Representation: Explicit and Implicit Avoidance of Dark Skin in Indian Ads

"Colourism", a phenomenon that has long shaped beauty ideals in the Indian sub-continent, has been reinforced by advertising -building capitalist empires through narratives cornering people, especially women, of darker skin shades. Following the crackdown on fairness focused advertisements, the implicit persistence of skin tones hierarchies in Indian media shows how deeply entrenched the prejudices remain.

In 2014, the Advertising Standards Council of India established guidelines addressing the frequent portrayal of individuals with darker skin tones as inferior to those with fair complexions in advertisements (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/advertising/new-guidelines-for-fairness-advertisements-dont-show-bias-on-basis-of-skin-colour-say-asci/articleshow/36364189.cms?from=mdr). However, it was only in response to a global anti-racism movement that these brands began to acknowledge the significance of these guidelines.

Efforts by the industry to link lighter skin with economic success are evident in advertisements of products like Fair and Lovely, rebranded as Glow & Lovely in 2020, in response to criticisms of exploiting women's insecurities about skin colour in a country with diverse complexions, where fair skin is disproportionately represented in media. The rebranding received mixed reactions. Despite the passage of three years since this change, the issue of colorism in Indian advertisements remains prevalent, although in subtler and more implicit ways, it shows little sign of abating, highlighting the need for continued examination of this persistent social phenomenon.

Photo by fauxels (Pexels.com)

In 2016, three students at the University of Texas, Austin, launched the Instagram campaign Unfair & Lovely, a critique of India's widely-known fairness cream, Fair & Lovely. Through the hashtag #unfairandlovely, the campaign encouraged individuals with darker skin tones to share their experiences and photos (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/unfairandlovely-the-hashtag-battling-the-prejudice-for-lighter-skin-a6932761.html). This initiative not only challenged colorism but also created a platform for underrepresented voices, fostering a broader conversation about beauty standards and racial biases.

Motivated by the Black Lives Matter movement, Chandana Hiran, a 20-year-old woman from Mumbai, initiated a petition on Change.org targeting Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), the owner of Fair & Lovely or Glow & Lovely. In just two weeks, the petition attracted over 15,000 signatures. This swift and widespread support highlights the growing public awareness and collective demand for corporate accountability in addressing issues of colorism and racial bias (https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/human-interest/fair-and-lovely-chandana-hiran-516645.html). A separate petition by three women -Anum Chandani, Hira Hashmi & Marvi Ahmed - on the same platform called on Unilever to take responsibility for its product, Fair & Lovely, in light of global anti-racist movements. The petition argues that the product perpetuates and profits from internalised racism by promoting the idea that individuals with darker skin tones can only achieve confidence and success through skin lightening. This underscores the deeper issue of colorism and the role corporations play in reinforcing harmful social norms (https://www.change.org/p/unilever-ban-fair-lovely).

Indian ad space post Glow & Lovely has not embraced the heterogeneity in Indian skin colours well enough to curb the insecurities of and discrimination against people of dark skin tone. The colourism seen on TV during Fair & Lovely days was largely explicit where one’s worth in any walk of life was correlated to their skin colour through the ads promoting skin lightening products. These ads were also directed towards a predominantly female audience and consumer base. With youth getting educated on these topics and recognising the prejudice being promoted on the name of complexion, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. has been forced to change Fair & Lovely to Glow & Lovely. Not only its name, but all of its marketing has axed the term ‘fairness’ altogether. HUL’s second largest skincare brand in India, Pond’s, also renamed its ‘White Beauty’ range to ‘Bright Beauty’, even changing its marketing from fairness focused to ingredient focused to ride with the changes in the skincare industry which India had caught on to.

Beiersdorf, Nivea's parent company, voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement and rejected all forms of racism despite its Natural Fairness line being marketed in regions like the Middle East and Africa, aiming to "prevent skin darkening." However, while global brands appear to be shifting towards inclusivity, the superficial changes in language—replacing terms like "fair" with "glow" or "bright"—fall short of addressing the deeply ingrained issue of colorism. These efforts risk being perceived as token gestures rather than meaningful change (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53178088).

Now we do not hear narratives pushing success and esteem as a consequence of fair skin, but we see unequal representation of skin colour in every form of television broadcast content. This includes children's content like cartoon and ads. Even less often than being only represented is the frequency of positive and meaningful characters of darker skin being portrayed. There are several academic studies on children and the effects of feeling included in the media. The 2010 study by CNN showed how children believed fair skinned cartoon characters to be beautiful, pointing towards conditioning of children at an early age (https://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/13/doll.study/index.html) . In India as well, the lack of representation of colours that the vast population identifies with, may condition one with diffidence. Especially, when content from other sources of media like TV shows, movies, and cartoons also affect the children. These content may also showcase colourism in varying levels of implicitness. To understand these, it is important to study the possibilities of patterns in the characters that darker skinned actors -especially women and children- are seen portraying. However, in Indian advertisements, only few have medium skinned and barely any dark skinned child actors in them to study patterns in their characters.

With the pronounced shifts in their marketing approach by the likes of HUL, it was deemed a big step towards eliminating colourism in the society. However, these developments only managed to eliminate the direct promotion of colourism on TV. The advertisements which are unrelated to beauty products continue to represent by and large fair skinned people by mostly portraying fair skinned models/ actors. While studies have shown the prejudice of colourism to affect and be directed mostly towards women, a look into advertisements of children’s products brings light to the omnipresence of colourism. Brands like Mamy Poko Pants, Huggies, Complan, Horlicks Junior, Johnson & Johnson, all have been portraying child models of fair skin colour. These advertisements, however, do not mention skin colour. Yet, even the mere representation is questionable!