I have a little bug bear that won’t go away.
Al received this magazine, which sells tech gear:
I’m sorry, but most of the nerd girls and boys I know do not look like that. Sure, I am sure there are, but not many.
There’s links to blatant degrading sexism in advertising and violence against women.
But it’s not just sexism against women that you see. A recent ad from Philadephia had my stomach turning for it’s blatant sexism involving men. You can see it here.
I think I also heard one of the advertisers on Gruen Transfer detailing why it doesn’t work, but I am not trawling through videos to find it. I think it was something about people not remembering the product just the sexuality.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a prude. I like PDAs and think physical affection is great (just don’t be humping in front of me).
I just resent every flimsy excuse to get a girl half out of her clothes. Or men in pants so tight they are barely squeezing into them and those sad excuses to remove a top. It just makes me sad that there is no sacredness, no product that is without cheap frothy sexist images.
Am I wrong? Is it ok? Does being sick of product placement in completely irrelevant situations not aggravate others?
I don’t worry much about sexism in ads either way. I reckon the guy on the Gruen Transfer was right – I remember and appreciate the girls, women probably remember and appreciate the hunks. What products? I don’t remember.
I can see where it gets on your goat, many ads get on my goat for many reasons and sexism isn’t the only ism in ads.
I see it this way:
1) Mostly, it doesn’t work.
2) Those who are swayed by it deserve to pay more or get an inferior product. I like to think of it as the Darwin awards of consumerism.
3) There are much worse ads out there than the sexist ones.
As for the ad that churns your stomach (rather than the cheese), I think you have over-reacted due to your dislike of sexism in ads. Yes, it’s sexist but it’s also way over the top. It seems to me they were trying to make it funny, sort of a parody of sexism, but failed dismally. It’s sort of trapped in a no-man’s land between sexism and parody and thus fails to work on both counts. I suspect it failed to sell a single tub of whatever and may have even had a negative impact on sales (one can certainly hope so, anyway). Ad fail? Yes, definitely. Stomach churning? No, just laugh at the ad people who came up with it and the execs who signed off on it.
I get summoned for this sort of thing an awful lot.
I don’t see a problems. I’m a big boy (Hey, I’m average height) and I can make my own decisions on what products and services I purchase. A lot of these ads just make it easier. I love beer ads for their creativity and stupidity despite often portraying men as bogans or similar and they certainly don’t affect which brands of beer I buy.
I do have a problem with anything particularly offensive being shown in prime time or kid TV times. I may be big enough to make my own objective decisions, but I don’t want my offspring exposed to it before they are.
That’s the point really isn’t it? These ads aren’t restricted to “adults only” timeslots. They are played and replayed in prime time and kids show timeslots.
I see it as a very slippery slope that we are already halfway down.
There has been a lot of coverage over the years about kids being overly sexualised. Just look at the bratz dolls (what I like to call teeny tiny $luts) and the clothing aimed at children these days. It’s just wrong. Yes I know parents play a part in it as well for allowing their child to play with / wear those things, but why are they allowed on the market in the first place?
Why should we be ok with sexism in ads if we aren’t ok with it in person? Why should we accept overly sexualised ads shown in children’s television watching or radio listening times?
Personally I think that advertising should have limitations put on it, no sexism no overtly sexual behaviour / dress and only truthful claims.
They are played and replayed in prime time and kids show timeslots.
I highly doubt that you’ll see that Philadelphia Cheese ad, or one similar, shown on the same channel as The Wiggles is on.
No, it doesn’t prevent kids from stumbling across them if they are changing channels. But really, are we so reliant on others to do our parenting that we will push for legislation requiring a ratings guide for advertising, and specific time slots when that advertising can be shown?
If a kid is sitting in front of the television and has access to the remote, the parent should be there and be ready to do some parenting if necessary.
I thought this was a nifty little idea from Foxtel
http://www.foxtel.com.au/discover/products-features/minimote/default.htm
The kiddy remote. So your kids can have their own remote, but only use it to flick between the kiddy channels.
It shouldn’t replace parental guidance in what kids are watching, but I like that somebody thought about the problem and came up with an idea to reduce the risk.
Animal Planet
Is a channel they can watch
Animals rooting
But it’s natural
Taken straight out from the wild
Unlike these pictures
All true, but I do wonder what advertisers have to gain by showing these ads in kids viewing time. Seems a bit of a mis-spend of advertising dollars to me. I’m sure they’d get better bang for their buck showing them at other times.
I am going to watch CH7 at 3:30 (All for Kids) and ABC1 at 3:00/3:30 Play School, Peppa Pig, and Lazy Town just to see what ads they show.
I am 100% convinced I will not see a racy ad in the whole lot.
Well you won’t see an ad at all on ABC1 as there are no ads
.
Stupid television channels…
Ghryswald mate I am
One hundred percent convinced
That you need a job
You got that right.
Yes, that sums it up nicely.
Dont doubt it Ghrys, I’ve seen it smack bang in the middle of kids shows.
I understand the need for parents to actively parent, but I also subscribe to the belief that if we as a society want kids to be kids (as seems to be the push at the moment, shocking I know) then we as a society have some things to answer for.
While I am not a parent myself I am very close to my sister who is, she is a fantastic mother who does all of the playing with her children and rarely allows them television time. She doesn’t allow her children to wear sexualized clothing and goes so far as to make the kids clothes herself. I just don’t see why, if she allows her kids to watch a small amount of TV when they are home in the afternoon she should have to stop everything that she is doing (sewing, cooking, cleaning, helping with homework and researching for new kid / allergy friendly recipes) to sit on the couch and vet the TV in a children orientated time slot?
Surely children’s time slots and programs should already be vetted by the so-called media watchdogs and consumer guidelines?
See my comment above.
I’ll post results.
We shouldn’t and there are supposed to be rules for that. Maybe they are too slack or not properly enforced.
In any case, there is only so much that can be accomplished with rules and nanny-state red-tape. I think it comes back to the parents doing their job. There will always be new forms of media and new ways tog et advertising out there and laws will always lag the technology, often by years. Parents are the first line of defence.
As for the $lut dolls and sexualised child’s clothing, it would be nice if it wasn’t on sale. I don’t think banning it is the answer. it gets way to difficult to draw up rules that cover that sort of thin but don’t unintentionally drag in a whole lot of harmless stuff as well. Usually just ends up as more work for lawyers. It’s back to the parents. They can not only refuse to buy it, but also explain why. That, surely, is a better process than banning it, which won’t ever work anyway.
What to do about the parents who fail so dismally in this job? That’s a real quandary.
That would be so nice. It won’t ever happen, marketers will always find ways to stretch the boundaries. But it would be nice. Still, caveat emptor.
Parents parenting? Nah, it’ll never catch on.
It’s a pity that Lolita isn’t around to comment on this, since I’d love to hear her take on it.
It makes me wonder that, if sexism in ads really doesn’t work, then maybe it’s a reflection of the people who work in advertising or corporate executives?
Sexual using children is a whole new topic that gets me hot under the collar. G strings for pre-teens. I want to financially cripple the executives that ok products like that, have parents who buy their children those taken to counselling, and the children.
and padded bras for 4 year olds!
True – the nerd girl I’m dating is much hotter!
Thank you sweetheart.
The point I was more leaning towards is that they generally wear more.
I don’t see those ads as “sexist” but as “sexual.”
“Sexist” is portraying a 1950s wife dutifully preparing dinner and making sure her husband’s slippers and martini are ready when he comes home from work. “Sexist” is portraying the husband as the moron who doesn’t know he needs life insurance. Sexist tries to reinforce social roles and stereotypes based on gender
“Sexual” is portraying an attractive (granted, it’s a loose term) person introducing a product. “Sexual” tries to sell a product using sex, or rather the promise of sex; “drink our beer and you’ll have hot [gender specific noun] hanging all over you.”
The Philadelphia Cheese ad is a parody of ads from the past where women were objectified and it’s done with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
I agree and disagree Ghrys.
Your definitions are not wrong. But when I see a girl who is squirming all over a car with no other qualities that make her a woman than her breasts, I find that sexist. Patting on a bottom would be considered sexist behaviour in a workplace.
Car wash movie scene
From Cool Hand Luke was awesome
Call Me Maybe? No
There’s a huge difference between the photo on that magazine cover and a woman squirming on the hood of a car which is both sexist and sexualized. These things don’t need to one *or* the other.
Just like a pat on the behind isn’t just sexist, it’s sexual harassment.
Advertisements are designed to get our attention and get us to do something. Clever ads make us think. Funny ads make us talk about them and repost them. Sexual ads make us roll our eyes and change the channel.
Obviously there are people out there somewhere that these ads work on. Someone the other day showed me the new ad for Lynx shower scrubber. It’s bad. Very, very bad. But the next day the guy that showed me went out and bought one. So I suppose it works for some. I try not to judge (out loud anyway).
I think people vote with their money. If a company uses a sexualised ad and their sales go down, they’ll try a new strategy. But can we blame them for continuing to use what works? We’d have more success educating people in why these ads are inappropriate, and how they’re degrading. If people aren’t buying the products, the company will change.
I think it’s similar to the media argument. People blame the media for blowing up a story about nothing much, but there’s an audience for it, so why wouldn’t they? While people continue to read their stories (and look at their sponsored advertisements which give them money) they’re going to keep doing it.
Makes me think of this
http://youtu.be/9QiMw1Q65d4
(NSFW – language & adult themes)
There does seem to be a school of advertising that uses the process;
- We want people to buy our product
- Men like boobies
- Lets put boobies next to our product!
On some level I do think that advertising demonstrates how far our society is really from purging sexism.
And that is a bit sad, really.
I wanted to put a link to a picture here, but I can’t get to site admin to add it to the media so here’s a description:
A picture of a very attractive girl with big breasts in a bikini. Head and boobs shot basically. Text underneath -”100% of men don’t notice King Kong in this picture”.
And, blow me down, King Kong is in the picture. Probably takes up 20% of it. I didn’t see it until I read the text. I’m not sure about 100% of men, but I’m very sure that most men don’t notice King Kong in the picture either (actually, Mrs H didn’t until she read the text and looked again, but that was just a sample of one so I’ll just talk about men for now).
So, I ask all those advertisers:
If I don’t spot King bloody Kong what on earth makes you think I am going to spot your impact drill/ tyre/ spanner/ whatever?
I do see your point here – and when I’m in the newsagent, I notice that the magazines in the “Men’s Interest” section have pictures of half naked women on the cover.
And then when I glance across at the Cosmo, Cleo, and other women’s magazines I notice that they too have women on the cover, typically displaying a high propotion of exposed skin.
There are some women that like breasts in that way too.
I beg to differ though. They are not wearing less than on the cover of men’s magazines generally.
I agree – breasts are awesome.
And I know that they’re not (usually) wearing less. But sometimes it gets pretty close to it.
OK, not sure linking to my FB page would work, and I can’t get to site admin to add media, but if you look at my FB page I have just shared a cartoon on the topic of honesty in advertising. Not to do with sexism in ads, but Jessmeca did mention honesty in advertising, so relevant I think.
Well, I’m heading off to work now safe in the knowledge that our firm doesn’t use sexualised advertisements and that our sexist Mother’s Day display is now a thing of memory only (until next year).
New catch phrases
Target – Where the ad you watch is the one with t!ts
Oh don’t get me started on the Target ads!
TLG & I were watching Big Bang or two and a half men the other night and every single ad break had at least 1 if not 2 showings of exactly the same target ad.
We got so infuriated with it that we turned off the free to air and watched the DVD we have of the series instead.
I don’t think these ads work that well for all the reasons mentioned above.
I wish sales data would back that up but I also think product decisions are a lot more complicated than just the strategy used to advertise them, I know they are for me.
I don’t like when women or men are simply used as objects in ads and where possible I quietly let the advertiser know. Something along the lines of a simple email letting them know that I found it in poor taste, 99% are ignored but from time to time they thank you for your feed back and seem to appreciate your opinion.
Does being sick of product placement in completely irrelevant situations not aggravate others?
Yes! I too am no prude, but this ad irritates both me and my mother. Ok, I get that cars and hot babes are somehow linked, albeit tenuously and especially in advertising. Does it happen all the time in real life? Unlikely. More importantly, did she have to dress like that? And did we need the sly shots of her sweaty bosom too? That’s the only part that gets the both of us about that ad…and the length of her dress….
Unfortunately it seems that sex sells these days…or at least appears to do so. As HEA said, I guess there are people out there for whom these kinds of ads do work on. I’d be interested to find out if that particular brand of car had an increase in sales after that ad started airing to see whether what I said above is correct.
I can only imagine that this ad campaign must really offend people.
I do find that ad campaign to be in really bad taste.
I get that it is created to make you listen and take note, but I really dont like it.
The other ones I cant stand are the erectile dysfunction ads on the radio, they should only be played overnight, not all day long!
Are you against afternoon delight?!
No! :p
I agree with that Jess.
Has anyone noticed the Unibet ads on television lately? I’m wondering how that’s legal…
I don’t mind those ads. I roll my eyes at them, but they don’t offend me. I do get a bit narky when Mr Coaster always starts going on about how he’d like to give me thick pork sausage 2 – 3 times a week, however.
That makes me think, though – in those ads, is it always a woman talking about pork? Because a man talking about porking someone would be in ultra bad taste, right?
The results: Ads on Go!
During “Winx Club”
-Life Insurance (family sitting down for popcorn & family night version)
-Sewing Machines
-Children’s Toys
-Go Kart Race Track
-Dolls
-Station advert for movie showing later on
-Life Insurance (family sitting down for popcorn & family night version)
-Dolls
-Kingston Park Raceway
During “Monsuno”
-Station advert for tomorrow’s movie
-children’s toys
-dolls
-Transformers remote control toys
-Chuggington Raceway track
-dolls
-Play-Doh
-advert for The Voice
-advert for Ice Age 4
-Power Ranger’s battle sword
-interactive dinosaur toy
-Fijit friends (It’s a Furby for 2012)
-Transformer’s remote control toys
Granted this is only one network during a 1hr period. Other networks might vary. But I’m just not seeing racy ads.
Flipped trough 10 channels up the remote:
-advert for The Borgias
-advert for new season of Hoarders
-baby food
-RSPCA pet insurance
-funeral insurance
-diapers
-car insurance
-advert for NCIS LA
I loved the Gruen Transfer and its subsequent “I don’t remember what is it called” show. I think that audiences are becoming far more cynical and “clever” when it comes to advertising.
Unfortunately, I have noticed that a great deal of ads are aimed at the aging population. My mum is a prime example and she is sucked into every “fantastic” product or insurance for the inevitable.
Protecting children from these ads and their “delicate” sensibilities is doing just what happened to mum. It makes them vulnerable. Know thy enemy and be prepared.
I find the advertising industry intriguing. I reckon doing a PR/psychology degree would do the trick. It’s a fantastic look into the world of
of our how we work.
There was a pretty bad parody movie about it called the “Joneses”. What stood out to me about this awful movie was that kids aren’t influenced so much by ads but by what is “cool”. Word of mouth and envy.
Sexism is alive and well but I think it plays a very small role in advertising, but for the lowest common denominator.
Thanks all two of you that read my late post. Been a bit otherwise engaged but I always read. xxx
I have to admit all these life insurance ads that have infiltrated our screens in the last couple of years have become a bit too much. I admit to just glossing over them now whenever they appear on TV, but I can definitely see how paranoid it’d make people feel and how one can easily be sucked in.
Yes, they are all aimed at some demographic group or other.
I had to laugh at the State of Origin ad the other night, saying how we (NSW) were robbed. Really? And did the ads the same people ran in QLD say NSW were robbed? I rather think not. Worryingly, I do think people fall for this and most don’t even stop to think about what they are seeing. Pull the right strings and you’ll get the reaction you want.
At least there is a decider this year