456 Studios (FCB Inferno)
One of the most awarded works at the 2022 D&AD Awards was Channel 4’s spot for the Paralympics, which channelled the voices of ordinary disabled people on how Paralympians are portrayed. Channel 4's initial Superhumans campaign was hugely influential, but a decade on, some people with disabilities pointed out that it had inadvertently given way to a new stereotype: the sports superhero. So, for the broadcaster's Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games campaign, the idea was to highlight the athletes' humanity and capture all of the commitments and sacrifices they make, because that's what sets them apart. The provocative campaign strapline summed this up: To Be A Paralympian, There's Got To Be Something Wrong With You. The work was praised for updating its perspective in line with the views of disabled people.
Last year, in the 2021 D&AD Annual, Sulaiman Khan presented readers with a rallying cry to galvanise behind the “worldbuilding power of joyful disabled creativity,” arguing that more disabled creatives in the creative agencies will create better, more inclusive work. Now, for the 2022 Annual, Marianne Wait – Director of Inclusive Design at Interbrand and the UK Government’s Disability Sector Champion for Brand and Design – adds her voice to the call. She fights for the inclusion of disabled voices and insights in the creative process, to produce better design and campaigns that actually serve the audience they are for.
We all know that when you assume, you make ‘an ass out of you and me’, but in the case of inclusive design, when you assume you often end up causing harm to the audience you intend to impress. So why do so many brands still struggle to see the value in primary disability insights? Pottery Barn recently launched a range of ‘accessible furniture’, however it was criticised by disabled consumers online, who pointed out a number of challenges with the announcement (including use of incorrect language, use of incorrect wheelchair as well as inaccessible price points) which unveiled limited input from the intended audience, especially from a marketing perspective. In response to disability experts’ critique of the campaign, a marketing specialist responded to a heated LinkedIn thread saying: “I'm absolutely SICK of so-called ‘advocates’ being unhappy with everything. Nothing is good enough. It's bull.”
This is a common cry from PR teams who are disappointed their ‘accessible’ efforts haven’t been immediately welcomed by people with disabilities. Instead of taking time to actively engage more deeply with this market, vocal disabled advocates are told to pipe down with a sense of, “Why aren’t they more grateful, can’t they see we are going out of our way to help?” Should women be grateful for a product designed and marketed almost entirely by a group of cis-gender men and would we be wrong for speaking up if comms contained unhelpful stereotypes?
“Instead of taking time to actively engage more deeply with this market, vocal disabled advocates are told to pipe down”
Yes, it’s good these initiatives are ‘opening the conversation’, but brands need to pay closer attention to why they fall short, and in some cases, cause harm. It’s easy to get defensive about ‘doing their best’ but the sense that disabled consumers should be grateful for misrepresentation is ableist. It is also counter to what our culture promotes for other marginalised groups.
So why should disabled consumers put up with ongoing ableist language and representation? The uncomfortable truth is that we excuse substandard design and communications in this field because of the market for which it is intended.
Let’s review communication approaches taken by brands in relation to disability and see how we feel when they are applied to different audiences. Here are some examples based on recent headlines I’ve come across:
"Fashion house uses first Black model in advertising campaign"
"Tech brand hires team of women to prove the value of female thinking"
"There are more clothing lines for dogs than there are for Black people"
"Giant furniture retailer designs range for the differently-penised"
Offended? You should be. When applied to different groups, suddenly all the euphemisms and ‘firsting’ (a term coined by Liz Jackson) reek of outdated corporate saviourism. The approach taken for disability inclusion suddenly seems backwards. It upholds patronising and infantilising ideals that have been holding disabled people back for centuries. That’s why disabled consumers come down hard when brands get inclusivity wrong. The reason such rhetoric is less shocking when we replace the above groups with disabled people, is due to a lower social expectation.
“brands need to pay closer attention to why they fall short, and in some cases, cause harm”
Thankfully, these discerning disabled voices aren’t going away, and for well-meaning but misinformed brand teams dipping their toes in the waters of inclusivity, when it comes to ableist inclusion efforts, there is increasingly nowhere left to hide.
Some readers may bristle at the word ‘ableism’ but understanding this term is crucial to overcoming it. There is an important difference between disablism and ableism. Disablism is discrimination or prejudice against disabled people, due to the nature of their disability. Ableism is the prioritisation of the needs and perspectives of non-disabled people over disabled people. Ableism, whilst usually unintentional, can be just as harmful. The issue is ableism is usually undetectable to those who don’t have lived experience. The other issue is that ableism represents the status quo; it sits at the root of how our world, society and experiences have been designed.
True inclusive design isn’t about developing concept pieces aimed at solving issues for disabled consumers, it’s about empowering teams to recognise and eliminate ableism across the entire go-to-market process. Insights and creative ideas from consumers and peers with disabilities need to be woven throughout the fabric of organisations, anchored firmly to the central business strategy.
“The issue is ableism is usually undetectable to those who don’t have lived experience”
Consider Apple; consistently referenced as one of the preferred brands by disabled consumers. They have never engaged in ‘firsting’ or corporate saviour comms. Their approach is integrated, consistent, and designed to create seamlessly beautiful and equitable experiences.
So how can the likes of Pottery Barn save face? What’s the antidote to this widespread ableism? It’s super simple – the voice of disabled and older consumers. Yes, it sounds obvious, we’re all familiar with the ‘nothing about us, without us’ principle. However, it’s surprising how many brands cite insights from research samples of one or two disabled consumers, and even more surprising how few of these insights related to feedback on specific brand touch points.
We also still hear from brands who make creative decisions based on their experience with simulation tools – equipment designed to mimic certain physical disabilities. Imagine for a moment that a brand was planning on going to market with a product for women, based on the experience of cis-gender males dressing up as females as opposed to investing in research with the intended audience.
Overall, despite all we know about representation in 2022, most brands are still building experiences and campaigns intended to include disabled people based on assumptions by non-disabled creative teams. The onus is on brands playing in this space to invest in the services of the experts and advocates. There is now unequivocal evidence that short-cuts designed to limit participation from disabled consumers across the design process end up costing far more in reputation and affinity than the upfront cost of robust consumer insight.
“most brands are still building experiences and campaigns intended to include disabled people based on assumptions by non-disabled creative teams”
That’s why at Interbrand, through our Inclusive Design practice, our partner of choice is The Research Institute for Disabled Consumers (RiDC). RiDC is the leading expert in inclusive research involving disabled and older consumers. Set up by Which? and run by people with personal experience of disability, RiDC has over 50 years of experience in commissioning consumer research and insights in this area. Its panel of over 3,000 is comprised of consumers with physical, cognitive, and sensory disabilities each incredibly experienced in assessing products & experiences.
That’s also why we filter through projects based on their commitment to investing in and taking the lead from disabled consumers, not just in relation to testing, but across the entire go-to-market process. By raising the expectations around inclusive design, we’ll be able to raise the bar for this market, promote social integration and put the future of design firmly on the right path.