Association for Consumer Research

Association for Consumer Research

For Public Policy Makers and Social Marketers

Courting Customers: Assessing Consumer Racial Profiling and Other Marketplace Discrimination
by Anne-Marie Harris, JD, Salem State College
Dr. Geraldine R. Henderson, University of Texas at Austin
Dr. Jerome D. Williams, University of Texas at Austin
Summary of Research and Research Findings
The modern civil rights movement was sparked by the actions of consumers who insisted on equal treatment for equal dollars. Through bus boycotts and lunch-counter sit-ins, consumers brought attention to the discriminatory practices of retailers and other marketplace participants. Today, little attention is paid to marketplace discrimination despite evidence that “Shopping While Black or Brown” is a common experience for people of color. In fact, a 1997 survey revealed that 86% of African Americans believed that they were treated differently in retail stores on the basis of their race and a 1999 Gallup poll reported that 50% of black men believed they had been subjected to race discrimination while shopping, dining out, using public transportation, at work, or with police.[1] Through an examination of 81 federal court decisions made between 1990 and 2002 involving customers’ allegations of race and/or ethnic discrimination, we uncovered three emergent dimensions, namely the type of alleged discrimination, the level of service, and the existence of criminal suspicion in the alleged discriminatory conduct. Using a framework that allowed us to aggregate cases with common themes, we provided evidence to suggest that real and perceived consumer discrimination remains a problem in the American marketplace and concluded that further research is necessary for marketers to effectively address the issue.
Significance of Research to the Discipline
Consumers of color constitute approximately one-third of the U.S. population and wield more than a trillion dollars in purchasing power.[2] Given their significant and growing clout in the marketplace, consumers of color can have a direct, negative impact on marketers who fail to treat them with the same dignity and respect as they treat their white customers. For example, following an incident of consumer racial profiling, a Treasure Cache store experienced a 50% drop in sales.[3] Dillard’s department store stock value dropped during a time period when more than one hundred lawsuits alleging consumer discrimination were filed against it.[4] Approximately 50% of African Americans said they would never eat at Denny’s again following a much publicized consumer racial profiling lawsuit against the restaurant chain.[5]
To conduct our analysis of federal court decisions, we categorized into three different dimensions the eighty-one accounts of discrimination and profiling against people of color. First, we found that discriminatory behavior results in either an outright denial or a degradation of the products and services the customer seeks. Outright denials occur when store personnel: 1) refuse to wait on certain customers or to provide them with information about goods and services that is available to other customers, 2) deny customers access to the store, and 3) remove customers from the store. In contrast, a degradation of goods and services occurs when customers of color are provided something less than what white customers receive. An example of degradation is a pre-pay requirement imposed only on customers of color. Other examples include longer waiting periods, higher prices, and verbal and physical attacks. Second, our analysis revealed that discriminatory behavior can be either overt or subtle. Overt discrimination is obvious and direct whereas subtle discrimination is more ambiguous and indirect. Third, discriminatory behavior can betray an individual’s belief that consumers of color are predisposed to criminality. Given the common misperception that consumers of color account for more criminal activity than white consumers do, store personnel often target these customers as potential shoplifters. The result is that people of color are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny while shopping. This heightened scrutiny includes increased surveillance, stops, searches of their belongings, detentions, and false arrests. As many as 40% of the cases we examined involved allegations that customers were treated as criminals.
The first two dimensions (level of service and type of discrimination) overlap to create four prototypes of consumer discrimination. In subtle degradation cases, customers do not receive the type of treatment they expected but it is unclear whether the degradation was due to their race/ethnicity or to something else. In overt degradation cases, on the other hand, there exists direct evidence that white patrons received more than nonwhite customers. Similarly, the subtle denial cases differ from overt denial ones because, although customers were completely denied access to goods or services, there is no clear evidence that white customers received preferential treatment.
Two thirds of the cases we examined contained allegations of degradation of goods and/or services. Those cases were almost evenly divided between subtle degradation (28 cases or 35% of all cases) and overt degradation (26 cases or 32% of all cases). Although the cases arose in many different types of retail establishments, a significant number took place in large retail stores. 60% of these cases (32 cases) were adjudicated in favor of the defendant business and only 7% of them (4 cases) were decided in favor of the customers. The remaining 33% of degradation cases (18 cases) were settled between the parties.
Among the cases (one third of all cases) involving a denial of goods and/or services, 78% contained allegations of overt denial and only 22% were subtle denials. More than one third of these cases (37%) arose in bars and/or restaurants. Plaintiffs in this category fared best in court. The same number of cases resulted in findings for the plaintiffs and for the defendants (25% each) and 50% of cases in this category were settled out of court.
Our research suggests that racial and ethnic discrimination are problems in the American marketplace. Marketers need to understand the forces at play in creating the perception that they engage in consumer discrimination.
Implications and Relevance of the Research for Public Policy
There is a great deal of variation among the federal court decisions addressing issues of consumer discrimination and profiling. In a subtle degradation case against Dillard’s, a jury awarded the plaintiff 1.1 million dollars in punitive damages. [6] On the other hand, the court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided against the plaintiffs in a case where a Conoco gas station attendant used profane and derogatory language and prevented Hispanic customers from purchasing goods. In a perplexing decision, the court determined that the store clerk may have deterred the plaintiffs but she did not prevent them from contracting with the firm ‘under the same terms and conditions’ as white customers.[7]
Given the financial and public relations incentives for marketers to settle these lawsuits, very little information exists about consumer discrimination and consumer racial profiling. The litigation that has taken place during the past decade reveals that the marketplace is not immune from the discrimination that exists in other sectors of society. Therefore, marketers must address the perception or the reality that they engage in discriminatory conduct based on their customers’ race and ethnicity. Finally, more research is needed to understand the causes, the consequences, and potential solutions for eliminating this form of unfair treatment in the marketplace.
Article Reference
Harris, A-M., Henderson, G.R., Williams, J.D., “Courting Customers: Assessing Consumer Racial Profiling and Other Marketplace Discrimination,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Policy Watch: Commentaries and Viewpoints, 24(1), Spring 2005, 163-171.
References Cited in Summary
[1] Williams and Snuggs (1997), “Survey of Attitudes Toward Customer Ethnocentrism and Shopping in Retail Store: The Role of Race,” in Society for Consumer Psychology 1997 Winter Conference Proceedings, Cornelia Pechmann and S. Ratneshwar, eds. Potsdam, NY: Society for Consumer Psychology, 161-62, and Knickerbocker, Brad (2000), “New Face of Racism in America: Retailers Denying Checks and Cab Drivers Refusing Rides in Minority,” The Christian Science Monitor (January 14), 1.
[2] Humphreys (2004), Jeffrey M. (2004), “The Multicultural Economy 2004: America’s Minority Buying Power,” Georgia Business and Economic Conditions, 64 (3) [available at
[3] Bean, Linda (2001), “Retail Racial Profiling: Retrain Staff to Focus on Customer Service,” (April 18), [available at
[4] Kong, Deborah (2003), “Lawsuits filed by Minorities Draw More Attention to Racial Profiling of Consumers,” Associated Press (June 8).
[5] Hood, Rachelle (2004), “Consumer Racial Profiling: Perspectives from the Boardroom,” paper presented at the University of Texas Ethics and Branding Speaker Series, McCombs School of Business, College of Communications, Austin, Texas (March 30), [available online at
[6] Hampton v. Dillard’s Department Store (2002), 985 F.Supp. 1055 (D.Kan. November 25, 1998); 247 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2001); cert. denied at 122 S.Ct. 1071 (Mem), 151 L.Ed.2d 973, 70 USLW 3396, 70 USLW 3514, 534 U.S. 1131 (2002).
[7] Arguello and Govea, Petitioners, v. Conoco, Inc., Respondent (2003), Amicus Curiae Brief in support of the Petitioners of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, U.S. No. 03-324 (October 2003).