It takes two to make a baby. And even though I would argue that women carry the majority of the weight (hey, at least for the first 9 months), a child’s genetic makeup is inherited from both their mommy and daddy. Why am I telling you this? Because I’m perplexed that major media–and ergo, the public at large–keeps labeling Obama as black.
Fact is, it’s simply not the whole story. Which is ironic since major media is not only focused on landing the right story… but also on getting the story right.
Yup, Obama is as white as he is black. And yup, there’s a marketing lesson in this post.
Being he has a white mother and a black father, the correct term is biracial–a term that reflects, and respects, the races of both his mother and father. (Multiracial is also an important term as many people can claim more than two unique races in their lineage.) Even in Obama’s own “American Story” speech given in March he delivered these powerful words underscoring his diverse background:
“I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins of every race and every hue scattered across three continents–and for as long as I live I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible.”
Indeed it is historical that a biracial man has landed a presidential nomination, and if I were part of his marketing team, I would recommend that this be better (and correctly) communicated. After all, he would be a leader that can uniquely identify with several races–and since the beauty of the country is its diversity, it’s apt that our leader inherently understands that.
That said, it would only be one of the messages I would recommend, and certainly not his campaign’s core one. Because Obama’s racial diversity is not more important than his views, vision and ability to inspire. His platform is based on change, not race.
Even the U.S. government, which we often ridicule for being “behind the times,” begun letting respondents check two or more races in their 2000 Census–with results citing that figure at 7.3 million people, of which 43% were under 18. Given the Census Bureau began compiling its data in 1999 that means our government has been getting it right for nearly a decade. But not major media; which we all know greatly influences the public at large.
So, what does this mean for marketers? If you’re a consumer marketer and you don’t know of the growth and implications of biracial and multiracial markets here in the U.S., then you’re behind…like, behind the government (eek!).
In America, Latino markets are on a growth tear; this is news we all know. The news on that front is that the market has grown so large that it’s fragmenting into many niches. Asian and Indian markets are poised for healthy growth, too. But watch for biracial and multiracial markets to be growing right alongside them. They’ll likely be a focus of yours soon; and they’re a very complex (and fascinating) market segment.
Why are multiracial markets complex? Because we marketers have grown so accustomed to giving each market segment one identity, one persona and one profile, it’s beyond our traditional scope to understand segments with shared or mixed identities. Don’t worry, major media is obviously grappling with it, too. But learn we must. On that note, here are three suggestions:
First: let’s start with using appropriate terms. If the media won’t, then we savvy marketers can certainly get it right. After all, as marketers it’s our core job to know our markets.
Second: begin listening to biracial/multiracial markets. A phenomenal (!) place to start is with this 5-minute video from the NYTimes. Folks, listen to what these multiracial consumers–who’ve formed a group called Fusion–are telling us; they are explaining: “I am neither one or the other. I am BOTH.”
Or the national organization called Swirl whose founder Jen Chau explains, “In 2000, many of us found ourselves having to explain the idea of mixed identity to others. From strangers to our own families, we have had to answer the questions of people who didn’t believe or couldn’t fathom that we could be “more than one thing” at the same time. We have been asked to choose time and time again – and that’s when we were actually presented with the choice – many times, people have chosen for us. Swirl was created in order to challenge the idea that identity is simple – something that can be discussed in black and white terms.”
Third: leapfrog your competition by learning how your offerings and communications can serve and delight these markets. Or customize and create altogether new offerings that cater to these consumers. Look at how music is mixing genres, or how the growth of so-called “fusion foods” are crossing culinary boundaries (e.g. Tex Mex, Pan-Asian, the popular “Sushi Samba” restaurant chain that blends Japanese, Brazilian and Peruvian cuisines). Even “Si TV,” a Latino Cable Network, that features Hispanic-rooted programming but intentionally broadcasts only in English (not Spanish) so as to serve consumers who identify with both cultures.
We need to start respecting the unique way these consumers view the world vs. the way the world has been viewing (and incorrectly labeling) them. Because armed with that knowledge comes powerful new ways to build relationships and brand loyalty. After all, the growth isn’t in the mainstream. No longer a mass-market country are we. Now we’re a mass of micro-niches–many of which are mixed-race consumers who, just like the Census Bureau realized, no longer fit into one box. Let’s hope our media can start thinking outside of the box, too.
PS: Again, I really do encourage you to take 5 minutes and watch this video. Amazing what our markets tell us–when we start listening to them.
Hm. It seems your plea here isn’t to keep Obama (+ markets) out of boxes, but to put them in the appropriate box.
Am I misreading?
I never thought I would say this and Lord please forgive me but I have to agree with Cam here. Boxes are what we have to avoid. Maybe not with market segments et al but certainly in our personal dealings and in politics. That was MLK’s dream.
Identity politics should stop.
@Cam: Thanks for reading. There’s so much growth, and marketing opportunity, in the biracial and multiracial market segments that Obama–being he’s top of minds and in the spotlight–provides me a terrific example (and that video of the Fusion group is a great piece).
. But for marketers–and the media–it’s truly a new way of thinking. And it’s not just with multiracial segments but also with multicultural ones (e.g. many Latino Americans view themselves as having equally shared cultural traits of Hispanic and American).
What has historically been the case is to segment markets via one identity–in this case “1 box”. But marketers need to adjust their thinking to serve consumers who view themselves with shared identities. Because they don’t view themselves as fitting into one box, they see themselves as fitting into several, or as the woman on the video says, “I’m both.” Now, certainly, that can equate to a whole new set of appropriate boxes
@Neil: Thanks. Like I said above, I wouldn’t suggest placing Obama’s platform solely on race. What I’m saying is that when the media refers to his race (or identity) they need to get the message right. He details his identity through his “American Story” and yet when it’s retold, it only tells part of his story. And yet his story truly embodies America’s diversity.
And just like those consumers in the video are telling us, many are not understanding their identities either. As marketers, we need to understand our segments–that’s how we build relationships and develop products that truly meet their needs. Make sense?
No, I got your point and do agree with it when it comes to market segmenting and the like.
The media, however, is following Obama’s lead on both downplaying race and referring to his race as black. He has, to his credit, not made race the center of his campaign but he has called himself black in speeches on occasion.
He has told his story of being the son of a black father from Kenya and white mother from Kansas on more than one occasion so that bi-racial angle is covered in the story itself. No need to dwell on the label implied there.
To start referring to him as the first bi-racial nominee for President of the United States or something like that would sound both smarmy and politically correct to many people. It would have the feel of shoe horning a word in that does not quite work.
I have a good old friend (known for many years) who has almost the exact background as Obama (Dad from Kenya and mom from England) and he almost never refers to race at all though I have heard him say “black” a few times but never “bi-racial.” He talks about his mom and dad but never mentions their respective races just this or that about their personalities or quirks.
“Mom came to visit last week and oh my god can’t she pay a compliment occasionally” kind of stuff. She’s a bit like the Everybody Loves Raymond mom but with a British accent.
@Neil: Biracial is not a smarmy word. It’s a word that pays respect to two races. I am not saying that the media should always puts his race before his name; I’m saying that when they do…to get it right. And we cannot deny that this election is marked by so many firsts–including race (Obama), gender (Hillary/Palin) and age (McCain). These are boundaries that are being broken and, as a result, these things will soon be unremarkable. Which is the wonderful implication of this particular election
. But when the media does refer to identity, they can do better to get it right (I fear we’re discrediting his wonderful mother–whom Obama features in his videos and speeches, along with his grandparents and his father, brothers and sisters. He is showing both influences.)
At the DNC last week they spoke of O’s race in their commentary–but I never heard (or very seldom heard) them get it right. This has implications to marketers trying to fit so many segments into one or the other. But listening to the group at Fusion (the video), to Obama’s own words on his identity/story , and to the people at Swirl, I think it’s important the media (and marketers!) start getting it right–because it’s important to these markets.
And it’s not just race, it’s cultures, too. For instance, I may be a white woman but I can speak to my own “culturally diverse” background. Having lived in the deep south (AL/GA) and the far north (Boston/NYC); when I explain my background, or my lens I use to view the world, I often remark on how I’m a “mix” of southern and northern sensibilities. Not one nor the other. Both. From a marketing standpoint, it’s reflected in the decisions and purchases I make (love a NY Steak as much as I do deep-fried Southern cooking; I love and buy both alternative rock and country music). Thanks for discussing this with me, btw.
CK,
I appreciate your willingness to risk discussing this subject, but I think before we begin calling people bi-racial, we better step back and talk to that audience.
Like Neil, I have a long-time friend whose Dad is black and Latino and his Mom is white. He would react badly to being called bi-racial in any context.
He wants to be known as a dad, father, and good guy. His racial makeup is irrelevant. In terms of marketing, his purchasing behaviors, which should be our primary focus (not ethnicity), are so similar to mine (a thoroughly white guy) as to be indistinguishable. Knowing his racial makeup serves only to confuse marketers.
CK,
I should add that I am writing an eBook about the new era of marketing, which is not about segmenting customers by geography, race or any other coarse segment. It is about abandoning mass marketing based on coarse segmentation for the more efficient and profitable individualized marketing, where outbound marketing is considerably reduced and inbound marketing plays the key role.
In the latter, we use inbound marketing and cross-channel interactions to understand our customers so that we can surprise them by offering them things they want, need and desire as individuals, not as members of some group.
@Lewis: Thank you. I hear you. And, yes, each person establishes and defines their own identity. I’m not saying race should be a primary focus; I’m saying we need to better understand our markets. Because they are talking to us. Please listen to that video and see the letter from the founder of Swirl–-they are telling us that, for so long, others have been misunderstanding so they want to open the conversation. It’s not charged–it’s a conversation that our markets are starting, and one they want for us to hear. I want to urge us to listen to them. And yes, I’d like for the media to get it right, too. Make sense?
It makes sense, and I agree with your point. Where I disagree (not with your point) is with marketers who segment based on coarse segment (grouping by race, ethnicity, geography, age, etc.). Doing so typically generate a 1% to 2% response rate. Doing so is costly, ineffective and inefficient.
Instead, marketers should be focused not on outbound marketing, which is mostly based on coarse segmenting, but on inbound marketing, customer interactions and catering to the individual.
Instead of responding to demand, we should be thinking lean and responding based on understand each customer, analyzing the data that comes from all cross-channel interactions, and creating marketing strategies that use cross-channel alignment.
My point: Any marketing based on large (coarse) groupings is a failed strategy. We end up measuring “how many” instead of sales and profits.
My argument is strictly a marketing one.
@Lewis: Great news on the new book! Yes, believe you are talking psychographics (preferences) not demographics (age, race, location, income, gender, education, etc.). Much of marketing (and I’ve talked it a great deal) is based on preferences, passions, professions and pain points. Look at the conversations we have here: age, location, etc. matter not. But we all share the same profession and some of the same passions about our work as well as our pain points (challenges of our work).
That said, there are still products (lots of revenue opps) that are targeted to certain preferences on music, foods, fashion, TV content, etc. and many of which can hinge on our backgrounds and influences. What is so interesting there–and it is a subject for an entirely different post–is how these items, which were once marketed to cater to a certain culture or ethnic heritage, are now going mainstream. Look at Tex-Mex, Pan Asian, Indian Food, Kosher foods, etc.
CK, don’t let them get you down. You’re instinct is right, that it’s the media that is still shoehorning into boxes.
The term ‘bi-racial’ isn’t a box in and of itself, merely an appellation indicating that more understanding is needed.
I strongly feel the internet culture will bring all this down eventually: http://occamsrazr.com/2008/04/22/the-end-of-identity-politics/
If it is not a box, imagine what Obama’s visceral reaction would be if he were called the “bi-racial” candidate?
If he is anything like my good friend with a *very* similar racial makeup as Obama, it would be his first time hearing himself called that and would probably hate it. Forget about politics for a moment just on a personal level it would be like hearing finger nails down a chalk board. He just wouldn’t wear it.
Great discussion. We have matured from a nation of name-callers to one of political correctness. That, alone, is a good thing. It shows sensitivity and awareness for diversity.
In marketing, we have been taught to segment our markets based on many factors, one being demographics. With intermarriages escalating, assimilation the norm, and increased emphasis on the individual, maybe it’s time we amend the boxes and focus more on psychographics. After all, isn’t marketing about emotional responses in most cases?
@Neil: But Obama, through his amazing story, keeps telling us of his diversity. I am listening to his words. Why does Obama tell one story and the media keep telling another? Especially when Obama’s own words and platform are urging us to take a different view and change our ways/world–-as indeed, the world and our markets are changing all around us.
I believe it’s because of what Fusion Group and Swirl are telling us–that people have been prone to place their identities into one or the other (again, these are their words). Yet they have shared identities. And the Fusion Group member even uses the terms biracial and multiracial (talking about the video). I’m not saying that Obama’s platform should hinge on being “the biracial candidate,” I’m asking that the media, when telling of his background/race, get the story right. And yes, a person’s identity is theirs to tell us. Agree. But he’s telling us of his diversity.
Well since no one’s saying it: We’re fixated on the fact that Obama is Black because he looks Black.
I mean seriously, if he didn’t tell you, it’s doubtful you’d pick up on it.
And that’s very relevant because I can’t but suspect the whole election (and possibly even the story of Obama’s life) would be markedly different if Obama looked more white or more clearly biracial. Think of either baseball star Derek Jeter or basketball start Jason Kidd, both of whom have one black parent and one white parent. Yet their racial background is far more ambiguous at first glance.
Whether we like it or not, skin color is still an American obsession. Which is why we continue to call Barack Obama “black.”
It’s definitely an interesting point to be made. I guess the question is how (or do) we deal with it as a larger marketplace.
I would think, especially in the younger segments, that they are less and less defined by race in the first place. There are cultural differences for sure, but when cliques in high school are made up of lots of different backgrounds, their collective sense of identity is fueled from a lot of different places, no matter what races their parents happen to be.
You can start to see this phenomenon with Obama, really. They’ve spent the majority of the campaign only dealing with race when it became a necessity to do so. He’s not running as the black candidate, but just a candidate who happens to be black (which is obvious when you go to his rallies. the different types of people there cheering together is quite a thing to see).
And particularly, can bi-racial be a segment? That could mean white-hispanic, hispanic-black, asian-hispanic, whatever. I would think the segment itself would be inherently fragmented to the point where you might as well focus on personalizing the message and common ground qualities, anyway.
Anyway, very thought-provoking. You got me thinking, Kerley…
CK, I bet Obama never tells the story of his black father from Kenya and his white mother from Kansas over beers with his friends. It is a marketing (political) story and an interesting one at that.
Obama tells the story but he still considers himself black as he has called himself that in speeches. He self identifies as black man so why would the media not follow his lead?
If he said I am the first bi-racial nominee for President I bet the media would follow his lead there but he does not say that. Show me public statements by Obama with him using the word bi-racial? He tells the story but avoids any label it implies.
I recently asked my friend who looks very much like Obama if he has ever experienced racism. He said yes once I was called the N word.
My friend calls himself black a black man. He does not dwell on it at all though. He is just a man more concerned with his work and family than with labels.
@Neil: Again- do Obama and your friend call themselves black because that’s what our American society calls them based on their skin color and how they look and they’ve just accepted it?
Do you think they’d still call themselves black if they looked like Derek Jeter, who is also biracial?
Obama did move to Chicago’s South side, the largest black community in America.
He did join a black church and made his start in politics with the strong backing of a coalition of blacks and white, upper-middle class liberals.
So yes I think Obama chooses to call himself black and he is clearly a member of the meritocracy, Ivy Education et al.
Alan, but in digging deeper beyond that I do not know the existential answer about identity. To claim that would be to claim wisdom I do not have.
It’s not existential Neil. Quite the opposite. If you look Black, our society brands you Black, no matter what your actual ancestry is.
If you look biracial, like Jeter or Kidd, people aren’t quite sure what to make of it and may assume you’re Latino or Middle Eastern.
Read Roth’s “The Human Stain” or recent articles about Anatole Broyard, the late NY Times critic who was the son of two light-skinned Blacks who passed himself off as white.
Alan, did Obama not choose black and, well, the meritocracy by moving to Chicago’s South Side and bringing together a coalition of blacks and white, upper middle class whites?
Was he branded or did he make a choice?
He is not a baseball player he is a politician. He is not one who lets history happen to him but calculates, as any truly big league politician, to make history.
Obama is in the big leagues, like him or not, he stands where he does by choice.
CK, thought provoking indeed!
Kidding… I am AMERICAN (as is Obama).
I went to grad. school for International Marketing and the one thing that was drilled into our heads was Hofstede’s work on cultural dimensions. Almost every class, almost every discussion. (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/)
Just my two cents–
As marketers we always segment by demographics, it’s our nature to slice & dice. But what I find interesting is that with social media coming into play, people are seeking advice on-line on brands and listening to other people’s recommendations about brands…and they, in a lot of cases, don’t know who they are talking to or what race/culture those people are because when you are on-line you can be anyone and anywhere. As well, with more marketing being done on-line, those aspects will be blurred for marketers as well. Social media seems to be leveling that way. So, I agree that as marketers we will be moving towards more psychographics as mentioned.
The bigger challenge for marketers in America isn’t race–it’s culture.
Your post touched on Black, Hispanic or Asian markets vs. bi-racial, multi-racial markets. And the boxes they get placed into. Why not focus on culture too?
The fact is that if someone is the child of an Asian woman and an American black man (i.e. Tiger Woods) and grows up in America, they will be culturally American.
We need to keep in mind that there are a lot of Americans who are “white” but come from just as diverse backgrounds. You cannot market to a 1st generation (or a new citizen) Irish-American or Russian-American the same way just because they fall into the category race of white. Their culture affects their purchasing decisions, etc.
As well, you can’t market to all Latin Americans or Hispanics the same way. Brazilians are not the same culture as Puerto Ricans just because they both have similar skin tones. And it would be wrong to make that assumption.
So, in regards to your boxes…I want to be in the Celtic and Eastern European box moving forward! Any marketer that can creatively target me gets a gold medal indeed!
Thanks for the great discussion CK!
CK:
I think the argument here isn’t so much about segmenting by race, or fusion of races, it’s about segmenting by community of interest and need. If anything, social networking should have taught us that.
Vancouver, where I live, is probably the most multi-cultural city in North America, and we’ve stopped trying to categorize people by their race or ethnicity. Instead, a natural categorization based on interest is happening instead. This doesn’t mean people lose their ethnicity, it simply means they mingle with others regarding specific interests.
Obama, I’m sure, identifies as a black man and as multiracial. It’s quite possible, however, that like many “people of color”, his experiences throughout his life in meeting and relating to people has been as a black man. The racism he likely experiences gives him (and the often savvy media — yes, they can be that on occasion) considerable reason to identify as black. And, that’s a great thing! He’s a beautiful, sexy-looking man! And he WILL BE our next president!!!
@Tony: I hope more of a move to psychographics (preferences) is upon the U.S., too. The media will play a large part in that much-needed shift.
@Jesus: Good points regarding Obama’s experiences and I’d be lying if I didn’t agree he is an attractive, engaging man. Indeed!
I emailed my friend who has a very similar background as Obama about the matter of Obama’s race and here is what he said:
“Whether a person with a black and a white parent should be called black or bi-racial is a question about which persons of that mixture (myself included) disagree. Traditionally, bi-racial people are considered black in this society stemming from our society’s “one drop” rule that categorizes anyone with any black blood as black. However, in recent years, many biracial people have self-identified as biracial or “mixed” or multiracial. Tiger Woods self-identifies as “Cablinasian” which is short for Caucasion, Black, Indian and Asian.
It would thus not be wrong per se to refer to Barack Obama as black or as biracial. However, because he self-identifies as black, I believe his choice should be respected and that he should be referred to as black. Also, given that the traditional rule would categorize him as black, it seems more appropriate to refer to him as black unless he himself says he is biracial, and to refer to him as biracial seems to distract from the historic nature of his candidacy.”