Modern advertising manages to objectify women and take men for idiots all at once, Maria Pawlowska writes.
I recently bumped into a horrendous ad – a chicken slaughterhouse was advertising itself with a picture of a “hot blond” in a bikini surrounded by (and pecking on her!) the chickens that will supposedly soon be dead. My disbelief, mixed with some sheer disgust, quickly developed into a post about disgusting objectification of women in advertisements, and then I started thinking. Do the people who design these ads really think that men are stupid and actually seeing a woman with little clothes on will convince them to get their chickens slaughtered at one place instead of another?
There’s more where that came from – who would have thought women’s breasts can even be used to sell hamburgers or their wide open mouths seen in profile? Or that sticking a gun to a woman’s head is a good attempt at raising skateboard sales? Or maybe sticking lotto balls in a woman’s dress will make someone want to try their luck this week?
Because these commercials all include women’s naked bodies or a crude allusion to women’s naked bodies, I assume they are mostly aimed at heterosexual males. True, other groups can also find female bodies attractive and “pleasant to the eye” but are unlikely to be convinced to part with (sometimes substantial amounts of) money because of them (obviously plastic surgery for women is an exception). My question though is: do these ads actually convince men to?
How many men are actually going to get a particular hamburger because the chain advertised itself with an image cunningly resembling a woman preparing to perform oral sex on a sandwich? Are they hoping that somehow “warm and fuzzy” feelings about oral sex will get lodged in a prospective client’s brain next to thoughts about that particular fast food chain and thus make a heterosexual male more likely to eat there? Or are they really thinking that they can convince men to have their burgers and not anybody else’s because they’re so good girls want to fellate them. I mean … seriously?
Someone is being stupid here – it’s either the copywriters being plain dumb, or the copywriter’s are assuming their target audience lacks in any sophistication whatsoever and operates on a ‘food-TV-sex’ basis only. Or maybe (and bear with me because this is getting pretty meta) copywriters are assuming clients are stupid and clients are, in turn, assuming the copywriters are stupid but are kind of playing along nevertheless.
Either way it seems that the advertising industry is completely OK with assuming the best (if not only) way to sell something to a man is by getting him to associate it with sex. I mean, why actually try to convince them about the actual merits of a car, beer or snack when you can simply get a guy to think about any form of sexual activity and—ta da!—you’ve sold the product? Why treat men like adults who have interests that go beyond women’s bodies and what one can do with them sexually. As far as advertisers are concerned, there’s no point in trying to sell just about anything to male homosexuals – they’re obviously a lost cause if you can’t convince them to buy stuff by simply making the product look like it’ll get you closer to a naked woman.
I take offence with these marketing policies for two reasons. Firstly, I’m an unapologetic feminist and I really think a lot of these commercials are simply disgusting and disrespectful. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against naked bodies in (most) lingerie commercials and nudity it general. I think the human body (not just that of size-0, white, able-bodied women) is a wonderful thing, and there’s no reason to hide it for the “sake of morals”. However, objectifying women to sell chicken killing services is a whole different ball park.
The other reason these adds seriously bother me is because I hate the assumption that any particular group of people is intrinsically stupid or primitive. And these ads are sexist all around – they objectify women and assume (most) men respond to one cue alone – SEX. There’s no other way to get anything across – why talk about the real qualities of something when it’ll obviously be wasted on a brain that only responds to boobs, right?
As much as I don’t like to see women objectified, I also hate men being assumed to be primitive creatures whose reproductive organs make most of their decisions. It’s sexist, it’s wrong, it’s plain stupid, and I’d sure love to see it changed.
—Photo Shiny Things/Flickr
About Maria Pawlowska
I’m flabbergasted by the sheer inanity of this advertisement.
“I like my dick like I like my sandwiches: in somebody else’s mouth.” …no, that doesn’t work.
“I like my sex partners like I like my lunch partners, slack-jawed and glazey-eyed.” …no, that doesn’t work either.
These advertisers need to get a new job flipping burgers instead of marketing them.
People like looking at beautiful women — and that means women as well as men. If the advert catches your eye with the woman, you are more likely to look at it more / read it / recall it. You’re more likely to have positive associations with the product.
As for objectification, that’s a buzzword. What is that supposed to mean?
It’s meant to imply that men are only seeing women as nothing more than holes to stick their dick in, and/or as walking talking pairs of boob and a butt, and that dehumanises them.
It’s even a ‘science’ now…
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php
“Objectification”doesn’t exist!
It’s an Orwellian thought crime invited by man hating feminists to attack men and male sexuality. No doubt the ministry of misandry will continue to create even more “studies” to fool people like you.
Of course women talk less when being checked out by a creepy video cam. Replace cam with a cute guy at a bar see what reactions women give. They can’t stop talking.
people like you?
i think you’re barking up the wrong tree
My bad. I missed the quotes around science. Your sarcasm is subtle.
Objectification:
Similar to the ways that adverstisers only see a consumer with as a wallet with with a adolescent sex drive.
Advertisers, for profit corporations, know that people respond to sexual imagery. Sex and controversy sells and get noticed. Awareness and profits are the bottom-lines…moral conscience is not in their bags of tricks. Competition tends to drive up the stakes; so it’s about who can create the most raunchy, in-your-face, and try to get-us banned ad will probably succeed at capturing the consumer/target market.
Marketers will continue to use sex in advertising and other outlets, so long as we’re an over-sexed society. It’s just a reflection of our desires, or are they pushing things too far? Demand and supply, or supply and demand? Which one came first….
Well said. Advertisers simply know how to push our buttons that’s all.
Yin/Yang = Pleasure/Pain = Sex/Violence. Is there anything more influential and powerful to the human psyche than these two things?
Agreed. Marketing is done this way because it actually works. Do some reading on how marketers look to build “positive associations” with imagery like this, and how successful such strategies are.
One of the most advertising-friendly myths that nearly all people buy into is that “I’m a rational person; advertising doesn’t affect me.”
Maria, this is why I no longer watch tv and haven’t done so in years. I’m sorry, but no matter how great doctor who may be its not worth the annoyance and frustration that smacks me in the face every ten to fifteen minutes. Don’t even get me started on womens magazines….arrgh!
“Either way it seems that the advertising industry is completely OK with assuming the best (if not only) way to sell something to a man is by getting him to associate it with sex.”
The advertising industry is not assuming, they know what works the best. they focus group and stat this stuff up. The figures that Tom M talks about in the below extract is why the ad industry does it.
The sheer ignorance of marketing in this thread is amazing. Sorry folks but your analysis of this ad is just plain silly.
Advertisements are done so that you will remember the product/service or company.
Some of the most successful commercials are ones where you remember the product , the gimmick in the commerical not even the product itself. For example. Does anyone really believe that Geiko has a talking Gecko working at the company , of course not.
Sexual imagery is what people remember. Guess what, the person who put up the picture of the burger king ad actually proved that advertising works, you saw it, you remember it and so will alot of other people. YOU might be disgusted with it but most won’t take such a negative stand, most will simply brush it off but a fair number of people will remember it That is what advertising is all about.
The chicken slaughterhouse is a classic example as well. No scantly clad women won’t effect who farmers will choose to slaughter their chickens but for some farmers who don’t have a regular place and are looking for a place, may remember the company because of the ad.
“Some of the most successful commercials are ones where you remember the product , the gimmick in the commerical not even the product itself.”
Uh, is there a word missing or misplaced here?
I remember BK ads, and I especially like the one played in NZ that was banned (really, I just like that it was banned) Also I have to say there’s nothing that makes me want to eat a BK burger more than the thought of sucking dick.
Just kidding… I never eat BK.
So what was my point… Oh, yeah. Marketers can all go die in a fire.
Sorry, remove the “the product” in the first part.
Should have read
where you remember the gimmick in the commercial not even the product itself.
“Wheres the beef”
The gecko in the Geicko commercials etc.
From what I know of advertising, this rings true: it’s not a rational decision they’re after, it’s just making you think of the brand. As long as the ad doesn’t tip you over into being so disgusted with the company that you avoid their products, I’m afraid it’s done its work. One of the biggest cognitive biases is the availability heuristic – we tend to judge what we can remember easiest as being more relevant or important.
If there’s an implied slur on men here (and I think the article is right in saying that there is), it’s the assumption that most men, when presented with a degrading portrayal of women, will not react negatively enough for it to hurt sales.
“The sheer ignorance of marketing in this thread is amazing.”
So you’ve heard of Barrett’s First Law of Marketing, then, right? It says:
-When your product is indistinguishable from the competition, add sex.
If you invert it, you get:
-If sex is used to market a nonsexual product, that product is generic.
Based on the ad in question, I can conclude that BK is a generic product, and could only dream of having a significant point of difference over the competition.
Then if it’s true that shock sells, why aren’t there ever any ads objectifying men? Or are men really just so difficult to advertise to that the only thing that will budge them is sex? This is where the insulting part of advertising comes in. It’s only women being objectified in these ads, and only men being assumed that they’re stupid enough to buy into it/the only ones with a libido at all.
“Then if it’s true that shock sells, why aren’t there ever any ads objectifying men? ”
Hah. Good laugh. Go to the magazine store/newsagent and pickup some of the body building magazines. There is plenty of male objectification around if you start to look for it.
Google this “50 INSTANCES OF OBJECTIFYING MEN & EXPLOITING THE MALE BODY” – Not safe for work though.
Shock does sell, and unfortunately it is also effective. Men and women are objectified differently, though men are less likely to be objectified in fast food consumer culture. This is why I have not spent a penny at a Carl’s Jr since 1999 (when I was old enough to realize how exploitive marketing of women is) and miss their criss-cut fries. Small price to pay to not support corporate jerks. That’s only one of the now many places I will not eat at because of the way people are objectified.
Then if it’s true that shock sells, why aren’t there ever any ads objectifying men?
You ever see any ads that advertise products geared towards women where they basically say, “If a guy doesn’t buy you this, attack/punish/shame/etc… him.”
Or are men really just so difficult to advertise to that the only thing that will budge them is sex?
No its a matter of sex being the low common deminator. Same reason a lot of the ads advertised to women are about weight loss.
This is where the insulting part of advertising comes in. It’s only women being objectified in these ads, and only men being assumed that they’re stupid enough to buy into it/the only ones with a libido at all.
The only way that can hold true is if you think objectification is only sexual. Its not. Being though of as a walking libido is objectification alright.
@amber: Actually there are tons of ads objectifing men. Most ads sold to women show the men as bright, intelligent and able to perform all tasks as the highest level all the time. Men in those ads are dumb as dirt and couldn’t tie their shoes with the womans help. If that isn’t making them into an object, I don’t know what is.
But It’s not objectification unless there is nudity that involves women. What’s wrong with you? Get with the program
It’s very simple: If a man is portrayed as an object for someone else to use, he is objectified. It’s not even uncommon.
@amber: Actually there are tons of ads objectifing men. Most ads sold to women show the women as bright, intelligent and able to perform all tasks as the highest level all the time. Men in those ads are dumb as dirt and couldn’t tie their shoes with the womans help. If that isn’t making them into an object, I don’t know what is.
I think the thought process on the part of the marketers here is that sexual imagery will make you look twice at their ad and actually scrutinize it rather than just ignoring it and letting it fade into the sea of other advertisements people are constantly bombarded with. It’s a mistake to assume they think the association will sell the product when they often just want to trick you into reading the name on the poster. I think it’s more likely that they’re hoping to make people aware a brand exists, thus increasing the likelihood that people will choose it over one they’ve never heard of if given a choice. The method is still crass, crude and sexist, but it would be wise not to think all marketers are as stupid as they appear to be (lulling you into a false sense of security is part of their game. They’re like Velociraptors that way).
As an advertising creative for many years I can tell you:
It’s because the clients tend to work as committees and can only agree to something that appeals to our most carnal instincts. Nuance is a very difficult thing to sell to clients, especially those who are actually looking to make a big impression on a national market. For every one of these campaigns, I guarantee that the art director and copywriters presented a half dozen concepts, but the one that gets the most hems and haws by the committee is the one that wins.
By nature, most (not all) ad creatives want to create thought provoking, relevant work, but in the end, the client makes the decision.
The author questions the logic and /or the intelligence behind that kind of advertising, but doesn’t seem too interested in whether or not it works. Does it?
I sense several fundamental disconnects at work here. Many have been covered above. More will be revealed later.
At the end of the day, money decides all and money says sex sells. Therefore, money wins. Good luck beating the objectification that this one demands.
Thank god for free online porn. You’d think an infinite supply of what most people want (as deteremined by their actions not by their words), will reduce the demand of this nonsense in the polite sphere of line. Then again, perhaps not…
For my part, it’s been most freeing. I can keep my viewing habits in a separate box of my life and take them out to play in the privacy of my own home to my hearts content.
In America, advertising has become a kind of religion. People place a lot of faith in the magical power of advertising, a lot of faith in the power of ad campaigns to create totally new demand, or even “brainwash” people into doing things that big business wants them to do but that they wouldn’t do otherwise. Many people are on constant guard to protect themselves and others from the apparent mass hypnosis that Madison Avenue regularly engages in. Advertising specialists are like voodoo priests promising to make the customer fall in love with you. I suspect the people most fooled by ad agencies are the companies that hire them.
The power of superstition is so strong that we’ve agreed to limit our own freedom of speech. In the U.S., it is illegal for a TV ad for beer to show people actually drinking a beer. Does that seem silly to anyone else?
My view is not popular at the moment, but I suspect we regularly overestimate the power of advertising. It’s always other people, you know, people not as smart or worldly as you are, who fall for these advertisements. Everyone you talk to will roll their eyes and say the BK ad is lame, so who exactly is falling for it? Of course _I_ would never drink too much because of something I saw on TV, but other people would. Well, no one I know, but they must be out there somewhere.
A sexually explicit ad that pushes the boundaries of good taste probably generates more buzz by people who are offended by it than by people who are seduced by it. Notice how, thanks to a critique of objectification, the Burger King ad has now reached even more people. The ad campaigns that PETA runs are somewhat similar – the goal is to get people talking so the word gets out, and then you have other people who will spread the advertisement for free. I’ve even seen local TV news stories about particular advertising campaigns that offend people — even the news media lends a hand.
It’s quite brilliant, actually – a suggestion of sex or nudity, and even the people offended by the ad will help you advertise for free. Perhaps advertising really does work in a magical way – with just the right kind of ad, you can get your biggest critics to help you do your job.
As a member of the male species I can concur that the hyper objectification of women in society is ridiculous to put it mildly. Yet we are all accountable, men and women alike. Sex and sexuality is obviously a part of life and the perpetuation of. Infusing sex into marketing is fair enough, but it does not need to be incessant and unrelenting. Nor does it need to be vulgar and inappropriate. Are we not attempting to raise future generations to be evolved in their intelligence and actions? I am not for sheltering youth from the realities and truths of life and existence. I am for being tactful and responsible in the messages we convey to our youth and the conditions we create for ourselves. Many problems and epidemics exist in society surrounding our sexual health due to our irresponsibility concerning sex related issues. Sexually transmitted disease, exploitative pornography, teen and unwanted pregnancy… The list goes on. Why is it so difficult for humanity to collectively be honest, real, and objective about the issues we face? Is it really that hard to check your emotions on either side and use your mind and other faculties to solve issues before they even become problems?
“Someone is being stupid here .. ”
You are not being stupid, you are blinded by religious feminist zeal. Advertisers would not do it if it did not work. Therefore it works. Therefore the only question left is why does it work.
“I assume they are mostly aimed at heterosexual males …”
This is your religion speaking, not reason. This kind of “objectification” sells equally well to men and to women. Consulting firm A.T. Kearney estimates that women make 80% of consumption decisions. Women purchase 60% of all cars and own 40% of all stocks. When advertisers objectify women, they do it largely to attract a female clientèle. Gallup has a lengthy description of the phenomenon:
http://gallup-robinson.com/essay53.html
There are many reasons why men and women are both attracted to these kinds of adds. If you are interested you can find them with 10 minutes of research. None of this is a secret.
One reason (not a very important one) is simply shock value. In a sea of advertising, being noticed in a negative way is better than not being noticed at all. Look at how much attention YOU have brought to the adds, and their brands.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: This comment is an ad hominem attack and not allowed under our commenting policy. This is a warning. Further comments that are in violation will be removed. See complete commenting guidelines here.
Dear Maria,
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how advertising is created, and this is leading you to an unproductive conclusion.
Modern advertising is built not on how copy-writers perceive society. It is built on a massive industry of customer and market research that runs focus groups, collects surveys, sends cookies over the internet, tracks purchases on credit cards or with club cards, and even evaluates the movements and gaze of shoppers in-store on closed-circuit cameras. The resulting data is analyzed to no end in order to produce advertisements that are high-impact and narrowly-tailored.
We can prove that the system works using a simple thought experiment.
Research is the single most expensive input that advertising firms must spend money on. If it did not impact the effectiveness of advertisements, then this spending would be superfluous. The first firm to release this could eliminate market research and beat the competition by providing effective advertisements at a fraction of the price. We would never see focus groups, surveys, internet cookies, etc. ever again.
Simply put, this has never happened. It has never happened because *shock* it turns out that advertising based on consumer research is highly effective.
What can we therefore conclude? We can conclude that the advertisements we see are NOT some copy-writer guessing at something we want to see. Instead it is an actual reflection of what we really do want to see, based on volumes and volumes of carefully collected data.
It may not be pretty, but that does not mean it’s inaccurate.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in this life is not identifying artificial insults supposedly foisted on us by “the media” or, God help you, “the patriarchy.” Rather, the biggest challenge is to accept society for what it is and understand that the “good” parts and the “bad” parts are inseparable. Advertisers know what to include in advertisements because of unbelievable achievements in statistics, computer science, and psychology. Are the results really insulting when you consider how they are produced? Must we really shame ourselves? Or can we maybe recognize ourselves for who and what we are, without the need to feel ashamed about it?
Very smart answer.
You make a very compelling case for the ways that advertising is a response to the way that society is. Modern advertising demands a lot of money spent on what the advertising industry calls research, and it tries to be in tune and up to date on the latest trends. The fact that many ad campaigns fall flat and that word of mouth still carries a lot of weight suggests that ad research still has a lot to learn. (I have an ad poster in my office talking about how great the new 1959 Edsel is. I wish I had saved a can of New Coke from the 1980’s. It would be quite a conversation piece as well.)
But, isn’t there a bit of a feedback loop here as well? I find it hard to believe that advertising is simply responsive to society and does nothing to shape society. On some level, even on a tiny level, advertising is trying to change behavior and influence desires, not just respond to desires. Expectations and perspectives are shaped to some small degree by advertising. It’s a two-way street.
“Instead it is an actual reflection of what we really do want to see, based on volumes and volumes of carefully collected data.”
I don’t buy that (hah) This implies there’s something non-abstract ‘we’ really, really do want to see in advertising. Further, that looking is the same thing as ‘wanting’ that thing to be there in the first place. I wonder if this amazing research also engages the question of whether ‘we’ want to be bombarded with advertising at all, period. Moreover, accepting that some behaviour (marketing) is something clever and rational is not the same as making a kind of ethical judgement about its purpose and results. And to be perfectly honest I’d love to see how stats and cameras and, ruh roh! – psychology – can explain away the fact that I DON’T NECESSARILY WANT TO SEE POSTERS OF A WOMEN ABOUT TO FELLATE A CHEESE BURGER.
Personally, I’ve never been asked about what I ‘want’ to see in advertising (and it has nothing to do with deep-throating shitty BK burgers) but I assume I’m being observed in some ways and reduced to a statistic.
And again, they’re merely trying to cover up for having a generic product, because a superior product doesn’t rely upon this method of advertising. I’ve never once seen an ad for Five Guys, but I know what they make and how good they are at getting repeat customers. Why? Word of mouth! Friends and coworkers sing their praises – it’s that personal recommendation which every company covets. I’ve never once heard someone say “we’ve totally got to go to BK for lunch, that sandwich is as good as fellatio!” Nope, this sort of market hinges upon making the customer forget that, in the end, their burgers are just as boring as any other generic fast food burger out there.
In the fast food industry, McDonald’s lead the way. They target mostly children and family; you can further tell by the restaurants’ interior design and children-friendly posters depicting active children at play. We know that they’ve been changing their image in the era of health conscious consumers, bringing more healthier food menu choices for both adults and kids. Burger King therefore has to differentiate themselves from McDonald’s and target a different segment of customers; so from the fellating ad, it appears BK is targeting the teenagers and young adults, particularly guys. Because that ad would never fly in a McDonald’s restaurant; their corporate image managers would never approve of it!
the ad is truly distasteful. I don’t know why government don’t set down regulations for these advertising agencies to follow…so it doesn’t get to the point where these sexist, repugnant ads are everywhere in people’s faces. They should self-regulate! Is this ad banned yet? Is the advertising council standards body involved in having this ad removed? I don’t think that It should get to the point where BK benefits, if their ad is already getting this much exposure and banning it will give them more publicity.
@Michelle: Do you really want the government to start regulating what you can see/hear. Really is that what you want.
I am going to assume that you know how modern western so-called democracies work. Special Interest or Lobbyists have way more power than you and I.
If we want our Gov to start regulating this, it means you will lose alot of your freedoms.
@John
“Do you really want the government to start regulating what you can see/hear. Really is that what you want.”
There are already advertising watchdogs – advertising standards councils and bodies whose job is to regulate what we see and hear from advertisers, plus investigate complaints. Although, actually the advertising industry is already self-regulating themselves because they must follow a standard national advertising “code”…so I can’t see how this indecent BK ad got approved by their advertising agency creatives; because obviously it should be pulled. It’s just unfortunate that these advertising watchdogs even exist – due to companies not complying and breaking rules to get free publicity.
Anyone know which country that BK ad is from and whether it’s breaking advertising codes? It’s pretty sad when you have to sexualize a burger…this is similar to that very controversial Paris Hilton commercial years ago, where she’s in nothing but a bikini and washing a car (lots of foam!) and then crawls into a doggy pose, bites into a hamburger. remember that one? I think it was banned.
“the ad is truly distasteful. I don’t know why government don’t set down regulations for these advertising agencies to follow…so it doesn’t get to the point where these sexist, repugnant ads are everywhere in people’s faces.”
Michelle, the problem is that your moral standards are not everyone else’s. You find the ad “distasteful” but I do not. Why should your morality win out?
Some groups may find it distasteful if ads include women with exposed wrists or faces. Should the morality of those groups win out? Should we necessarily pander to the “most offended” in society?
And what happens when Planned Parenthood is banned from advertising because their very existence offends some? What happens when pharmacies cannot advertise carrying birth control or Plan B because those products are offensive to certain groups?
Personally, given the choice between seeing supposedly distasteful ads and being forced into a society that only operates at the pleasure of moral extremists, I’ll take the ads.
Besides, if someone is smart enough to see through the ad in the first place, shouldn’t they also be smart enough to ignore it?
“Michelle, the problem is that your moral standards are not everyone else’s. You find the ad “distasteful” but I do not. Why should your morality win out?”
Likewise, why should your IMmorality win out? And your argument is absurd…comparing apples to oranges; really birth control offensive? Me, a moral extremist? Of course you’ll take the ads, it’s targeted at you, your group should be the least offended by the ad…so get real. Yea! BK succeeds at dumbing down its ads with sexual tactics to attract and keep its market! Are some men this easy target??? LOL. Throw in sex = SUCCESS!
Even robots have moral codes. Three rules all robots must follow:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Michelle,
You have not explained why your moral code should win out, and you are the one clamoring for change, meaning that the onus to prove a need for change is on you.
For the record, I definitely see a large share of ads that are not targeting me. The difference is that I don’t find them offensive, I just recognize that I’m not the target.
You are choosing to find ads offensive that, according to you, do not even target you.
This is no different from groups that choose to find Planned Parenthood or Birth Control Offensive. Or to find women not wearing a hijab offensive. Why is your morality functionally superior to theirs? Why should be stop an ad that offends you, but not an ad that offends a conservative Muslim (or Jew for that matter)?
You argument is subjective at best and based on some permutation of the statement “My own personal biases are best for everyone!”
That is not a good basis for social policy.
And, the federal government actually does have regulations covering some aspects of advertising, including extensive case law about obscenity, etc. There are even government regulations that forbid advertisers from showing people drinking beer in a TV beer commercial, and banning people from smoking in any TV commercial, even if it’s a public service ad against smoking.
I want to know when someone’s going to nail MetLife for using cartoon characters in their TV ads. They must be trying to market life insurance to children. Who will protect the children? Where is the outrage?
Mccrorie,
Based on your other comments here, particularly “Marketeers can go die in a fire” I find it difficult to believe that you are actually interested in discussion.
However, on the off chance that you are, I would like to reply to this statement:
” Moreover, accepting that some behaviour (marketing) is something clever and rational is not the same as making a kind of ethical judgement about its purpose and results. ”
I completely agree that there is a difference between arrival at a rational conclusion and making an ethical judgment. Examining the paleontological record and determining that the present forms of life came into being through evolution is a rational conclusion. Arguing that the theory of evolution is evil and should not be taught in schools is an ethical judgment. This is illustrative of why I do not really put much stock in “ethical judgments.”
When we make “ethical judgments” we are trying to force our own biases onto another. You already argued that there might not be something “we” collectively want from ads, and this should apply to ethics as well as advertising, if “we” have no collective advertising preference, it stands to reason that “we” have no collective ethical preferences.
Generally, it is not acceptable to foist ones’ ethics onto another. In extreme cases, this is referred to as “shaming.” (As in, “slut shaming” is when someone forces their sexual ethics onto another)
From where I stand, your argument that we should eschew understanding marketing as a rational act based on market research in favor of an “evil” act based on ethical judgments reeks of shaming. You are simply trying to shame others for the images and messages that they respond to. This is unhelpful and not remotely constructive.
“From where I stand, your argument that we should eschew understanding marketing as a rational act based on market research in favor of an “evil” act based on ethical judgments reeks of shaming. You are simply trying to shame others for the images and messages that they respond to. This is unhelpful and not remotely constructive.”
I do not eschew understanding marketing this way. In fact if they are so inclined I would encourage people to dispassionately look further into and examine the research and methods marketers are employing to try and modify our behaviour. This is especially relevant in regards to the advances being made in neurology and the rate at which the internet is allowing the collection of personalised behavioural data. If, so informed, people have no problem with the way they are being influenced then so be it. That’s their choice.
From where I stand it cannot be denied that end result of this research is behaviour modification. I can correctly assume that some marketers want to change MY behaviour. They want to influence MY thoughts and change the way I feel and think about MYSELF and OTHERS. For these reasons I reserve the right to mock ‘marketing’ and its proponents for actions which I feel are overtly manipulative, deceptive, patronising and generally degrading to me as a person.
Besides all that, regarding ethics and “evil”, there are already standards being forced upon societies. Example http://www.asa.co.nz/code_ethics.php
What do you think is the purpose of this code? Is it to shame others for the messages and images they respond to?
“What do you think is the purpose of this code? Is it to shame others for the messages and images they respond to?”
Is this a serious question?
Ethical codes clearly exist for the purpose of shaming people into a single system of beliefs. Look up most major religions for a quick proof of this. ProTip: If ethics were truly universal, there would be no need for a written code. They are not, and so those seeking conformity of belief produce such codes. If there was no shaming element, the codes would not need to be public; they are public, so we know there’s a shaming element.
That an ethical code is only piecemeal about its goals does not change the general characterization of those goals (i.e. yes, the code you linked to exists to force beliefs on others)
Furthermore, you seem to be confused about the kind of influence that advertisers are actually seeking. Advertisements are specially targeted not because advertisers want to change the way you think and feel about yourself, but BECAUSE of the way you think and feel about yourself.
Advertisements for something you genuinely do not want will never work (someone above already brought up the Edsel). No advertising campaign will save a product that no one wants. But advertisements can serve to let you know about something that you do actually want. The only behavior they are seeking to modify is how you perform habits you already have.
Think about it: how many razor ads say “You should start shaving!” None. Because people who do not shave will never buy razors.
But if you already shave, then you might like to know about cheaper, longer-lasting, or more comfortable razors: and that’s what the ads all describe.
Now, if you genuinely believe that advertisers are some kind of global conspiracy to manipulate your ego, you are certainly free to believe. But I would personally be more cautious about listening to whomever gave you that belief than about listening to any ad I’ve ever heard.
“Think about it: how many razor ads say “You should start shaving!” None.”
Actually, some have recently started doing that. But not for something most people think about: scrotums and vulvas! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31006732/ns/health-skin_and_beauty/t/manscaping-ads-building-buzz-online/ In fact, this ad even went out of its way to implant a new point of insecurity in the mind of the customer (your pubic hair makes your dick look shorter!) and then provides the “cure” in the form of a new product.
Those ads actually prove my point.
They are not located on bus shelters, played on television sets, found in magazines, etc.
Instead, they are only available if you specifically go online and look for a “how to” video. This means that those ads are most definitely NOT targeted at people who do not wish to shave. Rather they are specifically targeted at people who are already shaving or considering it.
Again, this is just another example of the ad showing you something you already want.
An interesting notion. I’m still not convinced but I shall endeavour to ‘check myself’ more often the link in behaviours you describe.
as for any ‘conspiracy’ or ‘evil’, those are your words, not mine.
btw, what say you to the point made that the ad above attempts to play at and possibly engender a physical insecurity? Is that what the consumer of the ad wanted to see? I don’t understand.
I personally believe that most people agreeing with Maria’s argument fall firmly into the camp of “Society drives individual decisions” rather than the camp I fall into of “Society is driven by the decisions of individuals.”
We could debate all day about which camp makes more sense and why, but from my standpoint, the ad plays towards individual desires already in existence. Someone felt a desire for the product, and so the product came into being. The reason for their desire could be anything, from a need to be in control, to a outburst of creativity, wanting to try a “new look” even if it was an intensely personal “look.”
If someone wants to trim their pubic hair, who is to say where they got the idea? Why does it need a different basis from a desire to change the hair on the top of your head?
You can choose to read “insecurity” into it, but you have no idea about the actual motivation of those involved. Not everyone who gets a new haircut is doing so out of insecurity. This should be true regardless of where the hair is located.
But, there have been ad campaigns designed to create a demand that did not really exist before. Those campaigns don’t always work, but sometimes they are wildly successful. The best example is Listerine, which practically invented the idea of “everyday bad breath.” The company invented a problem and then sold people the way to solve it. Of course they were tapping into already existing anxieties, but there was essentially no such thing as daily mouthwash before they ran this campaign in the 1920’s. Now there is.
In the 1890’s, Quaker Oats and other grain companies practically invented the idea of eating breakfast cereal every morning. It was really rare until their ad agencies began telling immigrants that eating breakfast cereal is what all Americans have always done. Before that, oats were for animals, not people.
I think mouthwash fits in Mike’s explanation. Listerine may not have been ‘wanted’ into existence, but bad breath was and certainly still is unwanted. Where something like this goes further is to push the need for their product. You can see this in ads for mints where a beautiful couple goes to kiss and one suddenly pulls away, disturbed by the bad breath of the other. What is harder to tell is to what degree messages of this kind makes a person more self-concious about their breath, and whether it goes so far as to convince them to use the product when it’s not all necessary (and we must admit that this would be to the producers advantage)
The Quaker Oats story is interesting.
Here’s a great example of what I consider an odious marketing ploy…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOE5pEX98CE
Some of the references may be too subtle, but the gist is that this particular yeast extract is part of the national psyche. Or it ought to be. As if the act of eating it is to embrace part of your inherited nationality? A yeast extract? What would one say to another if they insisted that to be truly American you had to enjoy hot dogs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyJWlP7VRKA&feature=related
I find this variation of the theme insulting and subtly racist…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyJWlP7VRKA&feature=related
About the BK ad:
I can see where someone could say it’s suggesting fellatio, but that’s still reading between the lines, if you think about it. A woman with her mouth open in front of a sandwich means oral sex? If you tend to read sexual references into things really easily, maybe. I suppose the word “blow” is suggestive of fellatio, but otherwise it’s a picture of a woman and a picture of a sandwich. She is about to put her mouth on it, but…um…that’s how you eat a sandwich, right? It’s an advertisement for something that is consumed by putting it in the mouth. It’s not like it’s an ad for a trailer hitch or a ballpoint pen.
Let’s not go so far with our hypersexed hairtriggers that women in advertisements cannot eat any object longer than they are wide, in case people are reminded of erections. If you don’t want to see anything suggestive of fellatio, women in ads can only eat small bites of food or perfectly round sandwiches. And they can’t drink anything with a straw. It’s a bit of a stretch to see that sandwich as a phallic object. Maybe if there were some reference to mayo dribbling or something? I mean, if your erection looks like that burger, you should see a doctor ASAP.
If there’s objectification here, wouldn’t you also say it’s objectification to see a penis as a sandwich? Considering that burgers are bitten into, chewed up, and swallowed, that’s an extremely aggressive, hostile form of male objectification….
It’s quite a leap to see that burger as an erect penis. If it looks like genitals at all, it looks more like vulva than it does a penis. Turn your head to the side, notice the labia minora inside the labia majora. It’s a smaller, juicy bit inside a larger, dry bit – sounds more like a female sexual symbol than a male one. Sandwiches make more sense as female symbols than male symbols, which is played to comic effect at the end of the movie “Bridesmaids.” Do we even have a word for it when something looks like vulva? If it looks like an erection we call it “phallic,” but what do you call it when it looks like female genitalia? Vulval? Vulvic?
Perhaps this is itself evidence of a phallocentric culture. We see penises everywhere, even when it would make more sense to see vulvas or vaginas. Talk about invisibility.
Or, maybe it’s like the classic shape of the Coke bottle, a mixture of male and female shapes.
Are you guys serious? You don’t think the advertisers were well aware of the connotations of BLOW when they concocted this ad?Juxtaposed with the image, composed as it is in close-up profile, and the odd way this women eats, mouth and eyes wide open awaiting the receipt of the floating burger that will BLOW her mind (how many people eat like this?) Is it not hard to make the leap? Maybe I see this straight away because I trained in design and marketing for a while and visual arts are my field of competency.
As for seeing a vulva in there, that’s clutching at straws. It’s bad form on the part of a designer to imagine recipients of this image turning their head 90′ to see the intricacies of the female genitalia in the mushy ingredients of a burger. Besides that the image doesn’t read properly at that angle. The general form and outline of the product image is sufficient to achieve the ‘phallo-centric’ intent. Reading into every minor detail takes time – and that’s not the point here. If you are going to try and deconstruct an ad such as this, keep it simple/stupid. And you don’t necessarily have to project the image through a feminist lens.
The naivety of certain persons in this conversation compels me to offer a general warning: do not under any circumstances, guys and gals, attempt to use the line “honest, officer, she didn’t look under 18!” The only person you’d be fooling with your act of innocence is yourself.
I have no doubt about the intention of the advertisers. I think they know exactly what they’re trying to do.
I just think it’s kind of weird that it works. Not sick or misogynist, necessarily, just weird that so many people see one thing but not other things. Or that someone would think that it would work. Setting up a sandwich as penis is quite a remarkable feat, really. In order for that to work, the viewer IS making huge leaps. The viewer has to put things together and read between the lines. I was not suggesting the viewer is expected to turn sideways. It looked like vulva to me the way that it is, but if others didn’t see it that way, maybe tilting your head would work. (You will never see in any ad of any kind a suggestion of a slit that is not vertical to the viewer, but you see lots of phallic objects in all kinds of orientations, pointing this way and that. I was just noticing the difference.)
Reading too much into something, deconstructing something too much, is pretty subjective really. What a person instantly sees may not be what another instantly sees.
You’re right, no one eats a burger like that with that expression. Then again…how many women fellate with that expression?
I’m also curious about the whole “profile” thing that several people have mentioned. Why is a woman’s head in profile especially suggestive of fellatio? I mean, wouldn’t it be more suggestive to show her head from the point of view of someone looking down at the top of her head?
I agree deconstruction can be very subjective. It’s quite the rabbit hole.
Remember that BK probably wont want to be seen as too egregious with their accommodation of sex in their ads. In this case making the implied sex act too explicit defeats the purpose.
I don’t know if will help much, but try to imagine the ad as nothing but silhouettes and without any of the text. What could a quick glance at that image suggest? What happens if you then ad the text in the lower half? Finally, add in the only explicit reference to BK…
Look at the key-word “BLOW” and what sexual association is it seductively suggesting? You don’t “blow” a vagina….
And then to have the tagline “it just tastes better” prominently above the burger, is plain crude and definitely not pure coincidence! Lol.
I agree that the advertising dollar is better spent exploiting rather than creating behavior, if return on investment is the most important thing. But exceptions do occur – yet even these play best when exploiting other more pleasant universals such as humor, empathy etc.
So I think ad dollars are best spent exaggerating universals: those good, those bad and those dirty sexy ones – listerine exploits our fear of being ostracized for being seen as unhygienic. A product focused on exploiting the fear we have of unicorns would not do very well.