8 ms·
My only problem with marketing "X for black people" is that marketing "X for white people" isn't socially acceptable.
by h3daz 5y ago
My only problem with marketing "X for black people" is that marketing "X for white people" isn't socially acceptable.
- jandrese 5y agoYou say this like the Hallmark channel or Lifetime don't exist.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- h3daz 5y agoI am not familiar with those channels since I'm not american, but I am fairly certain that they are not marketed as "for white people".
- ethbr0 5y agoThey're well known for being the most reductive, base, inoffensive content possible. In the sense that shows and movies seem like the result of endless series of meetings, where anything that anyone might object to is censored and removed.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y agoThey are not, but their programming makes it quite obvious who their target audience is. And I don't think this is a bad thing, at all. For example, Hallmark has a large number of programs where characters are very overt in talking about and praising their faith and religion, which is much less common on other networks. To echo what others have said, though, if you are not a member of a minority, it can be difficult to understand how affirming and wonderful it can feel to experience, just for a brief moment and even if by fantasy, to exist as if you were the majority. For example, I am gay, and here are some common thought processes that go through my head that are basically completely foreign to straight people: 1. When I walk down the street with my partner of 20 years, deciding to hold hands is not something I can just do spontaneously. It is essentially a political act when I do it, and so my first thoughts always go to (a) am I safe and (b) do I feel like making a political statement right now. 2. When I travel, the first thing I think about is whether I am going to a place that is accepting of gays. I'm just too old to want to deal with anti-gay attitudes when I'm supposed to be enjoying myself on vacation. 3. When I introduce myself to new people, I do a mental calculation as to whether I feel like mentioning my partner and thus outing myself in that situation. Again, it's always a conscious calculation, where it almost never is for straight people. So the first time I visited the Castro (a well-known gay neighborhood in San Francisco), it was kind of magical to me, to just walk down the street and have people assume I was gay before assuming I was straight, and it was really the first time I could completely relax and feel like what it was like to be a member of the majority. So that's what things like BET, LogoTV, Telemundo, etc. are really about, it's about actually feeling like you are the focus of attention for a short time.
- silicon2401 5y agoWhat are you saying about non-white people who enjoy those channels?
- ethbr0 5y agoThat they're boring? (But then, that's true of white people who enjoy those channels too)
- ldargin 5y agoI'm sure non-black people are welcome to this too.
- jandrese 5y agoThat they are like white people listening to Hip Hop. You're allowed to like it, but you should never expect them to cater to your demographic.
- ansible 5y agoCertainly those channels have never been marketed as "a channel for white people" as an explicit statement. Just because they are channels for white people and white American culture doesn't change that.
- hobs 5y agoBecause that's called society. If you make X for white people in the current context, it's basically Fox News.
- poeron 5y agoThe reason for that, in the US at least, is that "for white people" is implied by default. Everything is always for white people. So when you go and spell it out explicitly, "X for white people" ends up having a connotation of "X for white people only."
- bobmaxup 5y agoDoes "X for kids" imply only for kids?
- lasfter 5y agoWhat poeron is getting at is there can be two meanings of "X for Y". While "X for kids" doesn't imply adults can't watch, "X for adults" implies kids can't watch.
- z3ncyberpunk 5y agoX for white people isn't implied by default. That's a hollow phrase chanted by black people that its implied by default.
- zentiggr 5y agoWell, it's kind of the default majority, and with the history here in the US particularly, not only is it unnecessary to say, it almost automatically invokes the history of racism we're still dealing with. So yes, not acceptable given the loaded context.
- tcoff91 5y agoThat comes with the territory of being the dominant ethnic group in our society. Everything is essentialy for white people by default unless explicitly stated otherwise. Also, it’s not like this blackoakTV doesn’t allow white people to sign up. But I bet you won’t, because you have no interest in black stories. Which in turn kind of proves why it should exist.
- toto444 5y agoWhat's a black story ?
- tptacek 5y agoA story involving Black people centered on Black culture and/or Black experiences, the same way Moone Boy is an "Irish" story.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bobmaxup 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_cinema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_cinema
- toto444 5y agoI guess what confuses me is that one says a film is French because it has been produced by a French producer for a French audience. French is both a culture and a location. Whereas in the case of Black products culture and location are not the distinct. Edit : what I am writing is really confusing and I should have stopped 2 seconds before commenting.
- alexanderskates 5y agoWhat does "X for white people" look like though? The only reason that "X for black people" exists is that black people are a minority group and aren't sufficiently catered to by X, which is already more or less "X for white people" by default, at least in the US and much of Europe. As such, any product that that markets itself explicitly to white people (again, only referencing the US and Europe here) is much more likely to have less socially acceptable intent behind it "X for white people" makes more sense in a population where caucasians are the minority, for instance in China.
- umvi 5y ago> What does "X for white people" look like though? Totally hypothetical example... "NBA for white people" - basically majority-white professional basketball teams playing each other. I'm sure that would ignite a firestorm if someone tried to do that.
- afavour 5y agoBut what would the justification be for setting up such a league? "Netflix for black people" is a representation of cultural differences and seeing those differences reflected on screen. "NBA for white people" would just be... excluding non-white people. White and black basketball players aren't different physically (on average) nor do they typically have different playing styles. There isn't really a lot of justification in such a division, hence why it would result in a firestorm.
- umvi 5y agoFair point. How about "Rap for white people" - a record label that only features white rappers for people that want to hear more suburban white-America culture expressed through rap? Still might ignite a firestorm, all it takes is one media outlet framing it as racist.
- atlasunshrugged 5y agoIt might ignite a firestorm but this might too on more right wing channels (e.g. Breitbart), it's just that those channels aren't as represented in "mainstream" media
- ape4 5y agoOuch "Uber for white people" certainly isn't (apartheid)
- jrm4 5y agoSure, I get the immediate reaction. But this all has to do with what "blackness" and "whiteness" means; "Whiteness" effectively means here, "most everybody who didn't have to be enslaved because of their skin color." No problem with e.g. "X for German-Americans" or the like, if the niche is there.
- salamanderman 5y agoExcept that "for white people" is the default. The minority representation in media is still generally token at best. And, while it may seem like a double standard, when you say something implying that there should be a "x for white people" it sounds like you're saying you're already seeing too much minority representation in media for your comfort or sense of place in society. And if that's the case, know that that means you have some issues to work out on your own.
- itsoktocry 5y ago>The minority representation in media is still generally token at best. Is this really true, today? I can definitely see that even 10 years ago, but just glancing through Netflix recommendations, I see characters from all over the place. I wonder if anyone has been able to quantify this progress. >know that that means you have some issues to work out on your own. Wait, what?
- pier25 5y agoSo you'd say Netflix is mostly for white people? Asking seriously, I'm European.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- LordHumungous 5y agoWhat sort of product do you have in mind that would be for white people?
- sangnoir 5y agoI mean, there already are sunscreen products that don't look flattering on non-white skin. However, they aren't explicitly marketed as "for white people" - that's implicit
- em-bee 5y agohow about changing the marketing from "netflix for a black audience" to "netfix about black people" that means, this channel intends to highlight stories from or about black people, but it doesn't suggest who should watch it. saying "it's for black people" is patronizing because it is claiming that it is not for me, whereas, if it is "about black people" then i feel welcome to watch it, because i happen to be interested in that.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]