessment that the advert is racist?



And so what if he did...does that mean we all have to agree it's okay? Again, you attempt to make this an issue for Mr Elie and of consent. You do this because you have no defence of the ad, the problems of it have been clearly illustrated to you but you insist the responsibility is his alone...If only Black people weren't Black and didn't have to be Black and would just accept racist representations of them eh?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> 3.Eh?



Yeah reading comprehension is not your thing. Sorry.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

Actually this whole conversation reminds me of a time I went into a local this n that store to find two fucking huge baliffs, suited and booted, standing over a teenage shop assistant bellowing 'where is he, when will he be back, who are you, is he your dad?' I lost my shit, I didn't know her but I knew this shop and the scene was fucking nasty...I asked them why they were standing over and attempting to intimidate a teenager...they accused me of stereotyping them  That they were just doing their jobs. Holding them responsible for this behaviour made me anti-baliff.

I went next door to the two closest shops and told the guys there what was happening...6 people later and the baliffs decided to leave...funny that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> You are assuming that he didnt know what his image was to be used for, - on what basis do you make this assumption?



On the well-informed assumption that about 70%-plus of images that ad agencies use are stock images, and as the subject of a stock image will have to have signed a model release form for the photographer taking the image (if they don't, a picture agency won't use it), then they're not consulted about usage.  That means that the balance of probability is 70/30 in favour of my "assumption".



> Perhaps he knew exactly what the advert looked like before it was put up, and perhaps he was completely happy with it, if that was the case how would that effect your view of him? What if he doesnt agree with your assessment that the advert is racist?



Perhaps he knew all about the usage his image would be put to - that's his shout. The issue isn't my view of him. If he chose in an informed manner to let his image be used, and either didn't think about the wider implications, or didn't care, then (again) shame on him.
As for whether he agrees with my assessment of the ad or not, his agreement or disagreement is irrelevant *except insofar as the ad affects him personally as an individual*. What *is* relevant is how the ad represents black people, and specifically black males in a particular role.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

joe_infinity said:


> I have attempted to contact Mr Elie via the contacts section on the Portobello dance website to see how he feels about all this, particularly how he feels about knowing that there are some white people on the internet who think he, as a black man, should be ashamed of himself for modelling his profession in the way that he has in this estate agent's advert. It will be interesting to see if i get a response.



If he reads the thread, all he'll see is that some sad twit called Joe has misrepresented what's been said.
That is, of course, *if* you've actually contacted him, which frankly, is subject to a Jimmy Hill chinstroke.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I hope you've furnished him with direct quotes you lying bastard.



As if.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> On the well-informed assumption that about 70%-plus of images that ad agencies use are stock images, and as the subject of a stock image will have to have signed a model release form for the photographer taking the image (if they don't, a picture agency won't use it), then they're not consulted about usage.  That means that the balance of probability is 70/30 in favour of my "assumption".



http://www.portobellodance.org.uk/artistic-director/
http://bbo.org.uk/news/29/

He isn't just some actor or stock photo model.

Am I on ignore or something? Does half of urban not actually read through threads?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did you make a list of who is white and who not white out of these people on the internet?
> 
> Fuck's sake.



Nah, he's just assuming that all the posters on this thread are white, even though they're not.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> http://www.portobellodance.org.uk/artistic-director/
> http://bbo.org.uk/news/29/
> 
> He isn't just some actor or stock photo model.
> ...



So what? What difference does this make?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> http://www.portobellodance.org.uk/artistic-director/
> http://bbo.org.uk/news/29/
> 
> He isn't just some actor or stock photo model.
> ...




Why do you imagine we have all heard of him and that his FAME is instantly known to all? (See what I did there, I bet you don't)

Him being local changes nothing to the dodgey representations of that ad.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:
			
		

> He isn't just some actor or stock photo model.
> 
> Am I on ignore or something? Does half of urban not actually read through threads?



Talking of not reading through threads, I didn't claim Mr. Elie was "just some actor or a stock photo model". If you'd bothered to read my post properly, you'd have noticed that I wasn't stating that the guy was a model,  I was merely explaining the probability of the photo being a stock photo, and that *if* the photo was a stock photo, that the person featured in it would have no say in its' use, as they would have signed a model release form.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> So what? What difference does this make?



I've posted a few times why I think it's relevant. Maybe you disagree with me and whether those points are relevant and that's fair enough but if people keep posting about it being a stock image/actor then it's clear they haven't read the thread and it just makes the whole point of a message board seem a bit futile. Like people are just broadcasting their opinions without reading others.

I am finding this thread a bit odd as I don't really want to be trying to defend a big estate agency firm. The fact that some people have pointed some under representation of minorities in their staff is something to be probed sure. But the advert I think I've just got a fundamental disagreement with the bulk of posters here on. That's fine and I've spent the time to read through every post and link. I think Pickman's model is an arse but he has at least read and engaged with me. I think I fundamentally disagree with yourself, butchersapron and editor but again you've at least read the thread and engaged.



Rutita1 said:


> Why do you imagine we have all heard of him and that his FAME is instantly known to all?
> 
> Him being local changes nothing to the dodgey representations of that ad.



I don't assume anyone has heard of him but the fact he is a locally relevant dancer rather then just some photo found searching for 'black dancer' on istock makes me think the whole thing is a lot less sinister rather then intrinsically dodgy. I don't think they should then decide not to run the advert because it might be misinterpreted. I really doubt most people would make the negative connection without it being pointed out and to pull the advert because the guy is black would be absurd.



ViolentPanda said:


> Talking of not reading through threads, I didn't claim Mr. Elie was "just some actor or a stock photo model". If you'd bothered to read my post properly, you'd have noticed that I wasn't stating that the guy was a model,  I was merely explaining the probability of the photo being a stock photo, and that *if* the photo was a stock photo, that the person featured in it would have no say in its' use, as they would have signed a model release form.



If you'd read the thread you'd know that the probability of the photo being a random stock photo is 0%.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I've posted a few times why I think it's relevant. Maybe you disagree with me and whether those points are relevant and that's fair enough but if people keep posting about it being a stock image/actor then it's clear they haven't read the thread and it just makes the whole point of a message board seem a bit futile. Like people are just broadcasting their opinions without reading others.
> 
> I am finding this thread a bit odd as I don't really want to be trying to defend a big estate agency firm. The fact that some people have pointed some under representation of minorities in their staff is something to be probed sure. But the advert I think I've just got a fundamental disagreement with the bulk of posters here on. That's fine and I've spent the time to read through every post and link. I think Pickman's model is an arse but he has at least read and engaged with me. I think I fundamentally disagree with yourself, butchersapron and editor but again you've at least read the thread and engaged.
> 
> ...




As I said - its like you can't see any further than the end of your own nose.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

*People with profiles on Strutt & Parker's website.
*
Head office 138 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-head-office/

London City 19 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-city/

Knightsbridge 9 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-knightsbridge/

West Chelsea  9 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-west-chelsea/

Chelsea Sales 6 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-chelsea-sales/

Chelsea Lettings 4 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-chelsea-lettings/

Fulham 7 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-fulham/

Kensington Sales 6 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-kensington-sales/

Kensington Lettings 3 - All white
http://www.struttandparker.com/offices/london-kensington-lettings/

And you still think comparing a black dancer with an estate agent working for Strutt & Parker is not racist?


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

Fairness and opportunities for all.


> Strutt & Parker is committed to the principles of equality and diversity in employment, and seeks to adhere to the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, by opposing discrimination, victimisation and harassment on the grounds of all recognised protected characteristics, including age, disability, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> The practical application is reflected in the firm's recruitment and employment policies, which are designed to embrace diversity and provide fair and equitable treatment for individuals, ensuring no misuse or waste of human resources alongside fairness and opportunity for all.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I really doubt most people would make the negative connection without it being pointed out and to pull the advert because the guy is black would be absurd.


 How do you think the power of advertising works? Do you think it relies on concious thought? It works through association, suggestion and repetition.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> http://www.portobellodance.org.uk/artistic-director/
> http://bbo.org.uk/news/29/
> 
> He isn't just some actor or stock photo model.
> ...


It is fucking lucky that he is a good dancer cos he is sure as hell not going to get a job with Strutt & Parker.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I really doubt most people would make the negative connection without it being pointed out and to pull the advert because the guy is black would be absurd..


you're actually making me quite angry now so I'm going to leave you alone. But not without first shouting this at you

DO YOU REALLY THINK THIS WAS A FUCKING ACCIDENT? REALLY? WTFUCKING FUCK?


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Good posts MrSki . As I said in my _first _post on this thread, that lack of ethnic faces is concerning and something there'd be more point in focusing on. The advert though I still think is pure coincidence and a separate matter altogether. The people behind that advert won't be the people in HR and I doubt an advert for a single branch would have been seen by the top level of management.

As others have pointed out it's probably been put together by an outside agency.


littlebabyjesus said:


> you're actually making me quite angry now so I'm going to leave you alone. But not without first shouting this at you
> 
> DO YOU REALLY THINK THIS WAS A FUCKING ACCIDENT? REALLY? WTFUCKING FUCK?


Yes, if you had read the thread you'd see that I honestly do. I'm not sure why it makes you angry or why you feel the need for aggression though.

Knowing know that the bloke is the artistic director of the local dance academy, do you think they went out to find a black person for the advert to make some naff point or do you think it could just be that the person who is a local creative happened to be black?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Good posts MrSki . As I said in my _first _post on this thread, that lack of ethnic faces is concerning and something there'd be more point in focusing on. The advert though I still think is pure coincidence and a separate matter altogether.


 You don't think there is any possible correlation between the two things?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Knowing know that the bloke is the artistic director of the local dance academy, do you think they went out to find a black person for the advert to make some naff point or do you think it could just be that the person who is a local creative happened to be black?


Ergh. Creative is an adjective, not a noun.  

That aside, it's probably a link-up with a wider thing they're doing, tbh. Displaying themselves as supporting the local community that they are endeavouring to destroy in the name of profit. But that does not change anything.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> You don't think there is any possible correlation between the two things?


It's possible there is a correlation but I think the simple explanation behind the advert is far more likely than them scouting the local dance groups specifically hoping to find a black person to illustrate whatever vague point about ? Well assuming this is planned what is the point that people think they *are* trying to make anyway? What is their objective if we go along with that line of reasoning?


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> It's possible there is a correlation but I think the simple explanation behind the advert is far more likely than them scouting the local dance groups specifically hoping to find a black person to illustrate whatever vague point about ? Well assuming this is planned what is the point that people think they *are* trying to make anyway? What is their objective if we go along with that line of reasoning?


Put your property in a nice safe white pair of hands?


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

For a company with over two hundred employees in London who are all white, don't you think it strange that they use a black person in an advert? The advert would have been agreed by the company even if an agency came up with the concept.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> It's possible there is a correlation but I think the simple explanation behind the advert is far more likely than them scouting the local dance groups specifically hoping to find a black person to illustrate whatever vague point about white estate agents being better than black dancers (what is the point that people think they *are* trying to make anyway?)



The simple, and devoid of relevant, contextual analysis is the point. You rock up in NH and you simply have an idea to sell flats? You make an ad which simply purports to understand locals yet you perpetuate negative stereotypes about some of those locals? Eh?  The fact that people like these think they can rock up into any area in the Uk and represent the locals out of context and without responsibility boils my piss. The fact that some people refuse to hold them responsible and make excuses for them is equally piss boiling.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

MrSki said:


> For a company with over two hundred employees in London who are all white, don't you think it strange that they use a black person in an advert? The advert would have been agreed by the company even if an agency came up with the concept.


I think it's strange if they have over 200 employees in London and they're all white. Something to be probed for sure. The advert is a red herring here though IMHO.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I think it's strange if they have over 200 employees in London and they're all white. Something to be probed for sure. The advert is a red herring here though IMHO.



Because you refuse to see the correlation or even the possibility of one here. God only knows why.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 20, 2014)

Some people were born to pick cotton.  Not racist though, the black kid picking cotton is a well respected member of the community and as many as 7 people seeing the billboard will recognise him as such 

"Black man dancing with his impeccable natural rhythm" is flat out racist stereotyping whichever way you look at it, and "suited white man in respectable (!) important (!!) employment" becomes one when placed in direct comparison.  It doesn't matter that in this case the stereotype of the dancer happens to be correct, to any viewer who doesn't know that the ad shows two "real" people, it's simply the propagation of a nasty, lazy, racist message.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

You might have misunderstood me by liking my post, tbh, salem. By saying I think it is probably a link-up with local stuff, I'm saying that it's even worse than casual racism. It's 'socially destructive business hides behind social projects'. It's more sinister even than stupid, careless racism.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I think it's strange if they have over 200 employees in London and they're all white. Something to be probed for sure. The advert is a red herring here though IMHO.


What a black man is born to be a dancer but the white man is born to be a Strutt & Parker estate agent? Are you being serious? Look at the facts. I suppose they could have put a picture of a black person working in McDonalds but that would not have been so subtle.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

MrSki said:


> What a black man is born to be a dancer but the white man is born to be a Strutt & Parker estate agent? Are you being serious? Look at the facts. I suppose they could have put a picture of a black person working in McDonalds but that would not have been so subtle.


This is the democratic aspirational face of exactly that shit though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

MrSki said:


> What a black man is born to be a dancer but the white man is born to be a Strutt & Parker estate agent? Are you being serious? Look at the facts. I suppose they could have put a picture of a black person working in McDonalds but that would not have been so subtle.


"These fuckers can't afford to live here any more, so move here!" *Beaming estate agent*


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> .. "Black man dancing with his impeccable natural rhythm" is flat out racist stereotyping whichever way you look at it, and "suited white man in respectable (!) important (!!) employment" becomes one when placed in direct comparison.  It doesn't matter that in this case the stereotype of the dancer happens to be correct, to any viewer who doesn't know that the ad shows two "real" people, it's simply the propagation of a nasty, lazy, racist message.



Suited white man whose specific employment means he is widely distrusted and generally abhorred .. more like ..


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Suited white man whose specific employment means he is widely distrusted and generally abhorred .. more like ..


Yeah, that's the message.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Suited white man whose specific employment means he is widely distrusted and generally abhorred .. more like ..


Rubbish. There is a reason estate agents, especially those peddling expensive housing to rich people, wear suits. You must always at least match in formality the clothing of your clients. You should know this.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, that's the message.


As you and a couple of others have pointed out plenty of times in this thread, the preconceptions of the viewers of the advert affect its meaning to them. Estate agents are trusted less than politicians.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Suited white man whose specific employment means he is widely distrusted and generally abhorred .. more like ..



...but hey, you can trust us...oh look a dancing Black man!  Phew!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As you and a couple of others have pointed out plenty of times in this thread, the preconceptions of the viewers of the advert affect its meaning to them. Estate agents are trusted less than politicians.


What is your point here?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As you and a couple of others have pointed out plenty of times in this thread, the preconceptions of the viewers of the advert affect its meaning to them. Estate agents are trusted less than politicians.


Ok, give us your reading of it then.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is your point here?


That the meaning of the ad, when actual public preconceptions are taken into account is not to escalate the importance of the scummy white estate agent over the locally known dance professional.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As you and a couple of others have pointed out plenty of times in this thread, the preconceptions of the viewers of the advert affect its meaning to them. Estate agents are trusted less than politicians.


That wasn't my argument at all btw. It wasn't about pre-concpetions in the minds of viewers. It was about the pre-existence of a field of signification that the advertisers were aware of and tried to play.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> That the meaning of the ad, when actual public preconceptions are taken into account is not to escalate the importance of the scummy white estate agent over the locally known dance professional.


That's what you think they were aiming for or what you think they achieved?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> That the meaning of the ad, when actual public preconceptions are taken into account is not to escalate the importance of the scummy white estate agent over the locally known dance professional.


look at the ad. do you think they think they are scummy? 

Remember the target audience here. People who can afford housing that costs upwards of 1 million pounds.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> look at the ad. do you think they think they are scummy?
> 
> Remember the target audience here. People who can afford housing that costs upwards of 1 million pounds.


Av. sale in london = £2.65 million - as they boast.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Av. sale in london = £2.65 million - as they boast.


Is that their average sale? Unfortunately that makes sense. They specialise in West London. So I was way out earlier on my estimation of the commission on one sale. 1 per cent is standard. That's an average of £26k per sale.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That wasn't my argument at all btw. It wasn't about pre-concpetions in the minds of viewers. It was about the pre-existence of a field of signification that the advertisers were aware of and tried to play.


If the public don't perceive this "field of signification" it has no effect.

As Strutt etc are a national group and I assume they are advertising nationally with local emphasis, it would be interesting to see other adverts to see if they also raise hackles.

I am not saying this ad is not dubious, patently as it has got so many hackles raised it must be. There is also the question of whether the ads producers knew that and were counting on extending publicity through the viral nature of the resulting outraged discussions on social media.

And as Estate Agents are generally thought of as the scum of the earth they may not have minded a bit of banter about the suitability of their advert. Their reputation could hardly be lower.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Good posts MrSki . As I said in my _first _post on this thread, that lack of ethnic faces is concerning and something there'd be more point in focusing on. The advert though I still think is pure coincidence and a separate matter altogether. The people behind that advert won't be the people in HR and I doubt an advert for a single branch would have been seen by the top level of management.
> 
> As others have pointed out it's probably been put together by an outside agency.
> 
> ...




You think that an advertising agency is unaware of the symbolism in their adverts?  Come on, as stated before, semiotics, Barthes etc is first year degree graphic design stuff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If the public don't perceive this "field of signification" it has no effect.
> 
> As Strutt etc are a national group and I assume they are advertising nationally with local emphasis, it would be interesting to see other adverts to see if they also raise hackles.
> 
> ...


I don't think you understand the market. You also misunderstand reputation and its importance. Sure, estate agents have a low reputation, but if you want to buy/sell  a house in Notting Hill, who do you go to?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> There is also the question of whether the ads producers knew that and were counting on extending publicity through the viral nature of the resulting outraged discussions on social media.
> .



That makes it more sinister surely?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You think that an advertising agency is unaware of the symbolism in their adverts?  Come on, as stated before, semiotics, Barthes etc is first year degree graphic design stuff.



Way before that...ways of reading and representation are taught pre-GSCE.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If the public don't perceive this "field of signification" it has no effect.
> 
> As Strutt etc are a national group and I assume they are advertising nationally with local emphasis, it would be interesting to see other adverts to see if they also raise hackles.
> 
> ...


If it _constructs _it then it means it wasn't fully based on pre-conceived ideas. Why do you think i kept saying _produce_?  Because that is what this is doing again - producing the myth(s) and extending them into the future.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Way before that...ways of reading and representation are taught pre-GSCE.


And even before you're taught it, you _understand it_. We're symbolic creatures. It's what we do.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And even before you're taught it, you _understand it_. We're symbolic creatures. It's what we do.



Absolutely. For many though until it is studied the language and forum to explore it isn't there. Some/many people simply getting by and need a platform to encourage these discussions and the validation to articulate their thoughts/feelings.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Absolutely. For many though until it is studied the language and forum to explore it isn't there. Some many people simply getting by and need a platform to encourage these discussions and the validation to articulate their thoughts/feelings.


Yeah. Good bit of that: you may not have the words to express exactly why, but you can feel that something is wrong before you are able to express it. 

 Bad bit is that you can internalise this shit. And even giving the chance that someone might internalise this stuff is itself un for fucking giveable. 

Reallly, the 1970s called and wants its racism back.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> That makes it more sinister surely?


Sure, but would you put it past them?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think you understand the market. You also misunderstand reputation and its importance. Sure, estate agents have a low reputation, but if you want to buy/sell  a house in Notting Hill, who do you go to?



Would the ad have been received more positively if they had abandoned the local dancer and instead used Louie Spence?

But of course to make the point that their people are specialists in selling houses you don't really need someone else in the ad at all which makes it odd to me that they had someone else.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Would the ad have been received more positively if they had abandoned the local dancer and instead used Louie Spence?
> 
> But of course to make the point that their people are specialists in selling houses you don't really need someone else in the ad at all which makes it odd to me that they had someone else.


What?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Would the ad have been received more positively if they had abandoned the local dancer and instead used Louie Spence?
> 
> But of course to make the point that their people are specialists in selling houses you don't really need someone else in the ad at all which makes it odd to me that they had someone else.



Another "if it was different, would it be different" argument.  Wtf?  Seriously, have a word with yourself.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> The simple, and devoid of relevant, contextual analysis is the point. You rock up in NH and you simply have an idea to sell flats? You make an ad which simply purports to understand locals yet you perpetuate negative stereotypes about some of those locals? Eh?  The fact that people like these think they can rock up into any area in the Uk and represent the locals out of context and without responsibility boils my piss. The fact that some people refuse to hold them responsible and make excuses for them is equally piss boiling.


I agree with a lot of that. I'm not defending estate agents in general. It's fairly standard practice to sponsor local school fairs, football teams, Christmas fairs etc. It's insincere, they're damaging the local community. I agree that the purpose of this advert is to show that they are part of the local community, part of the social fabric as much as the guy who teaches the local kids to dance (come buy from us and that could be *you*, your kids could be learning to dance!). It's nothing new and I'm not saying it's a good thing.

As a company they also seem to be under represented by ethnic minorities. I'm not defending that either. It may be that they actively promote the employment of white people only or more likely that the culture of the company favours white employees. I don't know. Maybe there are other structural reasons why ethnic minorities don't get into estate agency. Either way it's a bit shady and bringing attention to it is no bad thing.

I think that having an advert with a black guy while apparently not employing any is unfortunate and can be used as a stick to beat them - if someone gratified that to bring attention to the fact I'd not complain.

However I don't think that the intention of this advert was a racist message and I think that if the artistic director was white the advert would have a white dancer and a white estate agent.


littlebabyjesus said:


> You might have misunderstood me by liking my post, tbh, salem. By saying I think it is probably a link-up with local stuff, I'm saying that it's even worse than casual racism. It's 'socially destructive business hides behind social projects'. It's more sinister even than stupid, careless racism.


No not at all - I agree with the broad point about them trying to integrate with the local community, I'm sure their corporate social responsibility policy is as sincere as their equal opportunities one.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Another "if it was different, would it be different" argument.  Wtf?  Seriously, have a word with yourself.


How it might be different, and if that would avoid offence but still make the point that seems central to the ad is a perfectly worthy line to argue. It is impossible to argue what if the estate agent was black? because in their firm they have no black agency employees so that would be misleading and offensive so another question is if they have to use a dancer, (though why I have no idea) what if he was white and widely recognisable?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> How it might be different, and if that would avoid offence but still make the point that seems central to the ad is a perfectly worthy line to argue. It is impossible to argue what if the estate agent was black? because in their firm they have no black agency employees so that would be misleading and offensive so another question is if they have to use a dancer, (though why I have no idea) what if he was white and widely recognisable?


Because if it was different it would be different. Wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

There's a lot I can agree with in that, salem, except the idea that it's an accident. It's not. And given the target audience (remember, average sales 2.6 million), they are representing to their audience what they want to show as different about Notting Hill. It's like Kensington, but with added black people (but they're not like you and me - they dance for a living, while we _make money_). There is no accident in any of this.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

What if england lost to scotland 4-3 on tuesday - would that effect the actual result?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What if england lost to scotland 4-3 on tuesday - would that effect the actual result?


affect


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> How it might be different, and if that would avoid offence but still make the point that seems central to the ad is a perfectly worthy line to argue. It is impossible to argue what if the estate agent was black? because in their firm they have no black agency employees so that would be misleading and offensive so another question is if they have to use a dancer, (though why I have no idea) what if he was white and widely recognisable?



did you type this with a straight face?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> I agree with a lot of that. I'm not defending estate agents in general. It's fairly standard practice to sponsor local school fairs, football teams, Christmas fairs etc. It's insincere, they're damaging the local community. I agree that the purpose of this advert is to show that they are part of the local community, part of the social fabric as much as the guy who teaches the local kids to dance (come buy from us and that could be *you*, your kids could be learning to dance!). It's nothing new and I'm not saying it's a good thing.
> 
> As a company they also seem to be under represented by ethnic minorities. I'm not defending that either. It may be that they actively promote the employment of white people only or more likely that the culture of the company favours white employees. I don't know. Maybe there are other structural reasons why ethnic minorities don't get into estate agency. Either way it's a bit shady and bringing attention to it is no bad thing.
> 
> ...




Again.  You fail to place the ad in any context.  As if it was floating in a vacuum in space.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2014)

Salem, please admit at least that these ads are aimed at very, very, very rich people and nobody else. We can move on from there, perhaps. Remember, they're not aimed at anyone not in the top 1 per cent of earners in the country. 99 per cent or more - they don't care.

And the ads are nakedly identifying the client with the estate agent, not the dancer. If you don't see that, you don't see anything. Remember that they are mostly fucks who work for banks - there is a very narrow demographic of people who can afford to buy in Notting Hill.

Let me put it as crudely as I can: Has to wear a suit = me

The estate agent on the right is identified with the client. The dancer on the left is the promise of diversity. That's what they are aiming at. It's really cuntish even without the racist stereotypes.


----------



## salem (Nov 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Salem, please admit at least that these ads are aimed at very, very, very rich people and nobody else. We can move on from there, perhaps. Remember, they're not aimed at anyone not in the top 1 per cent of earners in the country. 99 per cent or more - they don't care.
> 
> And the ads are nakedly identifying the client with the estate agent, not the dancer. If you don't see that, you don't see anything. Remember that they are mostly fucks who work for banks - there is a very narrow demographic of people who can afford to buy in Notting Hill.



What's this 'please admit'. I've never denied that the adverts are targeted at wealthier people. I don't know whether it'd be the top 1% or whatever but yeah primarily they're going to be targeting the wealthy. Plenty of those houses are still owned by black people though and a lot of people who bought back in the day are at an age to sell up and retire or downsize or whatever and estate agents are just as much advertising for people to sell through them as to buy through them.

I think the advert is trying to make us think the estate agent is the responsible person who will look after the sale honestly etc. I think they've balanced that against a more 'fun/creative' type who might be the person that someone moving to Notting Hill might want to be. I think they're trying to play on the coolness of the area as compared to say Canary Wharf or something like that. I think having someone from an artistic/creative/interesting field to counterbalance the boring but reliable world of the estate agent is the main thing for this advert to work. The advert would still work just fine and have the same message if he was white.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2014)

Do you work for them?


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

salem said:


> Plenty of those houses are still owned by black people though and a lot of people who bought back in the day are at an age to sell up and retire or downsize or whatever and estate agents are just as much advertising for people to sell through them as to buy through them.


Surely if that was the case the would make sure they had black estate agents as well as white? This company should be exposed for being the least racially diverse in London town.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 20, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Surely if that was the case the would make sure they had black estate agents as well as white? This company should be exposed for being the least racially diverse in London town.


The KKK has a more diverse policy.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

MrSki said:


> The KKK has a more diverse policy.


But you know when these estate agents say _born to **fit in bullshit here** _- man, they _mean _it.


----------



## salem (Nov 21, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Do you work for them?


Not at all.


MrSki said:


> Surely if that was the case the would make sure they had black estate agents as well as white? This company should be exposed for being the least racially diverse in London town.


Expose them, I've said it many times in the thread and from my very first post on my thread that is the kind of thing to target. If something can be shown factually it's a lot easier to make a coherent point then by arguing on something which is opinion and easy to dispute.

Perhaps editor could post a blog piece on this? Or there seem to be plenty of media types on here, could one of those use it? I dunno.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

Looks like they're having a bit of a hard time on Twitter: https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=struttandparker


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

The guy who took the photo isn't happy either:


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

More:


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2014)

Even the folks on that beacon of tolerance and fairmindedness, Shit London, have got up in arms about it on Facebook


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2014)

salem said:


> Not at all.



It's the only explanation I can think of.


----------



## Rocket no.9 (Nov 21, 2014)

That's all, folks!!

*Strutt & Parker pulls advertising campaign after complaints*

http://t.co/3hJdG9yJFO


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

N


Rocket no.9 said:


> That's all, folks!!
> 
> *Strutt & Parker pulls advertising campaign after complaints*
> 
> http://t.co/3hJdG9yJFO


Maybe there still is the issue of their curiously all white staffing levels to attend to?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2014)

editor said:


> N
> Maybe there still is the issue of their curiously all white staffing levels to attend to?


this will run & run


----------



## ddraig (Nov 21, 2014)

> Yesterday afternoon, a spokesperson from Strutt & Parker said: “We are aware that we have encountered some negative feedback with regards to one of our local advertising campaigns in Notting Hill.
> 
> “This campaign was developed to reflect the amazing diversity and vibrancy of the Notting Hill area.


"vibrancy"


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Entrepreneurs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2014)

> “This campaign was developed to reflect the amazing diversity and vibrancy of the Notting Hill area.
> 
> “To produce the advertising campaign we worked with three popular and local entrepreneurs who appeared in the adverts:* a dance teacher, a chef and an interior designer.*
> 
> “They are all real people just like our estate agents who work in Notting Hill.



Anyone seen the other two?


----------



## Rocket no.9 (Nov 21, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Anyone seen the other two?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 21, 2014)

did an image search and nothing coming up
loads about their big budget for advertising tho


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2014)

ddraig said:


> "vibrancy"



Wankers


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "These fuckers can't afford to live here any more, so move here!" *Beaming estate agent*



An attitude only too obviously reflected in the increasing prohibitions put on Carnival.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 21, 2014)

It is easy to register on the Property Industry Eye and continue or repeat the arguments from here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Suited white man whose specific employment means he is widely distrusted and generally abhorred .. more like ..



As always you're missing the point. Sometimes, I suspect, deliberately, because no-one could actually be as naive as you present yourself as, and have survived to adulthood.
The advert is targeted. To the people the advert is targeted at - i.e. home-buyers - an estate agent isn't the pond-scum the rest of us view them as, they're a facilitator. presenting a white male, suited and booted, to exemplify that facilitator sends a message. Using a black person as the antithesis (in the conventional sense) to that message also sends a message. Attempting, as the ad does, to "naturalise" the roles of each person also sends a message.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rubbish. There is a reason estate agents, especially those peddling expensive housing to rich people, wear suits. You must always at least match in formality the clothing of your clients. You should know this.



There's also a reason the estate agent in the ad is white, outside of any binary opposition between white estate agent and black dancer that's been set up. It's because advertisers know that "black man in a primary assertive role" generates as much discomfort as it does approbation, and to the market Shitte & PIssflap are trying sell into - affluent white middle England - it would signify "the world turned upside-down".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As you and a couple of others have pointed out plenty of times in this thread, the preconceptions of the viewers of the advert affect its meaning to them. Estate agents are trusted less than politicians.



It's not about preconceptions, it's about the fact that images in adverts signify particular messages - act as shorthand for them, if you will - and as I've made clear, to the market that ad is aimed at, estate agents aren't rat-fink motherfuckers, they're facilitators of the residential ambitions of that market.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2014)

i now expect all the pc gone mad people will come back to this thread and admit that they might have been wrong. Because that allways happens.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not about preconceptions, it's about the fact that images in adverts signify particular messages - act as shorthand for them, if you will - and as I've made clear, to the market that ad is aimed at, estate agents aren't rat-fink motherfuckers, they're facilitators of the residential ambitions of that market.


As it happens, I have been a house buyer and a house seller, even then estate agents rated as scum, I had to line up three against each other before I got a cost rate I was prepared to work with!

And preconceptions do make a big difference, the components of the ad conveyed different things to different people on this very thread!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If the public don't perceive this "field of signification" it has no effect.



You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. Advertising works on the basis that an image carries more than a single message - that an image doesn't just signify its' base meaning of "this is a basket of green beans", that the image also signifies freshness, health and nature, as well as a host of other things.
You're confusing the fact that *you* find signification irrelevant or incomprehensible with the known fact of the effectiveness of manipulating signification in advertising.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As it happens, I have been a house buyer and a house seller, even then estate agents rated as scum, I had to line up three against each other before I got a cost rate I was prepared to work with!
> 
> And preconceptions do make a big difference, the components of the ad conveyed different things to different people on this very thread!



No, I think it's more that some people here have a greater interest/awareness of how advertising works, plus can deconstruct an ad and place its narrative in context  better than others.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> No, I think it's more that some people here have a greater interest/awareness of how advertising works, plus can deconstruct an ad and place its narrative in context  better than others.


Well, I disagree.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As it happens, I have been a house buyer and a house seller, even then estate agents rated as scum, I had to line up three against each other before I got a cost rate I was prepared to work with!
> 
> And preconceptions do make a big difference, the components of the ad conveyed different things to different people on this very thread!



That's bugger all to do with preconceptions, and everything to do with some people having the skill to "read" adverts, and others not. As littlebabyjesus remarked, this stuff about signification, it's secondary school sociology stuff that a few of you seem to have missed out on, because the rest of the posters on the thread pretty much all arrived at the same opinion, so "different things to different people" is overstating the amount of difference in views. The difference is a simple binary opposition.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Well, I disagree.



Well, you would.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 21, 2014)

The International Business Times are also running the story where comments can be left too.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/strutt-parker-racist-advert-dancing-black-man-withdrawn-1475952


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's bugger all to do with preconceptions, and everything to do with some people having the skill to "read" adverts, and others not. As littlebabyjesus remarked, this stuff about signification, it's secondary school sociology stuff that a few of you seem to have missed out on, because the rest of the posters on the thread pretty much all arrived at the same opinion, so "different things to different people" is overstating the amount of difference in views. The difference is a simple binary opposition.



Perhaps you are aware the communication process for a message, goes like this:

1. Message conception
2. Message encoding
3. Message transmission
4. Noise
5. Message reception
6. Message decoding
7. message reception

Message encoding and decoding relies on values morals, languages, preconceptions of the sender and receiver, if the sender wants their message to be understood as intended by its recipients they have to encode it using the values morals, languages, and preconceptions of their intended recipient otherwise it will not convey the meaning the sender intended.

Simplistically speaking, sending a message in French to a non French speaking English audience would be a waste of time and money.

Preconceptions of sender and receiver, do matter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As it happens, I have been a house buyer and a house seller, even then estate agents rated as scum, I had to line up three against each other before I got a cost rate I was prepared to work with!
> 
> And preconceptions do make a big difference, the components of the ad conveyed different things to different people on this very thread!


Right, so despite thinking they're scum, you still worked with one. 

As for your second sentence, I really don't know what you're getting at. The ad conveyed exactly the same thing to most of us on this thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Perhaps you are aware the communication process for a message, goes like this:
> 
> 1. Message conception
> 2. Message encoding
> ...



Where do those preconceptions come from?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Where do those preconceptions come from?


In the case of both sender and receiver, from their life's experiences mainly.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right, so despite thinking they're scum, you still worked with one.


For a very low price yes.



littlebabyjesus said:


> As for your second sentence, I really don't know what you're getting at. The ad conveyed exactly the same thing to most of us on this thread.



I am not sure it did, it got many people's hackles up immediately while some, a minority, didn't immediately see serious racism there. In my case I am happy to go along with others because I believe their spidey senses are probably more honed on the racism front than mine, but initially I just saw a dancer and an estate agent, and I liked the dancer more than the estate agent (because as I have mentioned, estate agents are scum) which made me wonder why they had crafted such an odd advert.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> For a very low price yes.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure it did, it got many people's hackles up immediately while some, a minority, didn't immediately see *serious* racism there.


 Surely you mean 'overt'... all racism is serious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Perhaps you are aware the communication process for a message, goes like this:
> 
> 1. Message conception
> 2. Message encoding
> ...



Thanks for the GCSE-level explanation. here's one for you: Advertising isn't a message in the way that a written text is, it is *deliberately designed *to have multiple meanings, meanings that often are designed not to be overt, that are designed to signify meanings to particular groups of viewers.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Surely you mean 'overt'... all racism is serious.


Ok


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right, so despite thinking they're scum, you still worked with one.
> 
> As for your second sentence, I really don't know what you're getting at. The ad conveyed exactly the same thing to most of us on this thread.



Quite. Most respondents to the thread saw the fairly obvious racism inherent to the ad, a few (most of whom appeared to have pre-existing issues about things being "politically-correct) attempted to claim that there was no racist intent. At most, the "difference" was a simple binary opposition between two poles.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2014)

MrSki said:


> The International Business Times are also running the story where comments can be left too.
> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/strutt-parker-racist-advert-dancing-black-man-withdrawn-1475952


They could have credited Rocket no.9 for his quote


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks for the GCSE-level explanation. here's one for you: Advertising isn't a message in the way that a written text is, it is *deliberately designed *to have multiple meanings, meanings that often are designed not to be overt, that are designed to signify meanings to particular groups of viewers.


Always have to have a little dig don't you.
The steps are just as valid for imagery in advertising.
Obviously, assuming they did not intend to offend, someone at the company or their ad agency did not realise how this particular ad would be decoded, hence they have been forced to pull it.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> In the case of both sender and receiver, from their life's experiences mainly.



All about the individual? No wider social influences at all?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Always have to have a little dig don't you.
> The steps are just as valid for imagery in advertising.
> Obviously, assuming they did not intend to offend, someone at the company or their ad agency did not realise how this particular ad would be decoded, hence they have been forced to pull it.


people are very patient with your tedious banal observations tbf


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Always have to have a little dig don't you.
> The steps are just as valid for imagery in advertising.
> Obviously, assuming they did not intend to offend, someone at the company or their ad agency did not realise how this particular ad would be decoded, hence they have been forced to pull it.




As was said earlier - if anyone working for an ad agency was not aware of the meaning of this image, they have no business working in visual design.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> As was said earlier - if anyone working for an ad agency was not aware of the meaning of this image, they have no business working in visual design.


Indeed.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 21, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> All about the individual? No wider social influences at all?


Just to respond to this, social influences surely work on individuals. Individuals decoded this advert on their own with any conditioning they have, preconceptions, opinions etc at work. That plenty of them came to the same conclusion suggests influences were fairly uniform among the recipients. 

It would be interesting to know how many people were involved in the production of the ad who thought it would be ok, in the company themselves we have an all white makeup, wonder if it was the same at the ad agency?


----------



## fletcher (Dec 17, 2014)

salem said:


> What's this 'please admit'. I've never denied that the adverts are targeted at wealthier people. I don't know whether it'd be the top 1% or whatever but yeah primarily they're going to be targeting the wealthy. Plenty of those houses are still owned by black people though and a lot of people who bought back in the day are at an age to sell up and retire or downsize or whatever and estate agents are just as much advertising for people to sell through them as to buy through them.
> 
> I think the advert is trying to make us think the estate agent is the responsible person who will look after the sale honestly etc. I think they've balanced that against a more 'fun/creative' type who might be the person that someone moving to Notting Hill might want to be. I think they're trying to play on the coolness of the area as compared to say Canary Wharf or something like that. I think having someone from an artistic/creative/interesting field to counterbalance the boring but reliable world of the estate agent is the main thing for this advert to work. The advert would still work just fine and have the same message if he was white.



You're having a laugh


----------



## fletcher (Dec 17, 2014)

I can't believe some of the apologist crap written above. The background to this ad must have run something like this - Strutt and Parker - "let's run an ad showing how upmarket we are" - "OK, Show a chap in a suit representing our office" - Picture of (white) man in suit submitted.Strutt: "What do people think of when you mention the name "Notting Hill?" Answer: Carnival. OK, What is the Carnival about?" Several minutes of thought, Oh Yes, The Notting Hill Riots. Oh dear. Strutt: "Now let's remind everyone how Notting Hill has moved on and up since the Riots - OK. Let's show how a rioter has moved on". "Erm, how can we portray him? After a few seconds of Estate agent limited thought and moving to a racially suggested image - Ah! Got it. He would now be - a performing artist" (also implying NOT by any means an Estate agent).Picture of (black) man dancing appears for comparison. Now that is either Estate agent ignorance of the most incredible magnitude, or stereotyping. In the context of this estate agent operating in Notting Hill as a location, it is a racial stereotype.


----------



## editor (Sep 18, 2017)

Whining fucktards only made £18m profit last year.
Strutt & Parker suffers after stamp duty hikes rock London market


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2022)

Eight years ago!

Nice to see it's feastured here too 








						Racial Stereotypes in Advertising
					

Racial stereotypes come to mind almost automatically, consisting of views we hold about all members of a certain race, without taking into account the individual. These views have been ingrained in…




					badstudentweb.wordpress.com


----------

