Advertising: product or sex

Have you ever noticed that most advertisements that plague the world of commercial breaks while you patiently wait for your show to start again, mostly promote sex rather than the actual product? Even popular brands, which have world-wide recognition, use this ‘gimmick’ in their ad campaigns. 

I went on YouTube and typed in 'Calvin Klein commercial' and clicked a random video. (on the right). How is this even advertising a perfume, when the product is only mentioned in the last two seconds?

Most commercials showcase their product as something that helps men or women get sex. Is that really what people need to see, when buying let's say a pair of jeans, or even perfume for that matter?

Is our society so obsessed with physical attraction that showcasing such crude 'gimmicks' is the only sure shot way to advertise, or bring to attention a particular product?

This makes the impression that, we in the more 'civilized' countries, are only attracted by sex. What is more telling though is that these ad campaigns or commercials rarely depict men in any promiscuous or degrading manner.  Often, there's a woman in a wanton position (barely showing the product itself) talking or acting in an inciting manner.

As in the picture on the left, can anyone even tell what it is that's being advertised? The woman is clearly in a rather licentious position, and while she's being held down by a man, the other three men are staring at her in their 'Greek God' brooding way (that is custom to models).

How, exactly, is any of this supposed to make a person remember the actual product, when there's an onslaught of these kinds of commercials, on after another? Is an average person to actually remember the product mentioned in the last few rushed seconds of ads, when most of it is just the same old, everyday innuendoes, rather than something unique to the product?

Breaking the Boundaries

 Last year, I came across an article in the Toronto Star about a couple in Toronto who do not want to reveal the gender of their baby. If you would like to read the full article, here is the link: http://www.thestar.com/article/995112.

 Their family consists of five members, the mother, father, the genderless baby Storm, and his two older brothers. Only a very limited amount of people actually know the gender of the baby and they are, Storm’s brothers (Jazz 6, Kio 2), a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby. The main purpose of not revealing Storm’s gender is because the family wants Storm to figure it out on his/her own. They want Storm to challenge the social norms and be who he/she wants to be, not what Storm has to be because of his sexual parts. I feel that even before the child is born we place so many stereotypes on them such as the colour to paint the child’s room once they are born. Dominant discourse represents colours such as blue for a baby boy or pink for a baby girl. As they are growing up each gender is given a specific type of toy to play with. For a girl they have their typical Barbie dolls and are for a boy, cars or action figures. How come “action figures” are not considered to be dolls? Is it because dolls are for females and action figures are for boys. Is that the manly name for dolls?

At such a young age children are told to act a certain way, to dress a certain way, to play with certain toys because of their gender. It makes me question what it truly means to be a woman or a man.

In this article we are exposed to how the parents treat their children, how the two boys behave and how they choose to carry themselves. The parents believe that kids are capable of making meaningful decisions for themselves at a very young age. I was wondering if you agree with this statement why or why not. Furthermore, we learn that Jazz and Kio have a lot more freedom compared to other kids the same age. Their oldest son Jazz prefers to keep his hair long, he likes to wear it in three braids, his favourite colour is pink, he enjoys painting his nails, and he also wears a pink stud in one ear. The fascinating aspect of this is that his parents have short hair, they don’t own anything pink, and they don’t wear jewelry or nail polish.

Here are some questions to consider:

What do you think about their decision to allow Storm to discover on his/her own what gender he/she wants to be.

Can you picture yourselves having this opportunity to challenge the gender norms and to figure out your own identity?

How do you feel about Baby Storm? Do you think his/her parents are doing Storm a favour or just leading him/her to a life filled with struggles?

 

Would you ever consider not revealing the gender of your baby?

If  Storm grows up and chooses a gender that doesn't match his sex, what kind of tolls do you think he/she will experience? and will it be worth it?

Ray-Ban Print Ad

Hello all,

Keep up the great comments.  The blog is shaping up nicely.  Just a friendly reminder that it will close next Friday, May 4th, so get posting! 

The following is a print ad that was recently released by Ray-Ban (the company behind the infamous wayfarer sunglasses).  The brand has had a surge in popularity with a new generation of consumers - partially because of a increasingly trendy "hipster" or dorky look (exaggerated, thick, large frames).  The ad, set in what looks to be the 40s, features two men in suits (one wearing Ray-Bans) nonchalantly holding hands while walking down the street.  The slogan is: Ray-Ban. Never Hide.

 

What do you think of the use of the slogan?  Ray-Ban has other ads in the same campaign that also use the same tagline.  Check out the other one, below, that challenges dominant discourse.  Why do you think the manufacturers of the previous ad chose to set it in the past?  What is their implied message?  How does it challenge stereotypes, and how does it reinforce them?