In recent advertising trends, there has been a troubling shift toward emphasizing genetics as a measure of superiority, often in subtle and seemingly innocuous ways. The Dunkin’ ad featuring Gavin Casalegno exemplifies this disturbing pattern. By claiming his tan is purely “genetics” and positioning himself as “king of summer,” the commercial implicitly elevates certain physical traits—such as a sun-kissed complexion—as markers of naturally superior attributes. While on the surface this appears to be a playful, light-hearted message, it subtly reinforces problematic ideas linking genetic traits with social value and attractiveness. This trend is dangerous because it normalizes the idea that some individuals are inherently better or more desirable because of their genetics, feeding into a dangerous misconception that supports racial hierarchies.
The Illusion of Naturalness and Its Implications
What makes the advertisement particularly insidious is its portrayal of skin tone and appearance as an unalterable aspect of one’s identity—an unassailable gift from “genetics.” However, this message glosses over the fact that skin tone and appearance are heavily influenced by environmental factors, health, and personal care, and are often the product of socio-economic conditions. By framing a bronze complexion as a genetic gift, brands subtly endorse the idea that physical attributes linked to whiteness are inherently desirable and more “natural.” This kind of marketing fosters harmful stereotypes and can perpetuate bias, especially given that the ad’s target demographic may unconsciously internalize the message that lighter or “genetically favored” features are the ideal standard.
The Broader Cultural Context and Its Consequences
Critics rightly point out the problematic undertones of such campaigns, especially given the racial makeup of many corporate ownerships and their markets. An ad that subtly promotes the superiority of white features contradicts the reality that many minority communities contribute significantly to the economy and culture of these brands. The comparison to Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle campaign, which sparked controversy for seeming to endorse racial purity through “genes,” illustrates how pervasive and dangerous this messaging truly is. When brands talk about traits like hair color, eye color, or skin tone in a way that hints at innate superiority, they risk echoing long-standing pseudoscience used to justify racial hierarchies.
Mockery and Critical Backlash—A Sign of Societal Discontent
The public reaction, including satirical responses from artists like Doja Cat, underscores a growing awareness and rejection of these problematic narratives. Making humor out of these ads is one way society challenges the underlying message—highlighting how absurd and offensive it is to equate genetics with worth. Such backlash is critical in exposing how commercial messaging can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and why consumers must approach these ads with a critical eye. The conversation around these campaigns reveals an urgent need for brands to reconsider their messaging and avoid inadvertently endorsing ideas linked to racial superiority and genetic elitism.
Moving Toward Ethical Advertising
As media consumers and advocates for social justice, we must demand more responsible and inclusive messaging from brands. Commercials should celebrate diversity without resorting to pseudoscience or sensational language that fosters division. True progress involves shifting the focus from superficial traits to qualities that unites us—kindness, resilience, and authenticity. It’s time for advertisers to recognize their power—not just in selling products but in shaping societal values. Avoiding the trap of promoting “superior” genetics is a step toward building a more equitable culture, free from the shadows of racial bias that too often lurk behind the glossy veneer of marketing campaigns.
Leave a Reply