In recent advertising campaigns, brands like Dunkin’ and American Eagle have stepped into controversial territory by linking physical features with innate qualities such as attractiveness, success, and authenticity. Gavin Casalegno’s promotional video for Dunkin’ exemplifies this trend, where he confidently attributes his tan to “genetics,” implying a natural superiority rooted in biology. Such messaging, while seemingly playful, carries a profound influence on societal perceptions, subtly reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Instead of celebrating individual uniqueness, these ads risk propagating a narrow and idealized standard of beauty that privileges lighter skin as a marker of worth or desirability.
The Implication of “Genetics” as a Status Symbol
The phrase “genetics” is often employed in advertising to suggest that certain traits are innate and unalterable, often aligning them with attractiveness and social advantage. When Casalegno claims his tan is “literally” from his genetics, it subtly elevates a superficial attribute—bronzed skin—to a marker of genetic privilege. This implicitly suggests that certain physical features are more “natural” or “authentic,” perpetuating a hierarchy that favors whiteness and lighter features. Critics correctly point out that such symbolism is not benign; it echoes historically ingrained notions that equate white features with superiority, invisibly endorsing racial biases under the guise of a lighthearted campaign.
Echoes of Historical and Racial Biases in Modern Advertising
This pattern of promoting “genes” as a symbol of excellence is not new. Past campaigns, like Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle ad, have faced backlash for implying that beauty and worth are defined by specific racial or physical traits. When brands emphasize certain features, they run the risk of normalizing ideals rooted in racial discrimination, a dangerous echo of centuries of pseudoscientific beliefs about racial hierarchies. Critics argue that this language, intentionally or not, sustains systemic biases that have historically marginalized non-white populations, making it vital for advertisers to be more mindful of the messages they propagate.
The Cultural Consequences of Repeating Such Narratives
The ripple effects of these advertising choices extend beyond mere branding. They shape societal standards and influence self-perception, especially among impressionable audiences. Modern consumers are increasingly aware of the underlying implications of marketing, and many now scrutinize ads for subtleties that reinforce stereotypes. When celebrities like Doja Cat mock these campaigns, they highlight the absurdity and potential danger of equating appearance with genetic merit. This critique underscores a broader cultural pushback against notions that associate beauty, success, or authenticity with race-based traits, urging brands to reconsider the narratives they lend credence to and the societal impact they foster.
Through this critical lens, it becomes evident that while the intent behind such ads might seem trivial or humorous, the messages they embed can be deeply harmful. Challenging these narratives is an essential step toward fostering a more inclusive and equitable societal standard that celebrates diversity rather than constraining it within outdated and dangerous ideas of genetic superiority.