With all due respect to traditional marketing theory, it has been well-documented that today’s audience has developed a more sensitive “BS filter.” I have to believe that the majority of the audience - today, a much more marketing-savvy audience - sees such tactics as patronizing. Readers have to know that a decision was made by marketers to insert a photo that would make the ad more appealing to them…to make the reader more comfortable.

That is exactly what would make me uncomfortable, if I could put myself in the reader’s shoes.

I wouldn’t feel the same way if, for instance, I were developing an ad selling laundry detergent. Washing clothes is a personal experience, and doesn’t hinge on a diverse group of people driving toward a common goal. In this example it makes more sense to me to portray a demographically-appropriate individual in the ad. After all, one doesn’t need to be concerned that there will be a diverse group of people standing around the washer on laundry day.

On the other hand, an employment opportunity is as much about the organization as it is about the individual. Therefore, the individual must be able to integrate into a multi-ethnic culture in order to be successful. The photos in a recruitment ad should be a truthful representation of that culture (unless the ad concept dictates a “This is you” approach). If featuring a subject that is not of the same ethnic background as the reader causes that reader to pass over the recruitment ad, then the ad has likely served as a valuable pre-screening tool, eliminating from consideration those who are not truly comfortable working in a multi-ethnic culture.

I’m not saying your ad should scream diversity if you’re really not that diverse, but simple things like imagery, etc. can suggest an awareness of diversity without specifically promoting it - and in reality, a fair amount of candidates just want a legit shot, and probably don’t care that much about being involved in the most diverse company in the region.

I agree with your idealistic view, but we’re not there yet and probably won’t be for quite some time.

Your last point about the diversity inherent among the audience of large-circulation (broadcast) media brings up another point worth mentioning: “Diversity” can mean different things to different geographic locations. A company can aspire to attracting a diverse mix of ethnic origin, but those aspirations are largely dictated by the ethnic demographics in the geography of said company’s hiring location. Unless there’s an appetite for a major relocation initiative (the wisdom of which is questionable), the ethnic mix of a given geography “is what it is,” to quote the greatest NFL coach of our time. It is my opinion that a company should consider itself successful in it’s diversity and inclusion efforts if it is able to reflect the demographics of the surrounding communities.

There are reasons to advertise on specific websites and journals that in themselves target a minority population. However, the reason i see for that is more or less for governmental compliance than for recruiting.

Large circulation publications, newspapers and websites are going to attract a diverse set of eyeballs by default… they are large and many people read/visit those places.

Thank you for your fresh perspective