April 2, 2008
BrainTrust Query: How should mixed race affect target marketing plans?
By David Morse, President & CEO, New American Dimensions, LLC
A recent article in the New York Times entitled Who Are We? New Dialogue on Mixed Race discusses a consumer segment that we don’t hear about much: people who don’t neatly fit into the five racial buckets now being used by the U.S. Census.
According to the article, “The old categories are weakening … as immigration and the advancing age of marriage in the United States fuel a steady rise in the number of interracial marriages. The 2000 Census counted 3.1 million interracial couples, or about 6 percent of married couples. For the first time, the Census that year allowed respondents to identify themselves as being two or more races, a category that now includes 7.3 million Americans, or about 3 percent of the population.”
It’s not yet a big segment, but it’s one that’s growing in terms of visibility and identity, in part fueled by the mixed race heritage of Senator Barack Obama.
Though some choose a multiple race identity, others tend to stick to a one-race label; the decision of choosing a racial identity is often a deeply personal one. According to the article, racial identification “is influenced by how and where they were reared, how others perceive them, what they look like and how they themselves come to embrace their identity.”
Discussion Questions: Have the old racial categories become irrelevant? What are the implications for those companies that are specifically targeting specific racial groups with a marketing campaign?
[Author’s commentary] In 2007, New American Dimensions conducted focus groups
and in-depth interviews with mixed race people between the ages of 14 and 28
in Los Angeles. Some key findings:
- The number one advantage of being multi-racial
is learning from an early age to be highly adaptable. Most have a diverse
mix of friends, even beyond their own ethnic mix. Most friends are based
on subculture and common interest, rather than ethnicity. - Most feel they have more latitude
to try different things (activities, foods, events, dating other ethnicities)
than their full-blood/full-culture counterparts.
- Many
felt pressured to choose a culture, or to self-classify as one primary ethnicity.
This came up big in dating relationships (i.e. “You have to tell my parents
you’re Puerto Rican or Dominican!”) Some did express never feeling fully
accepted and craving a grounded identity. A majority resented always being
assumed to be Mexican. - The number one complaint was the emphasis that people place on race
and on being mixed and hate being defined by this. Mixed race people are
constantly being asked “what they are.” As a result, many reach out to other
cultures or subcultures where they feel less attention is given to race.
Hispanics, who are largely of meztiso or mixed race origin, are the nation’s largest and near-fastest growing minority, a group for whom the current racial buckets make no sense. In the 2000 Census, 42 percent of Hispanics, a total of 15 million people, chose the Census category “some other race” (SOR).
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Sad to say I think we’re far from progress on the issue of race. The primary campaign of Senator Barack Obama offers a case in point.
The Senator was billed in some circles as the first “post-racial” candidate yet his campaign has caused America to overtly refocus on racial issues in a way that one couldn’t have imagined just a few years ago. In fact even Obama himself had to give his “race speech” as a means of denying a close association with some of the positions of his minister which were seen by some as a racist.
This year the South Carolina Democratic primary was defined by race and every attack on Obama’s campaign, before and after, has been viewed through a racial filter.
When Geraldine Ferraro said she would not have been the vice presidential nominee several years ago, nobody batted an eye. When she said Obama would not be as popular as he is if he wasn’t African-American she was tarred and feathered in the media.
Here in Detroit the Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, has been indicted on numerous counts of perjury. His response in this year’s State of the City speech–use of the “N word” and references to lynch mobs–i.e. a racially based defense.
And herein lies the real answer. We won’t become a postracial society until everyone quits milking the racism cow. Senator Obama constantly describes his mother as, “a white woman from Kansas.” What kind of a person was she? We don’t know. It apparently either isn’t important to him or he doesn’t believe it is, or should be, important to us.
When he was asked if Bill Clinton was in fact the “first Black president” he responded, “I don’t know I’ve never seen him dance.” A funny line, but only because it appeals to a lethal racial stereotype.
Perhaps we are on the verge of a revolution but we still need to get passed referring to people like Senator Obama and Tiger Woods as mixed race. The day we discuss Obama’s ideas rather than his ancestry we will have made a real step to being a post-racial society.
From my observations and experience, issues surrounding race tend to diminish with higher education and income levels. The more people understand other people and feel comfortable about their own financial status, the less likely they are to seek labels to insulate themselves against “others,” based on race or other definitions.
I believe the rich dialogue brought on by both Senator Obama’s and Senator Clinton’s candidacies is beneficial toward getting our country to move beyond race and gender stereotypes. I am optimistic that we are on the right track in this regard.
The marketing question will, in turn, become moot as cultures mix together both via interracial marriages and simply through proximity. The focus should always be on listening to what the customer is saying and observing what they are doing. That is always the recipe for marketing success.
From my view, those that continue utilizing race as an issue or an item of interest are those that stand to profit from its divisive nature to begin with. Most don’t see it. Yet, for the few it remains an issue and likely always will. As long as we find the stereotypical acceptable, it will be.
karenk makes a good point in regards to Easter dresses. The evolution there will be when we as retailers recognize a demand from ‘our customers’ without labeling its reason other than simply understanding that a specific store or group of stores sell some items better than others. These pure merchandising realities should be recognized and those needs met simply as consumer demand rather than oriented by the group that may or may not tend to purchase specific items.
Nevertheless, there remain underlying racial issues that will likely remain as those that seek to drive a wedge will. The banter from the political this season has been rather surprising. It has been just as surprising as the analytics of the results of the process to date where this factor has been taken into consideration, neither of which has had a broader appeal to people more than it has to distance specific groups.
As we move forward through it, it could get better or significantly worse. We all have a choice as to which direction it will take. I am hopeful for a higher road in both the political and in the retail arenas, yet I recognize that I have only my own limited role in the outcome of either.
As usual, the comments that precede me are insightful and thought provoking. I find it interesting that some feel this is a sociopolitical discussion while others are drawn to the more tangible marketing implications.
My own reactions to this discussion stray into both camps. Let’s address the more pragmatic side of marketing products first and, at the risk of invoking Ryan’s wrath for using stereotype not that far removed from Obama’s “dance” quip, I’ll use a very straightforward example.
When you are marketing a product that curls hair — you market to people with straight hair.
When you are marketing a product that straightens hair — you market to people with curly hair.
When you are marketing a product that clears sinuses — you market to people with noses.
We try to make this far too hard.
With the notable exception of allowing everyone to be “Irish” on St. Patrick’s Day, we normally manage to ignore or deny the fact that ALL of us are somehow of “mixed heritage”. My paternal grandmother used to delight in describing my own heritage as “One half Irish which makes me hot tempered as hell. One quarter Scottish which makes me stubborn as hell. And one quarter English which makes me proud of all of it!”. Now we all loved Grandma Ball dearly — but the idea that anyone whose ancestors have lived in the southern Appalachian mountains for the last hundred and fifty years or so would have that “pure” a heritage is laughable at best.
Certainly this issue, perhaps more than any other we consider, is largely influenced by “where you sit” and the perspective that creates. But it seems to me that whether we are considering the marketing questions or the social questions we have a choice — make it simple or make it complicated. And as Pop Flynn (the real Irish one) always told us: If the answer isn’t simple — it’s probably wrong.
Race or ethnic backgrounds are very broad definitions for any consumer segment.
I would like to think companies are targeting specific cultures, mindsets, or behaviors somewhat paralleling racial categories. Marketers need to target consumer behavior and mindset, and while race might be a subset; race should never be the consumer segment main definition.
For example, an auto manufacturer can target the African-American consumer segment, but to assume that all African-Americans are potential consumers of an auto brand is a mistake. The same can be said about any other racial or ethnic consumer group.
I agree with others that as the lines between the races become more blurred that racism and discrimination will become less and less commonplace. The process is probably similar to the one that occurred in the melting pot of early 1900 as Irish married Italians or Germans…when their ancestors would never have thought to do so.
Yes, having Barrack as a presidential candidate has brought some racial issues to the forefront. But by addressing these issues publicly rather than sweeping them under the rug, we are continuing the change toward equality for all that has been evolving since the Civil War.
All that said, there is still some targeting that makes sense for businesses and the consumer. When I worked for a major department store, our locations that were in predominantly African American neighborhoods sold a very disproportionate amount of very fancy Easter dresses for girls. It was only about a dozen stores out of over 100 locations but it made financial sense to outsize the buy for those locations and it helped fill the need of the customer.
As the racial lines blur these particular differences may disappear. Sending different marketing messages will likely become passe. However recognizing an unfilled customer’s need and delivering it, whatever “it” is will always be good business.
Race driven categories are definitely shrinking. You can see it at the store level. Afro American haircare is a prime example. I was speaking to several store managers about the subject and when asked if they could expand sections to increase sales, the consensus was that there is no allocation from vendors to fill sections up. We are moving towards catering to cultures as opposed to race.
With regards to marketing, I believe that most racial categories are irrelevant in this day and age. With the exception of specific demographic groups that are tied in closely with geographic regions (Chinatown for example), most groups regardless of race shop at the same stores, eat at the same restaurants and purchase the same types of products and services.
In an effort to manage marketing costs while not alienating specific groups, marketers must often play to the lowest common denominator. Trying to tailor marketing efforts towards any specific group, especially with so many labeling themselves as mixed race, will only result in vague marketing messages that will weaken the company’s brand.
Large, national, multifaceted marketing campaigns must be based on the overall landscape of the marketplace rather than specific peaks and valleys. Smaller, area specific campaigns, while better able to focus on particular groups, must also be conscious so as not to risk alienating themselves.
Have all the racial categories become irrelevant? Well, they will at some point.
Gregory Rodriguez has written a book that goes that makes this case. Its title is “Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans and Vagabonds,” a history of Mexican-American immigration. The main thesis is that assimilation and acculturation are still the rule (to a changed mainstream, to be sure), but that America itself is becoming so “mongrel” that eventually all racial, ethnic and cultural distinctions will be rendered meaningless. (I have reviewed the book for http://www.hispanictrending.net and for the February issue of Growth Strategies.)
Rodriguez writes that Mexican Americans, who have always confounded the Anglo-American racial system, will ultimately destroy it, too.
How will they destroy it? By making categorization impossible, and hence, meaningless. When racial classification is no longer sensible or even possible, neither are discrimination or affirmative action. And we have long since passed that point. I often use Tiger Woods as an illustration of this: he is a mixture of black, Asian, Caucasian, and Indian (oops, I mean Native American) ancestors, but when asked to identify himself he says, “I’m Tiger.”
So the writing is on the wall. This November it is possible that a mixed-raced candidate will either lead or be part of a major political party’s Presidential slate. In the same election it is even more than likely that Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Missouri will join California, Washington and Michigan as states that outlaw discrimination by race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. What–you thought such discrimination was already illegal and unconstitutional? It is. These state ballot initiatives have become necessary to overturn the system of ethnic favoritism called affirmative action–racial and ethnic quotas in the bestowal of public and private largesse–which has been codified in both public policy and private practice.
Eventually, the American people themselves, having become a mongrel nation, will also reject racial and ethnic categorization. Hint: watch the dramatic rise in the number of people who “decline to state” in surveys, questionnaires and the Census itself.
What does this all mean for retailers and marketers? The rise of individualism, markets of one, mass customization.
As the population growth of Hispanics, Asians and other non-Caucasians grows faster than the total population, it’s hard to avoid marketing to a more multicultural consumer in the future. It’s also apparent that defining oneself as single-race or mixed-race is becoming less important to the baby boom “echo” generation.
Some of the biggest celebrities in the U.S. today might be considered “mixed race” if the phrase didn’t sound so old-fashioned. (Think of Tiger Woods and Barack Obama for starters.) The question for retailers and other marketers is whether to use multiculturalism as a selling tool or to view it as irrelevant.
Since the 1930s there have been 8 different Betty Crocker portraits. The latest image, from 1996, seems to be a racially mixed or racially ambiguous woman. This isn’t an accident. Betty Crocker’s owners, General Mills, want the brand to have the widest appeal possible.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Sad to say I think we’re far from progress on the issue of race. The primary campaign of Senator Barack Obama offers a case in point.
The Senator was billed in some circles as the first “post-racial” candidate yet his campaign has caused America to overtly refocus on racial issues in a way that one couldn’t have imagined just a few years ago. In fact even Obama himself had to give his “race speech” as a means of denying a close association with some of the positions of his minister which were seen by some as a racist.
This year the South Carolina Democratic primary was defined by race and every attack on Obama’s campaign, before and after, has been viewed through a racial filter.
When Geraldine Ferraro said she would not have been the vice presidential nominee several years ago, nobody batted an eye. When she said Obama would not be as popular as he is if he wasn’t African-American she was tarred and feathered in the media.
Here in Detroit the Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, has been indicted on numerous counts of perjury. His response in this year’s State of the City speech–use of the “N word” and references to lynch mobs–i.e. a racially based defense.
And herein lies the real answer. We won’t become a postracial society until everyone quits milking the racism cow. Senator Obama constantly describes his mother as, “a white woman from Kansas.” What kind of a person was she? We don’t know. It apparently either isn’t important to him or he doesn’t believe it is, or should be, important to us.
When he was asked if Bill Clinton was in fact the “first Black president” he responded, “I don’t know I’ve never seen him dance.” A funny line, but only because it appeals to a lethal racial stereotype.
Perhaps we are on the verge of a revolution but we still need to get passed referring to people like Senator Obama and Tiger Woods as mixed race. The day we discuss Obama’s ideas rather than his ancestry we will have made a real step to being a post-racial society.
From my observations and experience, issues surrounding race tend to diminish with higher education and income levels. The more people understand other people and feel comfortable about their own financial status, the less likely they are to seek labels to insulate themselves against “others,” based on race or other definitions.
I believe the rich dialogue brought on by both Senator Obama’s and Senator Clinton’s candidacies is beneficial toward getting our country to move beyond race and gender stereotypes. I am optimistic that we are on the right track in this regard.
The marketing question will, in turn, become moot as cultures mix together both via interracial marriages and simply through proximity. The focus should always be on listening to what the customer is saying and observing what they are doing. That is always the recipe for marketing success.
From my view, those that continue utilizing race as an issue or an item of interest are those that stand to profit from its divisive nature to begin with. Most don’t see it. Yet, for the few it remains an issue and likely always will. As long as we find the stereotypical acceptable, it will be.
karenk makes a good point in regards to Easter dresses. The evolution there will be when we as retailers recognize a demand from ‘our customers’ without labeling its reason other than simply understanding that a specific store or group of stores sell some items better than others. These pure merchandising realities should be recognized and those needs met simply as consumer demand rather than oriented by the group that may or may not tend to purchase specific items.
Nevertheless, there remain underlying racial issues that will likely remain as those that seek to drive a wedge will. The banter from the political this season has been rather surprising. It has been just as surprising as the analytics of the results of the process to date where this factor has been taken into consideration, neither of which has had a broader appeal to people more than it has to distance specific groups.
As we move forward through it, it could get better or significantly worse. We all have a choice as to which direction it will take. I am hopeful for a higher road in both the political and in the retail arenas, yet I recognize that I have only my own limited role in the outcome of either.
As usual, the comments that precede me are insightful and thought provoking. I find it interesting that some feel this is a sociopolitical discussion while others are drawn to the more tangible marketing implications.
My own reactions to this discussion stray into both camps. Let’s address the more pragmatic side of marketing products first and, at the risk of invoking Ryan’s wrath for using stereotype not that far removed from Obama’s “dance” quip, I’ll use a very straightforward example.
When you are marketing a product that curls hair — you market to people with straight hair.
When you are marketing a product that straightens hair — you market to people with curly hair.
When you are marketing a product that clears sinuses — you market to people with noses.
We try to make this far too hard.
With the notable exception of allowing everyone to be “Irish” on St. Patrick’s Day, we normally manage to ignore or deny the fact that ALL of us are somehow of “mixed heritage”. My paternal grandmother used to delight in describing my own heritage as “One half Irish which makes me hot tempered as hell. One quarter Scottish which makes me stubborn as hell. And one quarter English which makes me proud of all of it!”. Now we all loved Grandma Ball dearly — but the idea that anyone whose ancestors have lived in the southern Appalachian mountains for the last hundred and fifty years or so would have that “pure” a heritage is laughable at best.
Certainly this issue, perhaps more than any other we consider, is largely influenced by “where you sit” and the perspective that creates. But it seems to me that whether we are considering the marketing questions or the social questions we have a choice — make it simple or make it complicated. And as Pop Flynn (the real Irish one) always told us: If the answer isn’t simple — it’s probably wrong.
Race or ethnic backgrounds are very broad definitions for any consumer segment.
I would like to think companies are targeting specific cultures, mindsets, or behaviors somewhat paralleling racial categories. Marketers need to target consumer behavior and mindset, and while race might be a subset; race should never be the consumer segment main definition.
For example, an auto manufacturer can target the African-American consumer segment, but to assume that all African-Americans are potential consumers of an auto brand is a mistake. The same can be said about any other racial or ethnic consumer group.
I agree with others that as the lines between the races become more blurred that racism and discrimination will become less and less commonplace. The process is probably similar to the one that occurred in the melting pot of early 1900 as Irish married Italians or Germans…when their ancestors would never have thought to do so.
Yes, having Barrack as a presidential candidate has brought some racial issues to the forefront. But by addressing these issues publicly rather than sweeping them under the rug, we are continuing the change toward equality for all that has been evolving since the Civil War.
All that said, there is still some targeting that makes sense for businesses and the consumer. When I worked for a major department store, our locations that were in predominantly African American neighborhoods sold a very disproportionate amount of very fancy Easter dresses for girls. It was only about a dozen stores out of over 100 locations but it made financial sense to outsize the buy for those locations and it helped fill the need of the customer.
As the racial lines blur these particular differences may disappear. Sending different marketing messages will likely become passe. However recognizing an unfilled customer’s need and delivering it, whatever “it” is will always be good business.
Race driven categories are definitely shrinking. You can see it at the store level. Afro American haircare is a prime example. I was speaking to several store managers about the subject and when asked if they could expand sections to increase sales, the consensus was that there is no allocation from vendors to fill sections up. We are moving towards catering to cultures as opposed to race.
With regards to marketing, I believe that most racial categories are irrelevant in this day and age. With the exception of specific demographic groups that are tied in closely with geographic regions (Chinatown for example), most groups regardless of race shop at the same stores, eat at the same restaurants and purchase the same types of products and services.
In an effort to manage marketing costs while not alienating specific groups, marketers must often play to the lowest common denominator. Trying to tailor marketing efforts towards any specific group, especially with so many labeling themselves as mixed race, will only result in vague marketing messages that will weaken the company’s brand.
Large, national, multifaceted marketing campaigns must be based on the overall landscape of the marketplace rather than specific peaks and valleys. Smaller, area specific campaigns, while better able to focus on particular groups, must also be conscious so as not to risk alienating themselves.
Have all the racial categories become irrelevant? Well, they will at some point.
Gregory Rodriguez has written a book that goes that makes this case. Its title is “Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans and Vagabonds,” a history of Mexican-American immigration. The main thesis is that assimilation and acculturation are still the rule (to a changed mainstream, to be sure), but that America itself is becoming so “mongrel” that eventually all racial, ethnic and cultural distinctions will be rendered meaningless. (I have reviewed the book for http://www.hispanictrending.net and for the February issue of Growth Strategies.)
Rodriguez writes that Mexican Americans, who have always confounded the Anglo-American racial system, will ultimately destroy it, too.
How will they destroy it? By making categorization impossible, and hence, meaningless. When racial classification is no longer sensible or even possible, neither are discrimination or affirmative action. And we have long since passed that point. I often use Tiger Woods as an illustration of this: he is a mixture of black, Asian, Caucasian, and Indian (oops, I mean Native American) ancestors, but when asked to identify himself he says, “I’m Tiger.”
So the writing is on the wall. This November it is possible that a mixed-raced candidate will either lead or be part of a major political party’s Presidential slate. In the same election it is even more than likely that Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Missouri will join California, Washington and Michigan as states that outlaw discrimination by race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. What–you thought such discrimination was already illegal and unconstitutional? It is. These state ballot initiatives have become necessary to overturn the system of ethnic favoritism called affirmative action–racial and ethnic quotas in the bestowal of public and private largesse–which has been codified in both public policy and private practice.
Eventually, the American people themselves, having become a mongrel nation, will also reject racial and ethnic categorization. Hint: watch the dramatic rise in the number of people who “decline to state” in surveys, questionnaires and the Census itself.
What does this all mean for retailers and marketers? The rise of individualism, markets of one, mass customization.
As the population growth of Hispanics, Asians and other non-Caucasians grows faster than the total population, it’s hard to avoid marketing to a more multicultural consumer in the future. It’s also apparent that defining oneself as single-race or mixed-race is becoming less important to the baby boom “echo” generation.
Some of the biggest celebrities in the U.S. today might be considered “mixed race” if the phrase didn’t sound so old-fashioned. (Think of Tiger Woods and Barack Obama for starters.) The question for retailers and other marketers is whether to use multiculturalism as a selling tool or to view it as irrelevant.
Since the 1930s there have been 8 different Betty Crocker portraits. The latest image, from 1996, seems to be a racially mixed or racially ambiguous woman. This isn’t an accident. Betty Crocker’s owners, General Mills, want the brand to have the widest appeal possible.