Last week, a co-worker of mine asked me to create a new logo for his mom's cleaning business. He told me exactly what he wanted the logo to look like and I said I'd have it done this weekend. I asked him what logo his mom had used before. He started talking about how he has a very loving mother who is an artist that specializes in oil paints so she had painted her own logo who was in no way racist and legitimately could not see a problem with the logo she had made.

The logo she had painted featured a young, black woman with a very big smile and slightly unsymmetrical eyes. My co-worker explained that the both the name of the company and the logo were inspired by his mother's childhood hero, a black singer from the mid-1900s. It was supposed to be a tribute to the singer, rather than an offensive icon, but undoubtedly, the logo did get some heat from the small community where the business is located.

After taking a RTF 316M Race, Ethnicity, & the Media earlier this summer, I instantly realized the the connection to a negative connotation. I was shocked to see a logo showing a black woman advertising a cleaning service. My co-worker said his mother didn't see anything wrong with the logo, and while he knew why people would be upset, he believed his mother's view toward the logo was just a result of a "change of the times"

The logo he wanted me to create is a globe that shows the initials of the company. It might be revised more, but for now, this is what it looks like. It's very generic and can't possibly be offensive.

I learned a lot about racial stereotypes in advertising in 316M. Some of the advertisements we analyzed in class included Aunt Jemima's Pancakes, Uncle Ben's rice products, Pear's Soap, and Abercrombie & Fitch's line of shirts that perpetuated Asian stereotypes. After actually encountering the old PM logo depicting a racial stereotype after and outside of 316M, it made me wonder:

Why is it more acceptable to use whites on logos such as KFC's Colonel Sanders or Wendy's red-haired girl?

I can't imagine the drama that would be caused if Colonel Sanders was portrayed as a black man considering the ties to the racial stereotype that as my professor put it, blacks "can't just like fried chicken, they have to be 'obesessed' with it", and that's what makes a stereotype "work" for society.

Just to get at least one person's insight into the matter, I asked a friend of mine who is black if he'd get offended if Colonel Sanders was portrayed as a black man. His response was along the lines of "I don't really care if he's black. I'm still gonna eat the chicken."

He said that he's not offended that commercials portray black stereotypes such as in the Gatorade ads, but what does bother him is that the stereotypes are accepted by blacks.

There are some exceptions such as the Michael Jordan's brand for shoes, but these accepted ads are few and far between.

It also leads me to another question: Is it safer to use a white person if you are going to be using a person at all in a logo?

Perhaps this is just part of the reason why logos, especially for larger, well-known, brands, are inherently generic and simple symbols that don't show any people.