Feed a Child defends controversial ad
JOBURG - Feed a Child South Africa has defended its highly controversial advert, which portrayed a black child as a dog in the home of a white woman.
The advert, which has since been removed from YouTube, has received mixed reactions on social media. It showed a young black boy being given treats by the wealthy white woman.
In the opening scene he rests his head on her lap as she feeds him snacks and strokes him and later rewards him with another snack when he brings her a newspaper in bed.
The boy then kneels next to the woman as she sits on a chair and feeds him a final snack after which the advert ends with the statement: “The average domestic dog eats better than millions of children.”
However, Feed a Child has defended the advert, arguing the commercial is based on the shocking societal truth that many domestic animals in this country are better fed than many children.
“The commercial is intentionally emotive to trigger the necessary awareness on this issue to generate engagement and contributions. There was no intention to cause offence,” the organisation said in a statement.
“Feed a Child aims to provide support for the devastating impacts caused by poverty and malnutrition in South Africa. Our main mission is to make people aware of the fact that there are thousands of children out there that they work with on a daily basis that don’t even have access to one meal per day.”
The organisation said it was monitoring responses to the advert and was open to any feedback, but noted that it remained valid and was serving an important purpose of raising awareness.
The organisation had since also released a revised video , in which its founder and CEO Alza Rautenbach defended the advert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfCrG93LNI&feature=youtu.be
She acknowledged the negative connotation in the advert but asked “what if this advert changed a child’s life?”.
“… Like a child I don’t see race or politics; the only thing that is important to me is to make a difference in a child’s life and to make sure that that child is fed on a daily basis.”
She appealed to the public not to look beyond the perceived racial matter in the advert and “stand together and make difference”.
Of course it’s shocking and controversial. Feed a Child SA aimed at getting a response in the form of food, not racial mud slinging. Imagine if they’d used one of the President’s wives with a coloured, indian or Chinese child? Same reaction: racial mud slinging!
The reaction to this pulled advert by Feed A Child, CEO Alza Rautenbach is just mind boggling. How can such a demeaning advert be in the interest of hungry children? BLACK hungry children I may add. How can images that are so racist, demeaning, abusive purportedly be seeking to draw attention to the plight of the hungry children of South Africa? Alza Rautenbach the founder of Feed A Child, urges South Africans to look beyond colour. “Like me don’t look at colour… like me don’t look at politics”, she says.
Really, Alza; are you that naïve?? Were you colour-blind when you chose ONLY BLACK children for the advert? If as you claim, you have a deep-rooted passion for all the children of South Africa, why is it that the Ogilvy and your very own come back advert is not representative of all races? I dare you and Ogilvy to produce a similar ad (in fact the same ad) using WHITE children this time around. Afterall, Feed A Child represents ALL children of South Africa. This is what you said in your recorded message. Just for the record, I think the reverse of this advert would be equally racist and demeaning.
Ms. Rautenbach, in your message, you ask three questions. Is the advertisement racist? YES IT IS! Is it controversial? YOU BET IT IS and I argue that it would have angered many enlightened and socially conscious people. Is it offensive? Well, I AM VERY OFFENDED and you can judge by the reaction of your advertising agency that this may have OFFENDED many more people. Ms. Rautenbach, can I add one more question you should have asked and that is, “It is abusive”? And my answer is…IT IS EXTREMELY ABUSIVE to the children portrayed in the advertisement. WHY do you have to demean these children to make a point? #BRINGBACKOURCHILDREN’SDIGNITY#.
You ask in your recorded video message, “what if the advert has changed a child’s life”? Let me enlighten you…. it has changed many children’s lives; BLACK children’s lives. Thanks to you and your ad agency you have managed in just three minutes to take us back to the dark days.
YOU are eroding the legacy of respect and dignity for our children left behind by our leaders.