Can Camera Companies Support the Black Lives Matter Movement if They Have No Black Ambassadors?

Can Camera Companies Support the Black Lives Matter Movement if They Have No Black Ambassadors?

Last week, one of the world's biggest camera manufacturers retweeted a short film of a Black Lives Matter protest shot on one of its cameras. Given that the company’s photography ambassadors for the country where the protest was staged are 19 white men and one white woman, how does it justify lending the movement its support?

The footage was a simple series of short clips from a protest in a major European city cut together to give a taste of the atmosphere and locations. The filmmaker shared it on Twitter, tagging the camera brand’s Twitter account for that country. Pleased to see a major manufacturer lending its voice to the Black Lives Matter movement, I then wondered whether this support was reflected more widely in the company’s public profile.

On its website, the brand lists ambassadors from around the world. For this specific country, 19 of the 20 ambassadors appear to be white men. The other is a white woman.

This is not to point an accusatory finger at any specific company (hence not identifying them) or to assume that there is an unconscious bias towards choosing a certain type of photographer over others. It’s far more complex than that. This is to draw attention to a pattern in the photography industry that is a reflection of a broader issue.

Who Has Keys to the Clubhouse?

Fstoppers’ Anete Lusina wrote persuasively last week that photography has never been so democratic. More people have access to powerful image-making tools than at any point in history, with a smartphone in everyone’s pocket and manufacturers making cameras with phenomenal abilities at ever-lower prices. “It’s a world open to anyone,” the title states, and to a degree, this is true. The article cited an excellent project by Historic England that deliberately sourced imagery from across the country, rather than drawing on the photographs of a small number of established professionals and artists as might often be the case.

However, despite programs such as this, photography remains much like golf. Sure, anyone can buy some weird sticks and hit a tiny ball, but not everyone gets to relax in the clubhouse afterward.

There are gatekeepers — curators, journalists, creative directors, magazine editors, and manufacturer executives who choose their company’s ambassadors — and for a wide range of reasons, it remains an exclusive club where very often everyone looks the same. Some of these reasons have nothing to do with race, color, privilege, or wealth; sometimes, it’s just an insular society that needs a little nudge to look outside of its immediate circle. Other times, there are systemic barriers at play.

History and habits aren’t necessarily consciously racist, but they tend to like the status quo. If you don’t have the right connections and look a certain way, the clubhouse is much more difficult to enter. To push this daft analogy to its limits, if you don’t already mix in the right circles and have the right appearance, you might end up smashing balls at a driving range for the rest of your life, despite the fact that you can plow a three iron 250 yards and land your ball on a tea cozy.

So, should this camera manufacturer immediately replace some of its ambassadors to create a more diverse collective? In short, no, though it certainly wouldn’t hurt to add people of color (and almost certainly increase gender diversity) so that the photographers who represent its brand are more representative of the people who use its cameras. Such a move would only increase its appeal and broaden its customer base. (If you think that their inclusion should be based solely on the quality of their work, I refer you back to my golf analogy.) This might strike some as a cynical reason for increasing a company’s social equity efforts, but it’s a better reason than none.

Beyond that, with its newfound awareness, the brand might want to consider more programs to create opportunities for those who do not enjoy the same privileges. Marketing executives from the likes of Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm are already having conversations with organizations such as Women Photograph and Diversify Photo, who campaign and advocate for greater visibility for photographers who tend to be overlooked.

The conversation seems to be moving forward; it's just that ambassador roles are taking a while to catch up.

Lead image by Prime Cinematics.

Andy Day's picture

Andy Day is a British photographer and writer living in France. He began photographing parkour in 2003 and has been doing weird things in the city and elsewhere ever since. He's addicted to climbing and owns a fairly useless dog. He has an MA in Sociology & Photography which often makes him ponder what all of this really means.

Log in or register to post comments
129 Comments
Previous comments

At this point in history diversity in photography is very largely the choice of who decided to go into the profession. The vast majority of photographers are entrepreneurs. Are you suggesting that people from different races should be forced to be photographers so the profession is more diversified and people from other races should be forced not to or discriminated against because they are in the current majority?

Yes, they should. Black people are UNDER-represented in Country Music. More black people should be forced to join in, for diversity.

I used to love Charlie Pride, back in the day! :-)

Yes, equality of opportunity is to be lauded. Equality of outcome is both unrealistic, and an impossible ideal.

I also noticed they discriminate against Eskimos, Native Americans, Cubans, and perhaps Brazilians. Tony, you can correct these injustices. Just hire 2 of each and share the wealth with them. Make it a worker's cooperative. After all, "you didn't build it yourself". Don't just send $500 to Biden for your white sins to be forgiven...

Lets just fire caucasoid ambassadors, it will increase diversity eventually....

@Tony Northrup:se Says the apparently financially successful white man! Like others here seeking to tout diversity, you only address the upper tier photographers.

I go to many free B&H EventSpace corporate sponsored classes, their sponsored foto-walks, & industry events Optic - Foto EXpo Plus. There is plenty of diversity among the hobbyist, serious hobbyist, pro-sumers, & everyday pros trying to make a buck.

So you're obviously speaking out abt the high-tier fotogs' diversity. Why does the lack of it pain you?

Do you believe there should be more black high level pros? What are you doing to make that happen? Besides seeking to make change for one specific group?I thought it was abt talent & skill!

This very thing is what has hurt the black population. The black population is being told day after day that they must be given "stuff" to survive. Wow!!!

That is exactly what happens. Oh you need housing, here you go section 8, you need food, here you go food stamps. College admissions, oh you can get admitted because the color of your skin. You need to apply for a job, well you will get it because of the color of your skin because my company needs more black numbers.

About all I now for sure is, Black Lives Matter, is not the answer. Both sides want to "use" black people. Then it all goes away and things return to normal.

Showing a real lack of knowledge, Bill.

Racist white men creating racist policies at every level of government since the inception of the U.S. is what has hurt the black population.

As far as welfare programs go, white people have always been welfare recipients in significantly greater numbers than black people, both on an aggregate and a per-capita basis. Black people living on government resources has always been a lie: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/americans-welfare-perceptions-survey_n_5a...

If you turn off welfare programs, that's going to affect way more white people than black people.

And if you talk about farm "subsidies" which is just a euphemism for welfare for farmers that's been going on since the Great Depression. $28 billion in government money to farmers in just the last two years: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/12/31/790261705/farmers-got-bi...

I can promise you that endless well of government money has not been going to black people. All those farmers out in the midwest who've been living off the government for generations look like you, not me.

If you want to tell some people to go get a job, start with those farmers.

Not that I disagree but can you give specific examples of racist policies within the last fifty years. I'll readily agree that racists, of all colors, exist.

There are countless online resources, published papers and articles with very specific examples, but the documentary "13th" on Netflix is an easy and accessible starting point.

Regrettably, I'm too lazy to look for something, I don't know exists, not that I doubt you. How would you even go about searching for such a thing? And I have no access to Netflix or any television programming for that matter, much preferring books.

Ball is on your court, Bill.

Lenzy, is any of the BLM money (billions in donations I hear...) going to black people? Or has BLM unfortunately become Biden's paypal? Where does the money go man?

FYI, Europeans are the champions in farming subsidies. Not "welfare", but production subsidies, which come with terms about crops and production. And still I don't see many people wanting to become farmers. Why? And by "white people", do you also mean Polish immigrants who came here 5 years ago? The Syrians? (they are white too). Who are the "whites" you 're talking about? You'd think a cultured city photographer would know.

Nah, all we need back is the 400 years that was taken from us. Then we'll be fine, thanks :)

Oh, and if you could organise giving us half of everything that was gained from us during those 400 years, and everything we were deprived of for 100 or so years after that. I think that's fair.

That sounds reasonable, depending of course on who the "you" and "us" are, you have in mind.

Actually, no, it sounds ridiculous and, really, makes your cause appear silly. Taking your proposal to its natural conclusion, assuming the "you" means Americans of European descent and the "us", descendants of their slaves, you would have to wait in line behind Native Americans. After they've been given back the entirety of the Americas and all wealth built upon it, there would be nothing left for said descendants. And that's just a start: does someone of half descent get a half portion? My ancestors came here long after slavery ended and I can name each individual along the line, demonstrating how they had nothing to do with subsequent racist policies or institutions; do I get a pass? As someone else noted, do descendants of the Africans who gathered up others for sale to Europeans have to contribute? I read an opinion piece by Robert Johnson on this very subject and, even though his proposal was well reasoned, he only addressed those issues for which he had a ready answer, and very few at that.

Where am I wrong?

"You people"? "You only make noise".... You are really showing your true colors.

yeah, right.....

definitely is not. but use of words reveal your true colors.

I will pray that you will one day move out of your mom's basement and get some sun.

Then you should be the most religious person on earth short of the Pope.

Yeah, true. I'm more of a Protools guy.

Take and give nothing back?? How do you figure that? I give exactly the same as anyone else in society, however statistics (from white academics) suggest that I'm not getting back quite the same as some others.

Black people aren't given stuff, stuff is taken from them. America is set up as a caste system where black people are bottom casted. A perfect example is the fact that a slave created the formula for Jack Daniels, it is a 29 billion dollar company. That money went to the slave owner and his descendendants. With slavery they stole labor and family. Upon freeing the slaves they made sure that slaves could not compete with whites in the job market because slaves were skilled labor. Tulsa Oklahoma, redlining, I can go on and on. The fact is white women are the number one benefactor of Affirmative Action and Welfare programs in raw numbers. So is it fair to assume that blacks are hurt for handouts when America was built on handouts that only went to white people?

LOL, John Adamz. You truly are a polished fstoppers gem.

It's not a single incident that happened 200 years ago (not sure where that figure came from). It's a system that has been consistent for over 400 years. Yes, slavery happened and was abolished (in very grey terms). Then came sharecropping, then came Jim Crow, then came segregation, then came redlining. Generations of 'Blacks' (as you like you like to call us) have been denied the same opportunities as their white counterparts. They were held back economically and educationally, unable to build, unable to save, unable to purchase property. These things have a knock on effect for generations, not to mention the education system is still not serving 'certain' communities nearly as well as others.

You should read more.

Hilarious.

lol, please stop digging john adams. "Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt."

I'm thinking that he (John Adams) posted his opinion. So you might want to take your own advice and be silent.

Ok, tough guy.

Drama, Drama, Drama. Why are you so hostile about everything. Don't know where that "tough guy" came from or even what you meant by it.

"Not too bright, though"

Well, there will be more black photographers soon after all those riots and looting

care to explain the logic behind that statement?

The only surviving journalist, fearless, and the cops wouldn't dare to touch them.

I think rick was referring to more black corporate reps.

The truth there are numerous black photographers that are the top in our industry.

Now when they are added to Nikon, Sony and Canon shooting teams people will say they got the position just because they are black. Truth is that will be true. Another truth is, it shouldn't have to be, because they are skilled enough on their own.

I can tell you, I never really thought too much about who is a "black" photographer or who is a "white" photographer. Most cases I looked at persons work first. If I like their work then I would see who they are. If I wasn't impressed with their images, I moved on and had no idea if they were black or white. Not always that way but most of the time.

Before we get too deep into this black & white thing. The real problem in our industry is the lack of recognition of women!

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt." was tailormade for posts like this. I have never seen so many people proclaim how colorblind they are when it comes to issues of race.

My dear friend. It is you that is racist. You may not realize it buy you are. You are all about hate and drama, mostly drama.

Now if you want to have a serious conversation that is another thing. But please leave your racism and drama out of the topic.

LOL.

Rick wasn't referring to black corporate reps, he was from what I can tell making some sort of tone deaf joke? He replied himself before you commented and said nothing related to your explanation.

The truth is, the people who sit down in boardrooms and decide who is going to visually represent their brand will usually only go for a black person if it sending some sort of message, or if said black person is some kind of undeniable superstar. Why? Because western media has made this the norm, even the representation I see is mostly tokenised to make some point or other.

You may not see colour (not super helpful when trying to stomp out racism) but trust me, brand consultants and PR people DO!

Resident fstoppers racist John Adams with another gem.

There you go again!

I will always call out racists like you.

The stats prove that black people get a raw deal it’s as simple as that.Black sports people do well because there is a level playing field.
In terms of photography a company will choose someone who is good at photography and excellent at their own self promotion to be one of their ambassadors. I doubt men are 19 to 1 better than woman at photography and black people are so bad they don’t get a look in.

How could you write all this and not name the company?

That's pretty lame.

It makes sense not to because he isn't trying to embarass the company but he is trying to ask a question and make a point. He doesn't know the companies motives. Thats how racism works by the way. Most times when someone is mistreated due to racism they never truly know if it is because racism or a million other reasons. So its not always fair to assume that racism is the cause. Plus the company did a good thing by reaching out to the black community.

More comments