1. “Frito Bandito” (1967-1971)
The Frito Bandito campaign featured a cartoon Mexican character with a sombrero and a thick accent, singing about his love for Fritos corn chips. While it was considered playful and entertaining at the time, the portrayal leaned heavily on stereotypes, reinforcing harmful caricatures of Mexican people. The character’s exaggerated accent and mannerisms weren’t just insensitive—they perpetuated a one-dimensional view of an entire culture.
In today’s cultural climate, this kind of ad would be criticized for its lack of respect and understanding of cultural identity. It oversimplified and mocked a heritage, reducing it to a few clichés for the sake of selling snacks. Brands are now held accountable for how they represent different communities, with an expectation of authenticity and inclusivity. The Frito Bandito might have been catchy in its day, but modern audiences would view it as an offensive relic of a less enlightened time.
2. “Joe Camel: Smooth Character” (1980s-1990s)
The Joe Camel campaign is infamous for its thinly veiled targeting of underage audiences, Stanford University unveiled in an article. This cigarette ad series featured a cartoonish camel with a suave persona, often depicted in settings like pool halls or music clubs, making smoking seem “cool.” While the ads technically aimed at adults, critics quickly pointed out how the colorful, playful design appealed to kids and teens. The campaign was so effective at attracting young smokers that it became a public health scandal, leading to its eventual ban in the late ’90s.
Today, the backlash against such blatant marketing to vulnerable populations would be immediate and overwhelming. Anti-smoking campaigns have made significant strides in exposing the dangers of tobacco, and any attempt to glamorize smoking—let alone to children—would be universally condemned. The Joe Camel ads serve as a stark reminder of how far advertising ethics have come and how quickly public sentiment can shift against harmful messaging.
3. “A Diamond Is Forever” by De Beers (1940s-1990s)
This long-running campaign convinced generations that true love could only be expressed with an expensive diamond ring. The ads perpetuated the idea that a man’s worth as a partner was tied to how much he spent, while a woman’s value was tied to receiving such a gift. According to The Drum, this ad was also a way of boosting the sale of diamonds, which had dropped since the Great Depression. By equating love with materialism, De Beers successfully created a cultural norm that persists to this day. The tagline, “A Diamond Is Forever,” even implied that relationships without a diamond lacked permanence or meaning.
Modern audiences might reject this messaging for its outdated gender dynamics and blatant consumerism. The campaign also glosses over the darker side of the diamond industry, including labor exploitation and environmental destruction. In an era when ethical consumption and equality in relationships are more valued, the De Beers ads would likely face intense scrutiny. The idea that love should be commodified feels increasingly out of step with today’s priorities, where sustainability and authenticity take center stage.
4. “Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner Protest Ad” (2017)
Although more recent than the others, this Pepsi ad deserves a place on the list for how quickly it became a cautionary tale in tone-deaf advertising. In the commercial, Kendall Jenner leaves a modeling shoot to join a protest, ultimately “solving” the tension between demonstrators and police by handing an officer a can of Pepsi. The ad was widely panned for trivializing social justice movements and co-opting their imagery for corporate gain, according to The New York Times.
Today, the backlash would likely be even more intense, as audiences have become increasingly critical of brands attempting to profit from activism without demonstrating real commitment to the causes they depict. The ad’s failure to understand the gravity of the issues it referenced—police brutality, systemic inequality, and civil unrest—highlights the risks of using social movements as mere marketing props. It’s a reminder that authenticity and cultural sensitivity are non-negotiable in modern advertising.
5. “Calgon, Take Me Away!” (1970s)
According to The Retroist, this iconic bubble bath commercial became a cultural catchphrase in the ’70s, capturing the frustrations of stressed-out housewives everywhere. The ad depicts a frazzled woman overwhelmed by a demanding husband, needy children, and a messy house. Her only salvation? A blissful soak in a Calgon bubble bath to “escape” her troubles. While this resonated with women of the time, who were often confined to traditional domestic roles, the ad’s framing of stress relief feels more like a Band-Aid than a real solution. It suggests that a woman’s life revolves around service to others, and her happiness comes second.
Today, this depiction would face criticism for perpetuating outdated gender roles and ignoring the realities of shared responsibilities in modern families. The idea that women are the default homemakers and caregivers doesn’t align with contemporary values of equality and partnership. It also raises questions about the absence of men in the equation—where’s dad in this scenario, and why isn’t he pitching in? Modern audiences would likely reject the ad’s narrow view of womanhood and its simplistic suggestion that a bubble bath is the answer to systemic gender inequality.
6. “Charlie Perfume: A Woman’s Got to Be Strong” (1970s)
Revolutionary for its time, Charlie Perfume commercials from the ’70s featured confident, independent women walking into boardrooms, strutting down streets, and taking control of their lives, Go Retro explains. The jingle boasted that “a woman’s got to be strong,” which felt empowering in an era when female independence was gaining traction. However, the visuals undercut the progressive tone by reinforcing narrow beauty standards. The Charlie women were always tall, thin, perfectly coiffed, and undeniably glamorous—implying that strength and success were tied to physical appearance.
In today’s advertising landscape, this juxtaposition would likely spark backlash for its lack of inclusivity. Modern consumers expect brands to showcase diverse representations of beauty and strength, and this ad’s focus on one specific “type” of woman feels tone-deaf by contemporary standards. While it paved the way for women-centric messaging, its unintentional reinforcement of impossible beauty ideals makes it a relic of a more restrictive era. The message of empowerment would have to be reimagined entirely to meet today’s expectations of authenticity and inclusivity.
7. “Ajax: The White Knight” (1950s)
This classic cleaning product ad featured a literal “white knight” who rode in to save housewives from dirty floors. While the knight’s shiny armor symbolized the product’s ability to clean thoroughly, the ad’s messaging reinforced the idea that cleanliness and domesticity were solely women’s responsibilities. It also portrayed women as helpless, relying on a (male) savior to solve their problems.
If this ad aired today, it would face criticism on multiple fronts. First, its gendered assumptions about who cleans would feel outdated and exclusionary. Second, the imagery of a “white knight” could be viewed as racially insensitive, given its focus on whiteness as a symbol of purity and superiority. Modern ads for cleaning products focus on shared household responsibilities, often featuring diverse families and challenging outdated stereotypes. The Ajax knight, while a clever visual metaphor in its time, would need a major overhaul to resonate with today’s audiences.
8. “Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix” (1920s-2020)
For decades, Aunt Jemima ads featured the character of Aunt Jemima, a Black woman portrayed as a cheerful cook. Originally inspired by minstrel stereotypes, the character embodied the “mammy” archetype, a deeply racist and reductive depiction of Black women. While the brand attempted to modernize Aunt Jemima’s image over the years, the character’s origins remained problematic and emblematic of systemic racism.
In today’s world, this kind of branding would never get off the ground. Consumers now demand accountability for the historical context behind brand mascots and logos, particularly those rooted in exploitation and oppression. In 2020, the company finally retired the Aunt Jemima name and image, rebranding as Pearl Milling Company. This move highlighted a broader cultural shift toward rejecting harmful stereotypes and acknowledging the importance of cultural sensitivity in marketing.
9. “Virginia Slims: You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby” (1968-1980s)
Virginia Slims ads targeted women with the tagline “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby,” celebrating women’s liberation—while selling cigarettes. The ads often featured glamorous women in stylish clothing, smoking as a symbol of independence. While the campaign was groundbreaking in its appeal to female empowerment, its underlying message was contradictory, as it promoted a harmful product under the guise of progress.
In today’s more health-conscious era, this campaign would be torn apart for its cynical exploitation of feminist ideals. It’s hard to imagine any brand associating cigarettes with empowerment without facing major backlash. Additionally, the campaign’s focus on thin, conventionally attractive women as the epitome of success would feel exclusionary and regressive. Modern consumers are more skeptical of brands that use social movements as a marketing tool without addressing their deeper implications.
10. “Mr. Whipple: Please Don’t Squeeze the Charmin” (1964-1985)
This long-running campaign featured Mr. Whipple, a grocery store manager obsessed with preventing customers from squeezing Charmin toilet paper. The humor stemmed from Mr. Whipple’s exaggerated reactions, but his behavior—scolding women for their actions—reinforced gender stereotypes. Women were the primary subjects in these ads, subtly suggesting that toilet paper shopping was “women’s work.”
While this may seem like harmless fun, today’s audiences are much more aware of the subtle ways advertising perpetuates gender roles. The ads also created a weirdly uncomfortable dynamic, with Mr. Whipple’s overbearing presence coming across as creepy rather than comedic. In a modern context, brands go out of their way to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or alienating consumers with outdated tropes. The humor of Mr. Whipple might have worked in his time, but today it would need a major rework to avoid criticism.
