Good post; right on. All I can say is -- why am I not surprised by this?

i have to say, i am surprised, and disappointed that this is anyone's approach at this point in time - particularly a company and agency in a position to change stereotypes. i find it quite disgraceful.

Wow.

Do you really think that cost $20 million?

BL, this really made me think. Maybe because I didn't grow up in the U.S. I have different perspective. I'll take a chance and voice it.

For one, I think the site is creative and definitely interactive. As a former educator, I doubt kids would be that interested in learning about rice on a commercial site. I think it's meant to skew to women looking for ways to make dinner easy, tasteful and fast. The site links to nutrition info and recipes. Some women are Internet recipe junkies, so this fits that bill.

As for Uncle Ben, I agree that this brand icon's origins were stereotypical, much like Aunt Jemima. But, by continuing to use his image and making him the Chairman does send a message that African American symbols and individuals originally created in the past during a different era, can morph into modern renditions. In a way, it says that African Americans can become the big bosses, too. Even if the majority of CEO's are still white men, it's important to send positive messages to visible minorities and women that they, too, can make it to the top corporate spots - even in this fictional world of advertising.

It didn't bother me that Ben doesn't have a last name. He's a metaphor - a symbol and nothing more than a brand identity, even if they claim that he's based on a real character (which I tend to doubt). The Marlboro Man was based on a real character, I think, and did we need to know his real name?

I understand the derogatory connotation of using "Uncle" and I certainly hope that the company did their due diligence by conducting focus groups with African Americans to check for negative impressions. If it caused a reaction that even came close to racist overtones, then I would wonder why they didn't just re-brand altogether and change the name of the product. And, if they did change the name, maybe some African Americans would say that they "whitened" the product? I can't even speculate on this without seeing market research results.

If the product was spaghetti sauce and the brand symbol a stereotypical, plump Italian lady wearing a babushka on her head who spoke thick, broken English, would we be reacting the same way?

Well, there's my two cents. If I'm out to lunch on this, enlighten me, please.

Elaine: I think the Uncle Ben's campaign is lacking in humanity, and frankly, boring.

I'd react the same way to ethnic stereotypes of any kind.

And making the "metaphor" chairman without giving him a last name is disrespectful and smacks of racism. The message is that even if Ben is the chairman, he's still a lackey.

The real Ben had an interesting story, and a last name. Why not tell it?

Cam: Yup. the budget is $20 million. Incredible, huh?

Irony #1: West African slaves were forced to teach Southern plantation owners how to cultivate a crop that had gone largely unchanged for thousands of years, due to lack of knowledge [See Judith Carney’s 2002 book “Black Rice” for more scoop]

Irony #2: Two men: the scientist who discovered the “parboiled conversion” process (English) and the entrepreneur who exploited it (Texan)-- both as white as the rice they converted while the real black "Uncle Ben's" (also Texan), details were conveniently "lost" to oral and written history by the latter didn't see a red cent.

Irony #3: When Frank Brown’s image (aka the maitre'd used as the “Ben to box” whose biography is also lost to history) was removed in the 80s to change with the times, sales went south.

Irony #4: This character was born a servant without backstory or surname to erase his dignity and identity, using "Uncle" to reinforce his "proper" place not as a term of wisdom and trust. To elevate him without updating him is worse than crass, clueless, or an insult-- and it won't matter due to strong brand loyalty and general consumer cluelessness.

Ryan: #4 hits the nail directly on the head.

I find it interesting that by removing Frank Brown's image in the 80's, sales went south. So, Ryan, you make a good point. Strong brand loyalty and general consumer cluelessness have likely played a role.

BL, I, too, dislike any ethnic stereotyping. And I accept your take on this. I realize I'm somewhat naive on this issue and am trying to look for the positive. Since moving to the U.S., I am seeing how much more racism exists here than what I've experienced all my life.

Elaine: sadly, it's true that there is a lot of racism in the U.S.

I don't know why that is, but I have seen the difference when I've traveled. Uncle Ben's certainly isn't doing anything to make a positive change.

What about the part where the site is flat, bland and uninteresting?

Nothing says "rice" like flat, bland and uninteresting.

I wonder if that means the marketers succeded in creating a website to match the product...

Considering how bland and horrendous packed goods advertising is in the US, the site is "relatively" creative. But it's still banal.

What's sad is that a bunch of VPs at the agency and the client are taking in disgusting salaries for creating a pedestrian, me-too website. And then walking around like they're brilliant.

Justin, ethel: That's exactly what prompted me to write the post to begin with. I continue to be astounded by Madison Avenue's inability to change.

Hi BL,

I must agree with you that this site is not very good, especially if it costed $20 million. It is a classic mistake made by marketeers- talking to themselves. The site talks at the user, not to the user, and certainly does not truly engage with the user. No interactivity what so ever. It is plainly boring. What a waste of money...

i would so much prefer Chiat Day to assume that we are NOT idiots and engage us in a fun way. Meaningful would be nice, but I'd settle for fun.

Keep your white guilt to yourself. Black people do not need another spokesperson especially one who has no dog in their fight.