Dear Cannes Lions, you can do more on inequality

Would your average straight Cannes judge recognize an LGBT+ stereotype if it waltzed up to them screaming 'Ooh, matron'?

Judges of this year’s Cannes Lions have been asked to ensure the work they are assessing does not "represent deep-rooted stereotypical portrayals" of any minority group.

As a group who have long campaigned for inclusive LGBT+ representation in advertising, we’re thrilled that the biggest industry festival is finally addressing this problem. However, we fear that this announcement may result in a swing the other way, with judges beguiled by "pinkwashing" and brands that have made well-intentioned but clumsy nods to our community singled out for praise despite their work possibly doing more harm than good.

Don’t misunderstand us: we welcome the updated guidelines. But it remains crucial to our mission that jurors don’t go too far the other way and give extra marks to a campaign that has made only a cursory LGBT+ nod.

Ooh, matron!

We’ve come a long way from unsubtle, camp villains in kids' cartoons, but LGBT+ still regularly lacks any convincing representation in ads whatsoever, stereotyped or otherwise.

And yet, would your average straight Cannes judge recognize an LGBT+ stereotype if it waltzed up to them screaming "Ooh, matron"?

At PrideAM, we campaign strongly for brands to ensure a more representative sample of people work on their ads. But if honestly progressive work is to be given the honour of a Cannes Lions, it needs to be judged by a panel from the broadest of backgrounds.

We would love the Cannes Lions organizers to reveal how many transgender judges they have. How many are queer and gender-fluid? Do the judges even know what non-binary means? And you can bet they have no idea that 54% of 18-to 24-year-old Brits identify as neither 100% straight nor 100% gay.

LGBT+ judges

Of course, not everyone will agree on what constitutes a fallacious stereotype and what is a genuine reflection of authentic behaviour; indeed, PrideAM’s creative reviews are never without a heated debate. But the environment created by a panel that includes LGBT+ judges will engender more openness and discussion, generating far more useful insights than offering up the work to a group that doesn’t possess knowledge of the nuances of and an eye for the details of LGBT+ life.

However the new Cannes Lions guidelines are interpreted, at PrideAM we will not be holding our breath for a plethora of awards going to genuinely inclusive campaigns that celebrate the LGBT+ community. Why? Because all too often our industry’s output is, as Stonewall chair Jan Gooding pointed out in PrideAM’s last creative review, "pathetically tokenistic."

We should be reaching the point when LGBT+ inclusion in ads is unremarkable, fairly standard, a part of daily life. Yet there are still precious few ads that get it right.

Danger zone

The reason? Mostly fear. Sometimes – sadly – prejudice, but mostly fear. Great ideas get knocked on the head, because someone somewhere in the chain loses their nerve and sidesteps valuable LGBT+ inclusion. Brands still sell themselves short by shyly implying LGBT+ inclusion – keen to look "right on" yet inoffensive – rather than openly celebrating it.

The Cannes Lions festival needs to establish a way of openly encouraging work inclusive of LGBT+ to get made in the first place, not just policing stereotyping. The knock-on effect of the latter without the former could be that LGBT+ inclusivity will be dodged entirely for fear of wandering into the unknown danger zone.

We need the carrot as well as the stick. So we say to Cannes bosses: this is a start, but it’s not nearly enough.

Mark Runacas is president and Phil Clements is a member and spokesman of PrideAM

This story first appeared on campaignlive.co.uk. 

Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in