Modern advertising often relies on the illusion of spontaneity and authenticity to forge a connection with consumers. Gavin Casalegno’s recent Dunkin’ ad seems like a casual romp, highlighting a “natural” tan and a relaxed summer vibe. However, beneath the surface, it reveals a calculated attempt to associate beauty and desirability with superficial attributes like skin tone, largely dependent on genetics. This subtle messaging taps into deep-seated societal biases, reinforcing the idea that certain genetic features—particularly those aligned with whiteness—are inherently more attractive or superior. It’s a classic marketing move: package superficial traits as natural and effortless, thus making a product appear as an enhancer of innate qualities, rather than just a refreshment.
The Danger of Normalizing Racial Connotations
What troubles critics is not merely the content but the underlying implications. The ad subtly elevates lighter, “golden” skin as the ideal, an idea historically rooted in racial hierarchies that have marginalized darker-skinned populations. Even if unintentional, the messages contribute to an environment where whiteness is positioned as a standard of beauty. This perpetuates harmful stereotypes that can influence societal perceptions and self-esteem, especially among impressionable audiences. When brands lean into narratives that tie fleeting concepts like “genetics” to beauty ideals, they risk normalizing discriminatory standards masked as lightheartedness. The controversy highlights how advertising decisions can inadvertently—or deliberately—play into larger ideological frameworks.
Mockery, Criticism, and the Power of Public Discourse
The reactions to the Dunkin’ ad exemplify the power of public scrutiny in holding corporations accountable. Social media quickly turned critical, pointing out the problematic undertones associated with equating genetics and physical appearance. Comparisons to the American Eagle campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney exemplify how corporations often fall into the trap of employing similar language, risking the appearance of endorsing problematic racial and aesthetic ideals. Such parallels suggest a pattern: brands may be inadvertently or ignorantly reinforcing narratives of racial superiority under the guise of playful marketing. When celebrities like Doja Cat mock these ads, they serve as a catalyst for wider conversations on race, beauty, and the media’s influence on societal standards. Ultimately, this controversy underscores the importance of being vigilant and critical of subtle messages embedded within marketing campaigns, recognizing that even seemingly innocuous advertisements carry the potential to shape cultural narratives in powerful ways.