In recent advertising campaigns, brands increasingly exploit the language of genetics and “natural” traits to allure consumers. Gavin Casalegno’s Dunkin’ commercial exemplifies this trend. Portraying himself as effortlessly radiant, he attributes his tan to his “genetics,” implying a natural superiority rooted in biology. While such narratives may seem innocuous on the surface, they carry an undercurrent of problematic implications. They subtly reinforce the idea that certain physical traits—particularly those associated with whiteness—are inherently desirable or even superior. This technique capitalizes on societal biases, shaping perceptions about beauty and worth in ways that subtly marginalize other features.
The commercial’s framing suggests that possessing a “golden summer” glow is not just a matter of climate or effort, but an inherited trait. It implies that some individuals are naturally predisposed to look sun-kissed, reinforcing a culture that values light skin and certain physical characteristics. This messaging not only perpetuates stereotypes but also fails to acknowledge the diversity of beauty standards worldwide. When brands lean into such narratives, they risk normalizing the idea that certain features are “naturally better,” which can have lasting societal repercussions.
Historical Context and the Reinforcement of Racial Hierarchies
The controversy deepens when considering historical contexts. For centuries, pseudoscientific ideas about genetics and racial superiority have fueled discrimination, eugenics, and systemic inequality. The language in the Dunkin’ ad echoes linguistic patterns historically used to justify the marginalization of non-white populations. Critics rightly point out that emphasizing “white features” as genetically superior echoes dangerous ideologies. While it may appear trivial, ads like these contribute to a culture where racial hierarchies are subtly reinforced, often under the guise of humor or lighthearted branding.
The comparison to Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle campaign underscores a pattern across industries. Sweeney’s ad, with its play on “genes” and “jeans,” was lambasted for using racialized and exclusionary symbols of beauty. When brands repeatedly rely on genetic attributes to promote products, they risk normalizing a hierarchy that privileges certain racial features over others. This pattern underscores a need for critical examination of marketing strategies that, intentionally or not, perpetuate racial biases.
The Cultural Responsibility of Brands in Shaping Social Narratives
Brands possess a significant cultural influence, and their messaging can either challenge or reinforce societal biases. Instead of promoting superficial distinctions rooted in genetics, they should advocate for diversity and inclusivity. The backlash against the Dunkin’ ad highlights an essential societal demand for responsible advertising—a call for brands to recognize their role in shaping perceptions of beauty and worth.
Mockery from figures like Doja Cat, who parodied the ad with exaggerated accents, exemplifies how such narratives are increasingly scrutinized and rejected by the public. The collective pushback demonstrates a growing awareness of how language around genetics can subtly underpin racial hierarchies. Future advertising must move beyond superficial tropes, embracing stories that celebrate authentic diversity rather than endorsing an ideal based on inherited traits that echo divisive history.
In striving for authentic representation, brands can harness their power to promote positive social change, fostering a culture where beauty is defined by individuality rather than outdated notions of genetic perfection.
Leave a Reply