Gilbert on controversial downtown sign: 'We screwed up badly'

**xrockerboy** · July-25-17, 12:22 PM

'A Sunday-night Facebook post signed by billionaire businessman Dan Gilbert announced that his organization "screwed up badly" when posting a downtown sign that said, "See Detroit like we do."

Filling windows along the ground level of the Vinton Building, the sign with the Bedrock real-estate company's insignia was a photograph of nearly all white people. U.S. Census data in 2010 showed the city to be more than 82% black.'

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ign/503929001/

**Scottathew** · July-25-17, 12:40 PM

How do folks here feel about it?

**Meddle** · July-25-17, 12:43 PM

I'm not really sure I understand it. If the picture was taken in town at a public event as the article implies, then what's the issue?

**EGrant** · July-25-17, 12:49 PM

A bad slogan, but a wild overreaction from people just looking for something to get offended about.

**cla1945** · July-25-17, 12:57 PM

Much ado about nothing. Some people just love to bring up the race card [[not enough black representation in the picture).
They should be thanking Dan Gilbert for all the investments he's made in the downtown area. If not for people like him, the Illich's, Karmanos, etc., downtown would be a wasteland today. Without a vibrant downtown and a tax base, Detroit will fail.
Dan Gilbert didn't need to apologize to anyone for what others perceive to be a mistake, but he's pressured to be politically correct.

**1953** · July-25-17, 01:14 PM

I also feel like this is a non-story, started by people who are a) easily offended and/or b) jealous of Gilbert.

1953

**southen** · July-25-17, 01:32 PM

It is tone deaf at a time when we are concerned about gentrification and displacement of long time residents. It is not jealousy and it isn't people easily offended, it is those who want a more inclusive Detroit.

Gilbert has done good by the city in many ways but that should not mean that he or his companies are immune to criticism because he has invested a billion dollars. His endeavors are not altruistic, he is making a killing on his investments.

**Bham1982** · July-25-17, 01:43 PM

White people from suburbs lecturing a 90% nonwhite city on when to show outrage. Why am I not surprised?

**aj3647** · July-25-17, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

I'm not really sure I understand it. If the picture was taken in town at a public event as the article implies, then what's the issue?

Unfortunate timing given the anniversary of the riots and a picture showcasing a "White Detroit."

In defense of Gilbert, this campaign was concocted by a contracted advertising firm and it's highly doubtful that Gilbert saw this photo in advance or had to personally approve it before it went up.

In this case, as soon as people expressed concern, Gilbert did the correct thing which was to have it taken down and immediately issue a public apology. Of course, there were always be those who won't be satisfied until the offending party commits Seppuku on live TV to atone for their mistake.

**ABetterDetroit** · July-25-17, 02:31 PM

He called it what it was, owned it and fixed it. That's worth something. Not many do that these days. You can work with people that admit their mistakes. Not so much when they don't.

**Detroit Stylin** · July-25-17, 05:07 PM

Im curious.....I wonder how many people on this thread that posted are non white aside from myself.....

**EGrant** · July-25-17, 05:38 PM

I think demanding representation in advertising based on population demographics is a dangerous game to play. Sure, 90%-ish percent of Detroit may be black, but that is not the case in Wayne County, the Metro Area, Michigan or even the United States. If a company, movie studio, ad agency or media outlet were always held to the racial makeup of the area they are from, it would undermine a lot of positive and much-needed diversity. Michigan alone is 80% white, but I do not think all ads in Michigan should feature 80% white people.

It's an odd hill to die on, but I've seen it a ton on social media.

**SammyS** · July-25-17, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by southen

It is tone deaf at a time when we are concerned about gentrification and displacement of long time residents. It is not jealousy and it isn't people easily offended, it is those who want a more inclusive Detroit.

Gilbert has done good by the city in many ways but that should not mean that he or his companies are immune to criticism because he has invested a billion dollars. His endeavors are not altruistic, he is making a killing on his investments.

I don't see gentrification as a bad word especially after 70+ years of the opposite that drove Detroit to world renowned humiliation. As for inclusion, I'd agree as long as everyone pays their fair share or within reason. For the underprivileged, they have been accommodated by the likes of Illitch and Gilbert with their 20% low income provisions in otherwise exclusive developments. Any more than that will only drive Detroit further backwards. I for one will not invest in a city that mandates all current residents the privilege to stay on other peoples dime. Not when moving a mile in any direction away from the sort after locations is more than possible, affordable and one that does not prevent an otherwise high tax paying new resident from considering.

**southen** · July-25-17, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by SammyS

I don't see gentrification as a bad word especially after 70+ years of the opposite that drove Detroit to world renowned humiliation. As for inclusion, I'd agree as long as everyone pays their fair share or within reason. For the underprivileged, they have been accommodated by the likes of Illitch and Gilbert with their 20% low income provisions in otherwise exclusive developments. Any more than that will only drive Detroit further backwards. I for one will not invest in a city that mandates all current residents the privilege to stay on other peoples dime. Not when moving a mile in any direction away from the sort after locations is more than possible, affordable and one that does not prevent an otherwise high tax paying new resident from considering.

If you think that that is enough then you are out of touch with reality. The number used to calculate who qualifies for the 20% is flawed as it is. So I say give me those icky poor people over an entitled person "who won't dare invest" in a city that attempts to provide equity for all. You aren't the type if neighbor I or others in my neighborhood would want, many of whom have been living in a Detroit and working to better it for 50+ years, not just when it became cool for "investors".

**canuck** · July-25-17, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by EGrant

I think demanding representation in advertising based on population demographics is a dangerous game to play. Sure, 90%-ish percent of Detroit may be black, but that is not the case in Wayne County, the Metro Area, Michigan or even the United States. If a company, movie studio, ad agency or media outlet were always held to the racial makeup of the area they are from, it would undermine a lot of positive and much-needed diversity. Michigan alone is 80% white, but I do not think all ads in Michigan should feature 80% white people.

It's an odd hill to die on, but I've seen it a ton on social media.

The slogan was odder than that hill of which you speak. The picture was telling. It's a very odd thing, and Gilbert did the right thing by slashing it. It is no wonder some people feel like they never belonged. It's a shame really folks like you keep apologizing for the apologists by telling the rest of us there is no need to apologize.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · July-26-17, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

He called it what it was, owned it and fixed it. That's worth something. Not many do that these days. You can work with people that admit their mistakes. Not so much when they don't.

This eerily sounds like #45. Still, there should have been more diversity with minorities [[Black, Asian, Chinese etc.) featured in the ad. Nobody should view the world as just white. You're right. To his credit, he owned it, and corrected it, so we move on.

**Zacha341** · July-26-17, 06:56 AM

What a marketing, UX, etc. disaster regarding usability and interaction. DUH!

Agency work, particularly a large format ad program leaves little to chance unless they [[the agency) are neophytes; the customer even more dim.

Considering the audience/ user [[well one hopes) budgets are wrangled and set, multiple photos reviewed for content, format: boiled down to final pics. Further narrowed down with 'someone' [[representing the client) signing off on final layout and tagline[[s), typeface, color etc. to final output and installation. This isn't $20 one-day picnic event signage after all.

Hard to convey diversity or garner support for such [[either side), showcasing a 'photo+slogan' combo like that. Was the concept of diversity even the initial goal? Seemingly not!

Originally Posted by aj3647

Unfortunate timing given the anniversary of the riots and a picture showcasing a "White Detroit."

In defense of Gilbert, this campaign was concocted by a contracted advertising firm and it's highly doubtful that Gilbert saw this photo in advance or had to personally approve it before it went up.

In this case, as soon as people expressed concern, Gilbert did the correct thing which was to have it taken down and immediately issue a public apology. Of course, there were always be those who won't be satisfied until the offending party commits Seppuku on live TV to atone for their mistake.

**Honky Tonk** · July-26-17, 07:16 AM

@ least it was honest. And now everyone knows how Detroit is seen by everyone.

**canuck** · July-26-17, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

@ least it was honest. And now everyone knows how Detroit is seen by everyone.

Or is it how Downtown D is perceived to be, as a white workspace/playground?

As Zacha341 says, this kind of ad is not finalized on a greasy spoon napkin. So many layers and levels should add up to something less "amazing" as President Chump would say.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · July-29-17, 09:16 AM

The only story here, in my opinion, is that there are people who have a disturbing emotional need for reality to conform to what they perceive to be perfect. Any image, sound, or thought that does not conform- even someone else's image, sound or thought- is morally offensive to them and needs to be publicly rebuked. Similar to the image years ago of the firefighters at Ground Zero raising a flag out of the rubble being reimagined with one of the fireman being black: in reality all 3 from the original photo were white. That isn't racist. It's just the way it happened. But because someone thought that the photo should contain diversity, it was altered.

**Zacha341** · July-29-17, 10:25 AM

I hear you MB! No, that is not were I want to see things go [[such as ditching Shakespeare at Penn). In the case of downtown Detroit there are or course gatherings and events reflecting black people and others to include in a 'collage' style photographic display!

They had or could have acquired those event photos, yet made a determined choice not to. No marketing program starts out with just one random photo to consider. Include the photos. Not alter reality.

**Jimaz** · July-29-17, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

...Similar to the image years ago of the firefighters at Ground Zero raising a flag out of the rubble being reimagined with one of the fireman being black: in reality all 3 from the original photo were white. That isn't racist. It's just the way it happened. But because someone thought that the photo should contain diversity, it was altered.

You might be thinking of the statue that was based on that photograph.

That statue was never built.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-30-17, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

I hate when people drop links with no text to accompany:
...

Me too.... hope I don't do that too.

White Mouch thinks Gilbert's pro-forma apology was smart -- but should have been unnecessary in a world where diversity is valued. In that world, its OK to be non-diverse. True diversity rejects dogma.

**1953** · July-30-17, 08:39 AM

I like the earlier point someone made about the slippery slope of demanding demographically accurate media representation -- the U.S. is 12.2 percent non-Hispanic black, but when I was television, I sure see a much blacker representation.