Colin Murdock and Aren Wilborn pointed out some of the rather insulting ways products are advertised to men. But Danny thinks they missed what could be the biggest culprit of them all.
I came across this list at Cracked.com: The 5 Most Insulting Ways Products Are Advertised to Men. It’s rather accurate but I think there is a very big one missing from the list. Let’s take a quick run-down of the five that are listed:
#5. Assume Men Are Stupid (And Proud of It)
#4. Question Your Masculinity
#3. Dress Ordinary Products Up as Manly Industrial Power Tools
#2. Turn Regular Foods and Flavors into Sausagefests
#1. Assume You’re Hungry for a Heart Attack
No question on these items. They are all true and they all happen. However I think there is one insulting thing that is missing. And this is an insulting way of advertising that happens all the time. An insulting thing that probably should have been Number One: Assume You’re Doing It All For The Nookie
There is a saying that goes, “Men think with their dicks.” Yes, highly insulting I know, but that has not stopped the advertising divisions of a lot of companies from marketing their products in a way that stimulates our “lower brains”.
I wonder if this would get guys to overlook the price of those Bose headsets?
When you advertise something as common as, oh I don’t know, deodorant spray, you have to do something to get the attention of your target audience. How about getting them to believe that if you use a certain spray women won’t be able to keep their hands off of you?
For the longest time products have been advertised to men as the one sure fire way to have women swooning and tripping over (and sometimes fighting among) themselves. Also there are ads where, when faced with a choice between something highly important and a man, the product in question is sure to tip the scales in his favor. ”Eternal salvation? Good smelling guy? Eternal salvation? Good smelling guy?”
Axe makes my soul burn with a fiery passion that surpasses even the Power Cosmic. But let us move on shall we?
I think cars and sports (Warning: This link asks for age verification) speak for themselves so let’s go on to web domain spaces. Yes I’m going there.
Still not sure how these women make the domain space sold by Go Daddy superior to domain space sold by other registrars.
Finally we have Food With Sex, the strategy of getting guys to buy certain brands of food by getting us to think about sex and food at the same time. Because that’s all we need right? Give us food and give us sex and the rest will take care of itself.
But I’m not going with the obvious Burger King Ad that caused an uproar last year. No, I’m going to go a bit further out for an example…. Who knew women had to pull back their hair and bob their heads when eating noodles?
As I said at the beginning, the five items they brought up are accurate, I just think they missed a really big one. If you go back and look at anything that is advertised to men I bet nearly every single ad will invoke at least one of these. And it’s a problem. First and foremost, these methods of advertising pretty much case men as a monolithic entity that all think the same and we will respond to the same stimulation.
These agencies can thank the highly restrictive and oppressive gender roles that we are all bound by for being able to do this. Secondly a lot of these methods don’t speak very highly of women. Unfortunately marketing execs keep using these methods for one reason and one reason only. People are still buying their products, which shows that these highly offensive ways actually work.
What do you think?
About Danny
Honestly, I would be more inclined to discuss the many images of violence against men that are tolerated as comedy.
It seems to me many of these images would never be tolerated if the target were a woman.
There is a slew of commercials shown in the last superbowl that would seem to suggest that society is okay with violence to men.
Awesome idea. Can you write something about that for us?
I’ll just let the pros write the articles and continue to throw stones from outside the clubhouse.
Yes yes yes.
Another big that that was missed.
John D if you write up on this make sure you include the “If you don’t buy her the right gife for (insert holiday/occasion) you could end up getting hurt.” angle that’s been used by jewelry companies for the longest time.
I agree. Somehow it was passed up by EVERYONE that there were TWO commercials during the Super Bowl where there was violence against men. First, the Fiat commercial, where a woman slaps a man and yells at him in Italian, then the second, where John Stamos is headbutted by his wife for hogging all the yogurt.
And while – sure, I’ll concede – the ogling of a woman in the Fiat commercial is a less-than-savory image we should be celebrating, it doesn’t excuse violence. The media tells women that it’s okay to slap a man because “it’s not really hitting”, but then, if a man were to slap a woman in a commercial, there’d be calls for boycotts.
This traps women in a paradox. If women would like to be equal to men, then the politics surrounding phsyical violence need to be the same; that is, a slap for a slap, a headbutt for a headbutt. But if women are okay with the image of slapping a man because they’re “weaker” and thus, it’s “okay”, then they have to admit that they’re a less dominant sex – which is also not okay.
And let’s not go into the idea that Fiats are being more heavy-handedly marketed to women – which would mean that the underlying message of the Fiat commercial wasn’t that the ogling gentleman is in love with the car – but that the Italian woman LIKED being looked at as an object, and it made her powerful enough to be able to do violence to a random man on the street.
Sigh.
In regards to the Fiat ad: so it’s ok for women to be objectified, but it’s not ok for a woman to hit a man? Wow, aren’t you enlightened? Listen, I’m really sick of women being portrayed as dangling carrots to sway male purchasing habits. Aren’t women worth a little more respect than that? What kind of messages do you think your daughters are picking up from it? What kind of messages are being consciously and subconsciously reinforced in the male mind when he sees these ads? Is it AT ALL possible for companies to advertise to men WITHOUT using women as some king of bait? Is it possible to appeal to male logic or understanding of mechanics to *gasp* sell a car? Or are men so incredibly, pathetically ‘hard up’ that the only thing they understand at any given time is boobs, butts, and legs? Until they stop using women has bait/sex objects for men in ads, I’m completely a-ok with watching men getting slapped or punched by women. BOTH genders need to be respected for advertising to be acceptable.
“What kind of messages do you think your daughters are picking up from it?”
What kind of message do you think young women are picking up from not having their agency respected?
‘Oh, cupcake, you can smack, punch and bite all you want, your actions will never affect the world in any meaningful way!’
“I’m completely a-ok with watching men getting slapped or punched by women. BOTH genders need to be respected for advertising to be acceptable.”
O.O
You are okay with violence as long as it achieves your ends…?
So then we’ll get people who say they are ok with women being objectified because men are treated with violence in ads, and it just ping pongs between the camps of sillyness. How about people add some maturity and say both the violence and the objectification is bad, work out ways to create better advertising strategies and stamp out sexism, objectification, violence etc in that medium?
I totally hate women being used as pretty things to draw attention to an ad, I’d much rather see an ad for a car where she is a fully qualified mechanic and can handle it fine, mix it up a bit! But I also hate ads that don’t give me the technical details and aren’t even remotely related to the product, eg a woman in a bikini for something totally unrelated to the beach, swimming, bikinis, women, etc.
No, it’s not okay for the man to ogle the woman. I did lose that point in my others. It’s not okay for the man to objectify the woman like that – but it doesn’t warrant violence toward the man. It warrants women and men alike saying “hey, this ad is unacceptable for MANY reasons!”
I think I made a pretty solid case for both women and men in my comment, and think I deserved more than the “aren’t you enlightened” summation. I mean, aside from me forgetting to say that the man ogling the woman was also not okay, was I far off-base? I think women are in a tough spot; society’s saying that either you have to put up and shut up as inferior, which isn’t okay, or you have to muscle out your freedom violently, which isn’t okay either.
We’re probably more on the same page than you think. I don’t want women used as objects like that – and even further, I don’t like when brands only depict mothers in the home. It traps the image of a woman as a sex object when she’s single, then a homemaker when she’s married. If you’re interested, check out a story I wrote on 8bitdad.com about Lysol where I made that argument. If not, that’s cool too. Thanks for responding nonetheless.
For what it’s worth, I am entirely conscious of it when I see men get hit on tv by women and it does bother me. I do think it’s wrong and would never actually advocate it.
But the way that women are ‘used’ in male-targeted adverts – as nothing more than sex objects, accessories, rewards or incentives for consumership – just sickens me. The only thing that makes me more angry is the LACK of outrage on men’s part. But rather, around me all I see is men smirking and enjoying these degrading ads with “wow, how hot is she?” and “yeah, I’d tap that”. One can only take it for so long before the sentiments of resentment, frustration, hatred, and anger build up. The results are not pretty. It’s great if you can identify sexist ads (some men don’t even acknowledge that it’s sexist!!!) and if you speak out against it. Women, as much as men, need to know that you find it unacceptable.
“The only thing that makes me more angry is the LACK of outrage on men’s part. ”
Something that angers me massively is the lack of outrage from women on these ads too for sexism against both genders, I see how they get up in arms over sexism to women but seem oblivious to the sexism against men, this is especially true of those who identify as feminist and thus carry the anti-sexism mindset. It’s disheartening to see the lack of voice regarding sexism against men in an absolute sea full of discussion about sexism against women.
p.s. i hope you emailed Fiat with your complaint – I certainly did. Although, like many women, I do feel like I live in a man’s world and that because I’m not the target audience, they aren’t going to care whether this offends me or not. Just like Carl’s Jr doesn’t care if it offends the entire female population, as long as all males keep hooting and hollering about how much they love the Kate Upton, Audrina Patridge, Kim K, etc commercials, they will continue to keep dolling it out (and they have for so many years!). What’s the point in getting mad, no one cares how we feel. And as long as the men (target audience) love it, that’s all that matters.
I email everyone, believe it or not
And next week, I’m going to be on a conference call with Huggies defending both men and women against sexist imagery in commercials pertaining to parenthood. Thanks for continuing this conversation with me, Anne!
Zach – lol. that’s pretty awesome. if you ever get through to Carl’s Jr. you will have “hero-status” with me. good luck.
We to stop fighting each other and start helping each other get to the same goal of mutual respect. Advertising is a good place to start making changes together.
And yes, I see your weak “concession” (sounds more like you approve, but realize that you shouldn’t).
But men generally are stronger and more aggressive/dominant than women. I dont think it’s intrinsically bad esp. since most woman want a man to “man up/take his balls out of his purse” etc.
That being said i dont think it’s cool for ads to show women hitting men. Most men are taught not to hit a woman (or at least they were back in the day) so I dont think it’s fair to show women hitting men as entertainment.
“But men generally are stronger and more aggressive/dominant than women. I dont think it’s intrinsically bad esp. since most woman want a man to “man up/take his balls out of his purse” etc.”
Well that’s just…wrong. Firstly, men are not more aggressive than women, nor are they more dominant. Traditional gender narratives are just blind to the ways in which women are aggressive and dominant. Hello, Mean Girls and Clueless, and pretty much every movie about teenage women ever. And yeah those are just movies, but they aren’t all that far from the truth. Girls (and women) can be incredibly aggressive…just like boys (and men) can be aggressive. And, oh yeah, boys can be totally non-aggressive too. It’s about individuals, not their gender.
As for the whole – most women want a man to “man up,” well I don’t think that’s true. Not to mention, the phrase about “take his balls out of his purse,” is offensive on so many levels. Firstly, you’re equating manhood with testicles…which is so very outdated and messed up. Secondly, you’re equating manhood with not having a purse (i.e. with dressing a certain way). That is also problematic.
That’s why we’ve got websites like GMP around in the first place…because the old paradigm of “manning up” and being stoic, etc, isn’t all there is to being a man.
Actually, even feminists like Maccoby found that men are generally more aggressive even from a young age. I have known some very violent women, but generally its more of a man thing.
But women do have emotional terrorism on lock.
most women want a man to “man up,”
This is what I’ve heard all the time. I’m thinking maybe feminists have a different kind of man in than than the general population? There is occasionally talk about wanting a sensitive man, but yet sensitive men tend not to fare well in dating from what I hear.
manhood with testicles”
Well, I’ve never known a woman to have testicles
“Well, I’ve never known a woman to have testicles.”
I know a few women who have testicles, actually. I don’t know any females with testicles, but that’s besides the point. Equating a man with a part of his body is just as problematic as equating a woman with her uterus. How often do you hear women talk about how they’re more than just baby-makers? All the time, heck I say it all the time. Equating a man with his testicles is objectifying, and objectification is dehumanizing. That’s part of what this entire discussion is about, really…the problem of objectifying women in these adds. The same goes for men…objectifying men is just as problematic.
As for your statement that men are more aggressive…again I’d like to point to the fact that our society just places the ways in which women are traditionally more aggressive into a separate category. Female aggression is viewed as something different to ‘regular’ aggression, because often it’s not done with physical size. Somehow being emotionally aggressive and being physically aggressive are viewed as two very different things. But really they go hand in hand…physical aggression can be used to spark certain emotional responses, and emotional aggression can be used to intimidate just as effectively as the physical.
“There is a saying that goes, “Men think with their dicks.” Yes, highly insulting I know”
Is it still insulting, if/when it’s TRUE?
I mean, it’s a staple of advertising that “Sex sells”. It’s not because marketers are evil, it’s because it’s (mostly) true.
Nobody likes being stereotyped but, let’s be honest, most men are “sensitive” to sex promises…
so I wonder, isn’t it a bit hypocritical feeling offended by something that’s – fundamentally – true?
To me, it looks like a politician getting pissed off when accused of corruption: instead on focusing if that’s true or not, he focuses on “How you dare saying that about me?!?”.
It’s posing one’s ego much above than truth.
Horribly inaccurate myth. I have never thought with my penis. It has no impact on my motivations or thought patterns. It is just a sensory organ, not a psychological power. It’s all totally preposterous and completely insulting. Way off the mark.
I actually think with my testicles.
Funny, because I think with my fallopian tubes, though on occasion my cervix does take over. Once one of my ovaries tried to take over, but my fallopian tubes showed it who’s boss.
Valter:
I agree…
I dont get the outrage over the ads per se because that’s generally how men treat women anyway.
I really wouldnt even know the point of changing ads when men’s inclinations won’t change. Men like to look at breasts, asses, legs, etc, so why not use it in ads? Using t&a is guaranteed to get responses from the general male population.
“Men think with their dicks”
But that is exactly what they do most of the time!! Even me. I admit it. So its not insulting….its true. I would be insulting to say that that is the only thing but I would say it pretty accurate to say that men are highly motivated by sex. Are men stupid because of dick thinking. Yep they sure are. Really stupid.
I actually think its far far more important than most people realize or are willing to admit. Especially men. Men kill for sex, they commit suicide for it, they build monuments and tombs to impress women….if it weren’t for thinking with their dicks I doubt we would have achieved anything. I don’t think women have any clue as to how motivating they have been and how dramatically men alter their behaviour due to women. ITS HUGE.
I would like to alter the Keynes quote:
“The sexual power of women is far more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Successful powerful men, artists, writers, scientists, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any female influence, are usually the slaves of some beautiful girl that they have spent their whole lives trying to impress”
True true
Then explain why such a disproportionally large amount of the great men of history were gay and why two of the most prestigious western civilizations, the Greek and Roman empires, were the only two that valued males far more than females.
Gotta put on my historian hat and jump in here.
First off, “gay” is very much a modern-day category that’s not a concept that even the Greeks and Romans used. They didn’t use that concept, really. Yes, Alexander the Great had sex with men and women, but saying he was “gay” doesn’t quite fit the historical context. It would be sort of like calling him a “jock” or a “metrosexual” or a “libertarian.” They didn’t really have that identity back then. I’m not saying same-sex sexuality is a recent thing, far from it, just that the labeling is anachronistic.
Second, the Greeks and Romans were the only civilizations that valued men far more than women? This I’d like to know more about, because this goes against everything I thought I knew. Can you compare/contrast them with the some other ancient civilizations? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your interpretation.
Finally, Greek and Roman culture are prestigious in large part because people whose cultures are traced back to them like to say that Greek and Roman cultures were wonderful. Western prestige is based on the prestige that Westerners give to Greeks and Romans. That’s sort of like asking why American culture is so popular in America….
“First off, “gay” is very much a modern-day category that’s not a concept that even the Greeks and Romans used.”
I am amazed that people will use this line of argumentation in order to argue that certain people weren’t gay. “Feminism” is a modern-day ideology that uses concepts that weren’t used in ancient societies. Does that mean we can’t analyze ancient societies from that lens? Many ancient societies misinterpreted mental illness as being the result of possession; should we not ever conclude that some ancient figures had schizophrenia, depression, or bipolar disorder because the societies they lived in didn’t use such concepts? That would be ridiculous.
Ancient Greece and Rome are societies that only around 2000 years old; they had the same sexuality spectrum that we have. They may have not used the same terminology or dealt with sexuality in the same way, but there were straight, gay, bisexual people then as there are today. Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Shakespeare, Alexander the Great and an astonishingly high number of great men fell somewhere between gay and male-leaning bisexual.
“Western prestige is based on the prestige that Westerners give to Greeks and Romans. That’s sort of like asking why American culture is so popular in America….”
You realize I was responding to comments about how all the great men achieved what they did because they wanted sex with women they desired, right? Those commenters probably are “western” so their conception of greatness is probably a western one. Well, a lot of the greatness of western history was produced by men who loved and desired men.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I was not arguing that homosexuality or bisexuality did not exist back then. Heck, no. Alexander the Great had sex with men and women (contrary to what the edited Oliver Stone movie might lead you to believe). His love for his fellow men was no doubt part of his success, if for no other reason than he fit right in with his contemporaries. He wasn’t out and proud, because there was no closet to be out of. He is a great example of a heroic figure who had same-sex sex, but that’s not quite the same thing as being a gay hero. His sex life would be considered “bisexual” today. But, that’s not a term that they would have used back then.
Societies in the past did have a broad range of sexual activity, no doubt about it. But, much of our definitions and categories are modern-day ways of grouping people together. If they grouped different kinds of sex together at all, the often grouped them differently than we do today. Saying there were gay Greeks and Romans is a bit like saying that ‘Lucy’ was “black” because she was from Africa.
For example, the Greeks and Romans generally thought it was despicable for an older man to be in a submissive sexual position with a younger man, or for a higher-ranked man to be in submissive sexual position to a lower-ranked man, and a man was supposed to grow out of having sex with men once he reached a certain age. (They defined “active” and “passive” in their own unique ways, too.) They thought some kinds of sex between men were normal and even wonderful and other kinds of sex between men were reprehensible and could cost you your political career. They didn’t break it down into “homosexual” and “heterosexual.”
So very true. It’s why whenever you see a passage from the Bible translated with the word “homosexuality,” you know it’s been translated incorrectly. Not only wasn’t there an word in Biblical Hewbrew for homosexuality, but the concept itself didn’t exist. Same-sex sex existed, but the social identity didn’t exist.
With regards to the movie (yeah so off topic), did they like re-edit it to include cut scenes or something? Because the version I saw made no bones about the fact that Alexander had sex with a couple of guys, and an emotional relationship with Jared Leto’s character.
“Men kill for sex, they commit suicide for it, they build monuments and tombs to impress women….”
And yet somehow they never remember to put the toilet seat down….
assman – does this mean that any time a company advertises a product with the remote promise that you’ll attract females/get laid, you run out and buy whatever they are selling? do you own the complete Axe body wash collection? Using women in ads as bait (sex objects) for male consumership is incredibly pathetic, degrading, and not something I would expect from “good men”.
If they can prove women like the smell and it increases attraction it might be a drawcard, but usually I buy deoderant and cologne based on the smells I like. But it also has to be good at stopping odor, sweat, whilst hopefully a pleasant smell that doesn’t turn off potential mates. This shouldn’t be done in an objectifying way though, maybe something along the lines of “independent studies confirm 9 of 10 men and women prefer this smell yadda yadda”
interestingly there’s never any products marketed towards attracting men specifically, just looking attractive in general. i guess we assume you will take us, BO, sweat and all. lol.
Well according to the idea that when it comes to being attracted to women guys will go after any and all women you may have a point. We’re supposedly lustful horndogs that are always looking for some action. (Yet this somehow coexists with the idea that men are so picky when it comes to women we invoke a lot of -isms in doing so.)
I’m curious…is perfume marketed as something that’ll make women smell better for men, or just something that’ll make women smell better, full stop? To me, women’s perfume adverts are always so sexualized, they are definitely about using a perfume to attract a man. Similarly, men’s cologne adverts are so sexualized they are definitely about using it to attract women.
I’m curious…is perfume marketed as something that’ll make women smell better for men, or just something that’ll make women smell better, full stop?
I’m not the target audience for perfume but from what I’ve seen I think its the former.
Similarly, men’s cologne adverts are so sexualized they are definitely about using it to attract women.
No question. Even we don’t count obvious ads like Axe we can still see that a lot of cologe and body spray products for men are advertised this way. Whether the example is getting mobbed while out in public or a one on one encounter in the bedroom the message is usually “where this and she won’t be able to keep her hands off of you.”
“I’m not the target audience for perfume but from what I’ve seen I think its the former.”
Hmm…well then I guess that’d be one product where it’s about attracting men, specifically…not just about being attractive in general. But yeah, otherwise it is directed more toward a woman being attractive whereas for men it’s more toward drawing women to him.
Strawberry deoderant, a scent a girl I had a crush on in highschool wore. Always catches my attention!
I think good perfume/colognes can definitely be pleasing and catch attention, you can associate the smell with a person you like which reinforces it (like certain music to certain people). I think the products can be quite attractive.
My best friend in high school had this cologne that was all woody and earthy…I loooooooved it. It was flipping bizarre too seeing as my best friend was a man.
And what are women too busy doing that they can’t check a toilet seat before sitting down? Jeezaloo, even a clod like me can check before sitting on the john. How hard can it be?
Yeah, this one’s a puzzler. I don’t see anything insulting about the assumption “men like to look at hot women and have lots of sex.” On average, it’s true… and it’s not insulting in the slightest.
Now, if there were an ad that suggested “men don’t care about anything else BUT sex,” that would be insulting… and it also wouldn’t sell the product. But “men like sex”? A sure winner. And thanks for the compliment.
Yes. Thank you for making that distinction.
Some of these advertisements do in fact make it seem like men only care about sex to a certain degree. Though that might be just because it hard to convey a complex message about men in a 30 second spot.
On the third hand, one must note there are plenty of other bad things advertisements have said about men. Beer ads that shame men for wearing pink, twix ads that show men lying for sex, etc.
Also one must draw a further distinction between an ad that merely show men as horny, or wanting to be desirable, and then those ads where sex somehow completely shuts down higher brain function. I would hope for more than “Let’s just slap a pretty girl on it!”
@Valter and assman
That’s why I ended with pointing out that these methods work.
Of the things I mentioned (deodorant, headphones, web space, and food) the only one that comes even close to being related to sex (in regards to the facade that these things will lead to sex) is the deodorant (and I’m pretty sure men have more use for deodorant than attracting women). Yet these things are being advertised with sexual promises when sex has almost nothing to do with them.
It would be one thing if we were talking about things that actually have some link to sex like condoms, lubes, etc… (which is why I didn’t mention Trojan and KY ads). But as we see sex is being taken out of context and used as an advertising gimmick.
Valter:
Nobody likes being stereotyped but, let’s be honest, most men are “sensitive” to sex promises…
so I wonder, isn’t it a bit hypocritical feeling offended by something that’s – fundamentally – true?
Maybe but I want to get to asking, “Why am I letting myself be advertised to this way?”
It sort of feeds back into the Knight/Beast dichotomy that Ozy talked about here a week or so ago. Being so led by libido that one ends up engaging in behaviors that upon stopping and thinking about it, might not be such great behavior (and even if its not outright offensive/illegal/immoral that doesn’t mean it great) to start with.
Or should we just throw out hands up, not bother thinking about it, and just “go with the flow because its true”?
assman:
But that is exactly what they do most of the time!! Even me. I admit it. So its not insulting….its true.
So even though there are a lot of men that would not be coerced into buying Axe under the premise that it will attrach women we’re still supposed to let it pass because its true for a lot of other men? At the very least what good is it to tell a gay guy he should buy Axe because it will get him some loving from the ladies? Or do gay men not count as men? (And if you look at all the examples in this post they are all heterosexual, the promise of getting with women if you use their product.)
And does it mean that a man that stops, thinks about this, and decides that he is fact not controlled by his lust for women should just accept the fact that he is advertised to in that manner just because he fell for it before he thought about it?
Oh, so you’re saying there’s a problem because none of the advertising is gay-oriented? OK, I agree that’s a problem.
But how can it be resolved? From a marketing standpoint, is it cost-effective to design an ad to appeal to 10% of the market if it will automatically turn off the other 90%? The other way around isn’t fair either, but it makes better economic sense (the only thing advertisers will ever care about).
The only way to market “to gay men” is to strip out all sexual content so that the ad is orientation-neutral and focuses on other consumer desires: status, wealth, fun, etc. That’s certainly possible. But then, that wouldn’t be identified as marketing to gays either.
“From a marketing standpoint, is it cost-effective to design an ad to appeal to 10% of the market if it will automatically turn off the other 90%?”
Well now, to me that speaks to a bigger problem within our society. Really, would an ad directed at gay men really turn off all the straight people?
“From a marketing standpoint, is it cost-effective to design an ad to appeal to 10% of the market if it will automatically turn off the other 90%?”
It depends on how much money the minority has at its disposal and what the product is. I only need to sell a few Bentleys to make a nice profit. Who cares if 99% of people can’t or won’t buy them?
Also, in many cases the people who are offended by an ad were never going to buy that thing in the first place, so there’s no big loss.
I should have specified “90% of their target audience,” i.e., men in general. And yes, if they’re using sexualized advertising imagery, then appeals to gay men will turn off the straight men.
Of course, if they’re marketing exclusively to gay men, then by all means go for it!
Or (on a second reading) is your concern that advertising uses sexual imagery to sell products that inherently have nothing to do with sex?
If so, I can’t help you there. Advertising is always full of misleading and unrelated imagery. Does anyone truly expect buying a particular brand of vitamins to produce a happy, loving family? Or a new toaster to bring you and your kids closer together? Or soda to spontaneously generate raucous parties? Of course not. But marketers use these images all the time.
@Danny: “Maybe but I want to get to asking, “Why am I letting myself be advertised to this way?””
You’re not. You’re not “letting” anything, and it has nothing to do with you. Why are you taking things so personally?
Advertising play with basic human emotions. They “pull the strings”, and (most) people move. So what? It’s not much different from smiling to someone to win their heart; we all try to get something from others.
Honestly, this discourse makes me think of “Much ado about nothing”.
Advertising play with basic human emotions. They “pull the strings”, and (most) people move.
Exactly. And now that I’m thinking about it I am allowing my strings to be pulled when I give into that advertising.
It almost sounds like you’re saying that since I don’t like it I should just let it go. Well its not like I’m trying to speak on behalf of all men and declare that this must stop. If you don’t have a problem with this line of advertising then cool more power to you and I won’t think any less of you.
gotta say, i agree with Danny on a lot of his points.
The ones that astound me are the ads that assume men DON’T want to have sex. The ones–almost exclusively beer commercials–in which the guy has a loving, generally beautiful, woman at home, and in some bizarre set of circumstances chooses to ditch her in favor of a cold beer. I’m scratching my head. I’ll drink the occasional beer, but it’s not THAT good.
most guys don’t know a good thing until she’s gone.
But we know a bad thing because she never leaves.
The Bose commercial is a little odd, for a number of reasons. The message is very murky. Is it telling men to buy headphones for women to make their boobs bounce? How does that work?
If it’s trying to make an association between the product and an attractive female body, that could be a successful tactic, assuming the viewer remembers what the name of the company was. There’s a risk there of the viewer remembering the breasts but not the name of the product. “Wait, what was that commercial for again?”
It mostly makes me self-conscious that I haven’t worked out in a long time. My pecs are flabby. Thanks for reminding me….
The message is: “Hey, BOOBS! (And, by the way, headphones.)”
Not a great message ethically speaking, at least not among this community. Pretty effective ad-speaking. (After all, we’re talking about it, right? That’s what they want us to do… publicity is publicity…)
Most of the time, if you don’t “get” an ad, that means it wasn’t targeted at you. The ads are designed to reach a particular segment. This ad might not affect you – but it’s not the only ad Bose has, and if they really want you as a customer, they’ve probably developed an ad to reach you too, maybe one-pager in a magazine that speaks to the quality, technology, and slick style of Bose, without boobies.
Actually I don’t think the first add (where a man on a bench in the park watches the woman work out) is meant to be an appeal to sex, but rather an appeal to WTF?! Perhaps I’m saying this because I first saw it on a list of strange ads, however I think the guy’s expression is more one of confusion. The breasts are NOT bouncing, they are moving as if she had a motorized bra shoving them upward. The hope with this add is that it would be strange enough that it will capture people’s attention fully.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think the Go Daddy ad shows that young men are obsessed with Heaven, sequins, fog, make up, and hair product. Take a step back and look at it like someone from another planet, and it’s odd to see this as a sexualized image. Of course it is, but what a strange way to do it!
There’s an analysis waiting to be developed here about the nexus of commercialism, religion, and sexuality.
Matera writes:
“Then explain why such a disproportionally large amount of the great men of history were gay and why two of the most prestigious western civilizations, the Greek and Roman empires, were the only two that valued males far more than females.”
I would like to see you prove that those empires valued men more than women. It was overwhelmingly male slaves who built the aqueducts, were lion food in the arenas, and male soldiers who died in war.
How is that valuing men?
Archy:
Strawberry deoderant, a scent a girl I had a crush on in highschool wore. Always catches my attention!
I think good perfume/colognes can definitely be pleasing and catch attention, you can associate the smell with a person you like which reinforces it (like certain music to certain people). I think the products can be quite attractive.
Too true! Similarly when I was in college a woman that I had a crush on had some sort of lotion, spray, etc… that smelled like blueberries. Even to this day (almost 13 years later) when I smell something like it I think about her (even though we lost contact with each other about 9 years ago).
Heather:
My best friend in high school had this cologne that was all woody and earthy…I loooooooved it. It was flipping bizarre too seeing as my best friend was a man.
A guy after my own heart. I too usually go for woodsy/earthy scents when I buy cologne.
I think Cracked left the Nookie off the list because its audience is generally teenage to young-adult male nerds, and implying in the article that men don’t do everything for the nookie would probably have caused them to lose some credibility with those readers. (I have to constantly remind myself when reading comment sections on other sites that not every online community is as aware of gender issues and capable of talking about gender and sex in mature, thoughtful ways, as it is here at GMP.)
For the headphones/boobs ad, the boobs are there to get your attention, not really to sell the product. Yeah, it’s shameless, and it’s based on unfortunate (but as others have pointed out, sometimes true) assumptions. Think of the DirecTV ads with the rich Russian and the tiny giraffe. The giraffe serves no other purpose than to get your attention. The ad is not claiming that using DirecTV’s service means you get your own pet giraffe. It’s totally irrelevant to the product but instantly recognizable. It drums up interest and recognition for the brand. What the advertisers want is for you to go up to your friend, neighbor, or coworker and say “Hey, did you see that commercial with the tiny giraffe?” BAM. The ad did its job.
So to sum up, some advertising tries to get you to buy the product, period. A lot of advertising, though, wants you to buy into the brand because even if you don’t buy the product, you’re now engaged and they can push you along the sales funnel. And most advertisers are NOT interested in making grand statements about society, or gender, or culture, or stereotypes, or whatever (unless it helps them sell their product). They have the platform and the vehicle to say whatever they want, and I think that’s what a lot of ad-haters are upset about – they wish the advertisers would use that platform and exposure to put forth a better message. But truth is, if it doesn’t help sell the product or drum up interest in the brand, pushing for social change is not what they’re in the business to do.
I will not buy from a company that uses ( what I find to be ) offensive and/or insulting marketing ploys. I can always find an alternative that works just as well or do with out. Victoria’s Secret ( insulting that a product for ME is not marketed to ME ), I go to Soma or a department store instead….. Carl’s Junior ( ugh, their adds are the worst!), I don’t need crappy fast food so I’ll do with out….. and so on…
I really don’t get why marketing departments and add agencies find the need to offend and insult to advertise products. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who gets mad and fed up with it.
Can I just throw something else in the ring that drives me nuts? Sit coms that portray men/fathers as nincompoops who can’t do anything without their pushy angry wife to tell them what to do. Ugh. I find it insulting to both men and women!