Does BiM's decision to pull advertising in Italy for its 12 Year's A Slave campaign point to the existence of racism?

It’s not every day a film poster can spark worldwide debate and widespread apologies from several sources over the creation of content let alone once again raise questions over a Countries stance on racial equality. http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/27/controversial-italian-12-years-a-slave-poster-stirs-debate-over-movies-and-race/ If you have yet to catch up with this story I can provide a topline summary. Rather than focus promotional activity around lead actor Chiwetel Ejiofor the Italian distributors for ‘12 years a slave’ instead chose to focus on Brad Pitt, a man who plays a character with a relatively small part in the film. You might be wondering what the fuss is about. Does a decision to focus on a mainstream actor with worldwide appeal in a foreign market really spell out implicit racism? It probably isn’t a question for us to debate here but what is clear is that both BiM and Lionsgate appear to be treading carefully around the issue. The reactions from both companies might say a lot more about the supposed link between the decision making and some sort of underlying fears of discrimination. Through pulling the campaign and issuing grovelling apologies have both companies actually just blown the issue out of proportion? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/italian-distributor-pulls-12-years-a-slave-posters-that-emphasize-films-white-actors/article16124914/ It is hard to determine whether it will be Lionsgate Films or BiM Distribuzione who will bear the long-term brunt of this controversy. Lionsgate have been quick to claim they gave no permission for the film ’12 years a salve’ to be advertised in the way depicted by BiM. However, as the vendor chosen to create and distribute the content should it not be BiM who are forced to explain their motives behind advertising in such a way? Is pulling the advertisement simply enough or should they have even of pulled the material at all? Over the last year The Brand Avenger has shined a spotlight on countless companies who have failed to address issues that would ultimately damage brand reputation in a timely manner. However in this instance The Brand Avenger would argue the reaction from both entities may have only served to of fuelled further criticism and controversy. Rather than potentially sign off the content to appear in Italy Lionsgate would have played close to no involvement in the decision to feature Pitt or Fassbender as opposed to Ejiofor. BiM may have reacted in a way they felt best to communicate to their target market so it should be their role to explain the context behind the decision. Had they of done this rather than pull material so quickly the issue may have resolved itself. The speed of which it was removed may say far more about the attitudes and beliefs of both the company and the public than the actual initial questioning of how BiM chose to promote the film.