In recent months, advertisements have increasingly leaned into the controversial theme of genetic superiority, ostensibly to appeal to consumers’ desires for authenticity and naturalness. However, beneath this surface lies a troubling political and social implication: the subtle reinforcement of racial hierarchies. When brands like Dunkin’ promote ideas such as “genetics” determining aesthetic attributes—like a tan—without context or critique, they inadvertently contribute to a culture that idealizes specific phenotypes over others. This strategy might seem harmless or even playful on the surface, but it stokes the idea that certain physical traits are inherently more desirable, thereby marginalizing those who do not fit within these narrow standards.
Furthermore, such messaging masks a dangerous assumption: that beauty and worth are biologically predetermined and unchangeable. The ad’s emphasis on “my genetics” and “natural” tan borders on endorsing the false notion that some individuals are inherently more beautiful or capable because of their inherited traits. This perspective undermines diversity and promotes a superficial understanding of identity rooted solely in genetics, ignoring the complex social, cultural, and individual factors that shape us.
Implications of Racial and Cultural Insensitivity
Critics rightly point out that these ads often promote a narrow, whitened ideal of beauty, which is problematic given the demographic realities of the consumer base and the world at large. Dunkin’, and similar brands, risk alienating diverse audiences when they seem to implicitly suggest that “being the best” or “standing out” is linked to particular genetic features typically associated with whiteness. This approach inadvertently echoes harmful narratives from past eras that weaponized physical traits to justify racial hierarchies and social inequality.
Moreover, the parallels drawn between this campaign and past controversial advertising—such as American Eagle’s “genes” campaign—highlight a recurring pattern. These campaigns’ language often taps into unsubstantiated pseudoscience, giving credence to ideas of racial superiority masked as casual, humorous statements. When brands use such rhetoric, they are not merely selling products—they are engaging in messaging that can normalize and reinforce dangerous stereotypes, even if unintentionally.
Consequences for Society and Brand Responsibility
The backlash against these advertising strategies is not trivial. Consumers are increasingly aware of the social implications of the messages they absorb daily, and these revelations prompt critical questions about corporate responsibility. Brands that utilize pseudoscientific language linking genetics with beauty risk legitimizing harmful ideologies, feeding into societal divisions rooted in race, ethnicity, and class. In this context, companies must challenge their creative teams to craft campaigns that celebrate diversity without resorting to reductive or exclusionary narratives.
What’s more, in a globalized world where social media amplifies voices instantaneously, brands can no longer afford to remain indifferent to the cultural impact of their messaging. As critics and activists continue to call out these problematic themes, there is an urgent need for corporations to reevaluate their advertising strategies. Moving beyond superficial ideals of inherent genetic superiority toward genuine inclusivity and social awareness is not just ethically right—it’s also essential for building trust and fostering a more equitable society.