Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Will You Be Shopping At Boots This Christmas ?
Hope this link works, and I'm wondering if, 'go woke go broke' might not kick in.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Government data published 2020 on "Ethnicity within marriage or cohabiting mixed-sex relationship, UK, 2018"
White 13,196,882
White and Asian 206,416
White and Black 108,795
White and Mixed/other 268,310
Asian 805,105
Asian and Black 7,655
Asian and Mixed/other 29,684
Black 213,326
Black and Mixed/other 15,995
Mixed/other 162,977
TOTAL in marriage/cohabiting relationship 15,015,145
From the link: "No brand is too big to fail. Companies that grow lazy or arrogant risk peril, no matter how established they might be – just look at Atari, Pan Am, Kodak, Nokia, and Blockbuster."
I don't know why the writer of the piece mentioned these companies. They are defunct or lesser than they used to be for other reasons. Nothing to do with 'wokery' or virtue-signalling.
I liked it at least it had humour....
As a side I believe adverts should reflect the population they are aimed at... Mixed race families are not uncommon but in the UK they are a long way from being "the norm". However it seems they are being normalised by the media.
ONS survey last done 2018 will not have changed much
I have no issue with there being mixed-raced families in adverts for the very simple reason the companies selling their wares and services want to appeal to everybody - makes perfect sense to me.
"Mixed race families are the norm and therefore should be shown on tv." That is just simply not true - they are not the norm, they are the exception.
What does make me wryly smile are TV dramas, typically police dramas, where the senior officer always seems to be female or black or gay or a mixture of all three. At some point there's going to be a wheelchair-bound black one-legged transgender pygmy just to tick as many boxes as possible.
I was sent an amusing meme the other day which had the BBC logo and written in BBC font it said something along the lines of "The main charachter in this programme is a white middle-aged hetersexual male which some viewers may find offensive".
//I have no issue with there being mixed-raced families in adverts for the very simple reason the companies selling their wares and services want to appeal to everybody - makes perfect sense to me.//
That's a good point DD. Makes much more sense than claiming "they are the norm" which is clearly ridiculous.
I can't shop at Boots for geographical reasons, but if I were in England pre-Christmas I would avoid shopping there, - they retail nothing that can't be bought elsewhere in the high street
The reason I would avoid them is because I'm sick & tired of being patronised by half-wits who think I'm in need of educating.
I've nothing against black people & homosexuals; they can't help being as they are, I know & have no problem with that, but I don't want, or need to be insulted by being told all the time how I must accept that by the self-righteous.
I also know what what Christmas is about, & gay-pride & wokery isn't part of it.
"Mixed race families are the norm"
As already mentioned, oOf course they're not.
One dictionary definition gives it as “usual, typical, standard or most prevalent” which seems reasonable.
You don’t see many mixed race couples. Even in London they are unusual (i.e. the overwhelming majority of couples you see are not mixed race). So I would say to see a mixed race couple is unusual.
They are certainly not typical, standard or most prevalent. The ONS figures for mixed race couples where one party is white (which is the usual portrayal in adverts) is less than 4%. agreed, those figures are from 2018, but I doubt the percentage has increased enough since then to make such couples “typical, standard or most prevalent.”
If you mean that mixed couples are "normal" (as opposed to abnormal) that is entirely different. There's nothing abnormal about them. It's just that they are uncommon.
So the Boots’ advert portrays a situation which is not often encountered and can by no means be said to be common or prevalent. So why do they do this? Possibly for the same reason that the NHS spends an inordinate amount of its (what it claims are) scarce resources devising policies and procedures to cater for the less than 1% of the population who claim to be transgender.
For the NHS it is to proudly announce that, although you may be just a tiny minority, we will adjust our procedures and provide facilities for you, often at the expense of the overwhelming majority, so that you don’t feel any different to that majority (even though you clearly are).
For Boots I’m not really sure why they have devised their advert the way they have. All it’s done is to make some people ask why they have done it. But of course if it gets them another gold star from Stonewall then I suppose that's considered a bonus.
But I hope it’s a success. I want Boots to survive because by the time the government has finished destroying the independent pharmacies (which provide a considerably better service) the likes of Boots will be the only place where many drugs and medicines will be available.
Well, I've seen the ad twice so far. I hardly noticed colours or genders. I just thought it was a ridiculously chaotic advert and not particularly attractive.
I hardly shop in Boots anymore...it's noisey, and expensive. I'll buy my make-up and toiletries etc online. The Christmas ad will not influence my shopping habits.
"I've nothing against black people & homosexuals; they can't help being as they are, I know & have no problem with that, but I don't want, or need to be insulted by being told all the time how I must accept that by the self-righteous."
what a strange thing to say. why would you object to being told you should accept black people?
Yes I will be buying the troubles Chanel as usual there.
I wont see the ad anyway as I dont have atv licence so dont care what it is. I do find it odd though that some reatilers go out of their way to alienate the majority. For instance I have not been in Wickes since the CEO said I wasnt welcome unless I agreed with him, and I was spending a fair bit with my trade account. Go to SELCO now, better anyway.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a couple where one is white and the other is non-white is abnormal in any way, pastafreak. There's obviously nothing wrong with such pairings- race , gender, hair colour, religion etc should not be barriers when it comes to love. Clearly no-one should be judged by the skin colour of their partner.
The issue NJ raised is that DDIL said they are the norm but as they represent only 4% of couples they cannot be considered to be the norm in the sense of being "usual, typical, standard or most prevalent". Normal- yes, in the sense that it's not abnormal, but at 4% it's fair to say it's not the norm in real life. These couples are overrepresented in adverts, but as DD has pointed out it's just that advertisers want to appeal to as wide a spectrum of potential purchasers as possible.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
Crosswords59 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
If You Could Create A Band Name
Artists80 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles98 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.