Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    This is a kind of cute topic to read, since I live in a country
    where just about 70% of the advertising still seems to feature women
    who are just barely capable of doing the household and even there
    not quite used to the products available. Ofcourse there is always
    a helpful (male) hand around to point them to the appropriate washing
    powder that will solve all their wordly problems. Is this something
    that is completely reversed in the US? 
    
    Ad (tongue in cheek :-))

    RE: .1
    
    Yes, in the U.S., it is (in the mythologic world of advertising,
    anyway) men who have trouble doing laundry.
    
    Interesting to read about advertising in other countries!

    The advertising industry in the US treats everyone as if they were
    on the edge of going into a group home for special treatment. 
    Even the dogs are morons.  
    
    And they don't seem to be going broke doing it, either.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Re .4  Point seconded.
    
    I am just fed up of seeing unrealistic people being shown in 
    ridiculous situations in order to try and sell something to the
    general public. Sadly, men as well as women are now open to this
    kind of "prat targetting".
    
    Their assumption has to be that the comsumers will "identify" with
    the actors - therefore, they think we're as stupid as they show
    us to be! I feel patronised!!
                          
    'gail
    
    
    
    

    I agree with the point that Madison Avenue assumes the gullibility and
    stupidity of the American public to the nth degree.  However, we keep
    buying those products that are sold assuming our lack of intellect. 
    I think the American public has to take responsibility for buying into
    this image of themselves by supporting those who promote the image.
    The only way to combat this sort of thing is to hit them where it hurts
    and boycott those products whose advertising you find particularly
    offensive.  (There are just too many bad adverts out there to boycott
    everything I find offensive in any way.  If I did I'd be running around
    naked, smelling bad, living under a bridge.  But I'd have money in the
    bank!  :-) )   
    
    Nanci

    I do have this policy of avoiding certain brands because I don't
    like their commercials. In the case of a product like washing powder
    that might give some difficulty, after all you still need one. But
    I figure stupid commercials are as good a reason as any not to buy
    a certain product.
    
    Mind you it's well known in the advertising world a certain amount
    of irritation helps to remember the product name. They do make use
    of that. A point to remember for the consumer.
    
    Ad

This topic has been batted around in MENNOTES quite a bit.  Ads don't have
to show "dumb men" to be offensive to men.

Perhaps the most offensive ad I've seen of late was a print ad for a new
product that consists of paper towels moistened with a cleaning solution,
with the suggested use of wiping off the toilet.  The ad copy said something
like "If you have men or boys in the house, you need this..."

		Steve

    Ads here in France always have a naked or half dressed woman.
    
    From dog food to yogurt, without fail, you'll see a half-dressed
    or completely naked beautiful wholesome looking girl. You will
    usually see her holding a towel that accidentally slips to the
    floor, or in the shower (very appropriate for dog food, don't
    you think?), or in some tropical climate.
    
    How do you think this makes us girls feel?

    RE: .4
    
    Well, I try not to let it bother me, but as an unmarried male who
    successfully manages to do his laundry, iron his shirts, cook his meals
    and take care of himself without the help of a female, I find these 
    ads insulting to me as a person. Yeah, I take them personally because
    everywhere I turn these days I see men getting bad press. Bad press
    that caters to the basest instincts of women's problems with men. What
    good does any of it do after a while? It just perpetuates the "us and
    them" philosophy.
    
    If Madison Avenue isn't in the business of capturing reality, we need
    to remember what reality is. Whether TV shapes reality or is a
    reflection of it is hotly debated, but if the former is true, then we
    need to think about what the possible harmful effects of these ads.
    
    Look at the damage that general propaganda has done to minorities
    throughout history. Say something enough times, and people start
    believing it.    

     If you object to an advert, then write to the manufacturer about it.
    Explain that you are no longer buying their product because of their 
    {sexist, stupid, tasteless, racist...} advertizement.  If appropriate,
    you might add that you are encouraging your friends also to seek
    another product because of these ads.  In any case, encourage your
    friends to write in and complain.  DON'T USE A DIGITAL NOTESFILE TO
    SOLICIT COMPLAINTS. A few well-written letters can raise the awareness
    of even the most stubborn corporate giant.
    
     No longer buying the product isn't enough to get their attention,
    unless you can organize a major boycott/picket line/whatever. 
    
    						Nigel
    
    

    RE: all
    
    I'm really encouraged by what I'm reading in here so far. Intelligent
    comments all!
    
    Very good point brought up about ulterior motives advertisers use to
    get our attention. Our conscious mind says, "You wouldn't purposely get
    me angry to remember your product." Our subconscious mind remembers the
    name of the product that made us angry.
    
    In the store, our higher consciousness decides, "Well, just because
    Product X ran that offensive ad doesn't mean their product is no good."
    
    I've heard that some advertisers play these mind games. Very
    interesting.

I am surprised that you are surprised. The advertising industry will
do anything to move the product. **Anything** includes taking bad
taste all the way down to the ultimate 'yeach', trivializing your
(and mine) homeland (along with it's anthem) and insulting the
intelligence of all viewers with an IQ over 65. Nothing is too
despicable or below them, it it sells their snake oil.

Almost 100% of commercials are totally devoid of human values,
intelligence, decency and --very often-- simple honesty. They are
the root of evil, the source of many of the social problems that
plague America today. 

It's the price we have to pay for free (if that's what we think we
are getting) TV. 

So, Negatively portraying men (or women, if that's what will do the
job) is small potatoes indeed. Just ignore it, along with any and
all other commercials.

-- Ron 

    re: .14
     In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with nudity in advertizing. 
    However, in most adverts (american or european), the nude/semi-nude
    figure is almost invariably a woman.  This is fairly blatant sexism,
    and reinforces two negative attitudes towards women:
    a. "Men have the buying power": since the advert is targetted at male
    (hetero-)sexual desire.
    b. "Women are sexual toys": since the nudity in the advert is not
    (usually) relevant to the product (dogfood for example).
    
     Now if there were nude/semi-nude men in ads targetted at women, or
    indeed nude/semi-nude couples (or larger groupings(-:)...
    
    					Nigel
    
    ps: This has been discussed at length in RAINBO::WOMANNOTES-V2: kp7 etc

    In re: basenote
    
    I think an essential feature of the examples cited (and many others on
    commercial television) is that the products being pushed (food and soap
    products) are predominately bought by women; the advertiser wants women
    viewers to feel good about the product, and doesn't much care about how
    men feel. You aren't likely to see this smart woman/dumb man scenario in
    ads for (let's see) car batteries, cigars, or pickup trucks.
    
    And some of the motivations for such advertisements are not so subtle
    or devious. The first and foremost challenge for a copywriter is to
    create an ad that *people will watch*. There are various ways to do
    this, but one is being "entertaining" through humor, including insult.
    The resulting ads are, indeed, often in poor taste, but no more so than
    the shows they accompany. How could any ad be more offensive than, say,
    the Mort Downey Show, or Married With Children (I think, I have seen
    each of these only once)? Don't blame the ad industry for
    tastelessness; they spend a lot of money being sure what works. The
    responsibility for lousy programming lies with those people who have
    lost track of the OFF button, and who spend their money as the ads
    suggest.
    
    		- Bruce

    It is the artsy, imaginative commercials that grab my attention.  I
    think they are not offensive to either side and are interesting to
    watch (yep I dont fast forward them with the VCR remote).  The Clay
    Animation commericals or the new 3D computer generated graphics, or any
    type of animation is much more pleasant to watch.
    
    
    Lynne

Madison Avenue (or whoever the "forces that make commercials" are..) may
not claim to portray reality, but try telling that to my nieces and
nephews.  What age groups watch the most television?  What age groups are
generally the most impressionable?  What age groups sit and watch
television even throughout the commercials and are exposed to this warped
portrayal of life?  Why did they suppress cigarette advertising on
television?  Because it influences.....

I have a television so I can watch my VCR.  Commercials drove me away from
regular programming.  Got tired of hawkers on television, on the phone, in
the mail and at the door all trying to sell me their stuff.

Let's hear it for NOVA and PBS!!!  Television like it could be.  

charles

    In re: .18
    
    I can't remember when my children last watched a commercial television
    show (actually, not true, they did watch part of the Rose Bowl parade).
    But 95% of the time I would worry more about the program content than
    the commercials. I have been glad to _occasionally_ watch commercials
    _with_ them, even "objectionable" ones, so we can discuss the
    manipulation going on. They do not seem to mind the restriction, even
    though they have seen regular tv at other kids' houses. Probably it
    helps that there's no double standard; their parents rarely watch
    commercial tv either.
    
    				- Bruce

    Oh, the stuff I spare myself by not watching much TV . . . 
    
    --bonnie

    In England, we have a few commercials that are quite amusing, others
    are complete rubbish, but one that does spring to mind, is an american
    ad dubbed with English voices.  Its for...guess what...washing powder,
    its quite dreadful.....I must admit scantily clad women - get on
    my nerves when advertising bizarre products..In England, certain
    programs cannot be shown before 10.00pm (when they involve nudity
    etc.), although adverts are quite accepted by the two independant
    channels.  What logic????
    
    Sarah

    
    re .9
    
    Absolutely.
    
    I'll take French ads any day over the local brand.
    
    But though you may find it repulsive, the American
    ads are found to work. 
    
    Maybe humans don't want to admit that they react positively
    to have their intelligence insulted.
    

    I find it amusing that dumb men are "okie" to be protrayed in
    commericals, but not dumb women (unless it's one of those "whole
    family is a loser" type).  It's interesting how there is a certain
    double-standard on TV, arguably because of the women's movement
    of past years.  TV treads neatly around, trying not to raise anyone's
    hankles (after all, when dumb women are shown, howls of fury go
    up and people cry
    stereotyping/repression/discrimination/chauvanism/etc), but it SEEMs
    far more all right to have a stout, slightly stupid (or ignorant)
    hubby-type wondering how much detergent to use in the wash, and
    what kind.  I also imagine there aren't too many dumb women on
    commericals because namely, women are the ones who go out and buy
    those things--save in the case of "manly" stuff just as four wheel
    drive trucks, or razors, or aftershaw, or chainsaws, or whatever.
    Even then, the women aren't dumb, just admiring and beautiful.
                                              
    --kim
    
    
    

It's just a shifting of a trend.  Through the 50's and 60's and even
into the 70's, women were portrayed as dumb and men would walk into their
house (or accost them at the store) and tell them how using new Spiffo would
solve all their problems.  (Some examples - "The Man from Glad", the Ajax
"White Knight", etc.)  But copywriters seem to have decided that the
technique works, just turn it around.  So now the women correct the helpless
men, and this is deemed socially acceptable.  Fooey.

				Steve

    There are a lot of smart-woman-correcting-dumb-woman ads, though.
    
    --bonnie

	Q. Are there dumb WOmen in the world?
	A. Yes.


	So, what's the big deal about showing them on TV?

    Someone has already mention why that is.  So what makes it OK to do to
    men?  because there are no groups spazzin about stereotyping males?
    
    Oh, forgive me, its OK to show males in a less that NORMAL situation
    as long as HE isnt one of the politically correct groups of the day.
    
    
    >	It's not like all the men you see in commercials are braindead.

    Not all, but most.
    

    Didnt say you did Mike.
    
    The note came out wrong.  I used your entry and changed it to women
    to show that you have the same thing but different answers......
    
    It is pretty much acceptable when its towards white males but change
    the person that is being stereotyped to a "minority" and you have
    problems......
    
    Do you deny that this is true?

    RE: .26
    
    "Dumbness" isn't really what the commercials are emphasizing, Mike.
    What the commercials are portraying are stereotypical views of males
    as insensitive, unable to do household chores, interested in only
    pick-up trucks, changing motor oil, and traditionally "manly" things.
    
    That's the pattern I've been seeing.
    
    Surely, there are "dumb women" in the world. Where are they in TV ads
    today? Bonnie, you made a good point: smart women correcting dumb women
    is okay. Just name one ad on TV today that shows a smart man
    correcting a dumb woman.           

    RE: Mike
    Sure, I believe that if you look hard enough, you'll find it.
    
    The problem, as I see it, is that to find a stupid white male,
    preferable fat and balding, is very easy... you dont even have to look
    very hard.... it is blatent.
    
    Look at the heafty bag comercials.....
    the show a fat balding white male loosing his grabage because he didnt
    use heafty, then they show a professionally dressed women with the
    "proper bag", then they show another white male with the wrong one, and
    another woman with the "correct one".
    
    Or the SURF commercial.....
    they are (the family, consisting of dad, mom, daughter, and son)
    setting up their garden....
    at the finale of the commercial, ONLY DAD STINKS of sweat.....
    what? only white males (father figure typed) sweat?
    
    and its not that he was the only one that was doing the work neither....
    from the commercial, they WERE all working....
    
    or the Toyota commercial that has this professionally dressed woman
    wanting a car (or is it a truck), the white male (balding again)
    starts to give her the selling pitch and she starts spouting off all
    sorts of goodies about the car.... whilst the dealer is sitting there
    looking like "Dah... really?"
    
    I am sure that there are other also.... but the question still remains,
    why is it OK to portray while males in a negative stereotype, and women,
    blacks, etal it is NOT OK?
    

    Let's show stereotypes of everybody.  It's so much more equal...
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .34
    
    Jody,
    
    I don't think anyone here is suggesting that TV commercials _should_ show
    stereotypes of every group to make things "equal." 
    
    It would be a kind of "rough justice" if they did, though.
    

    I've noticed that there are 3 types of TV ads:
    
    	- Daytime TV ads
    	- Prime Time ads
    	- Saturday morning ads
    
    Each group is aimed at a particular demographic market, even when
    advertising the same product!
    
    re the Toyota ad with the "professionaly" dressed woman and the dolt of
    a salesman.  If you look carefully at the ad, she is wearing a tight,
    short dress, with the emphasis on the bust.  It would appear that she
    is more interested in the looks of the car, rather than the safety
    features, mileage or price.
    
    As someone else said, if you don't like the ad, let someone know!
    
    Judi
    

    I am not saying that at all Jody.
    
    All that I am saying is that if it's wrong for one group, it's wrong
    for all....and if it's Ok for some then it should be Ok for all...
    
    That, to me, is equality.
    
    RE: the mute.... I usually flick the channel if it annoys me....
    
    RE: the short dress.... Well the commercial isnt really accomplishing
    the sexism then, I never noticed......In MY opinion that is.

    (Judi's the name, please!)
    
    I wasn't refuting your statement.  The facts are that advertisers
    target particular demographic groups, and in a sense, we become facts,
    figures and graphs, rather than human beings.  
    
    If a product sells well as a result of an ad campaign, chances are that
    that campaign will continue.  If people boycott products and write to
    sponsors if they are offended by an ad, it will carry weight, since
    those sponsors want *us* to buy their products.
    
    Ads create wants, rather than address needs.
    
    Remember the scene from the movie "Big", when the marketing person
    presents a series of charts and figures, and finally Tom Hanks pipes in
    with "I don't get it" (or something to that effect).  It was a flashy
    presentation, and people were buying into it, until someone questioned
    it.  Almost like the Emperor and his imaginary clothes.
    
    It's only TV.  
    
    Judi
    

    I don't think we should take these ads too personally.
    
    As mentioned in a previous note, advertisers will do anything
    to get our attention. It is unfortunate that certain types of 
    ads reinforce stereotypes and a false view of reality, but I
    don't think that writing to the advertising agency will accomplish
    much.
    
    Gen
    (Who is no-longer bothered by seeing sexist ads)

    RE: .38 Judi (minor point re: your name)
    
    I think CONURE::AMARTIN was referring to Jody's comments in .34, not
    yours. 
    
    Starting with "RE: the mute," he's addressing your reply in .36.

    Thank you .40.
    
    Judi, sorry.  I should have used re: 34.
    
    

    If a commercial is bad, in poor taste, or just stupid enough to create
    discussion, (as is taking place here), then it is considered a good
    commercial.  They have accomplished their goal, to get you to remember
    their product.
    
    -dwight

    I agree that advertisers shouldn't have to make one sex or group
    "stupid" in order to make a commercial, but it probably saves time and
    gives a reason for talking (in 15 or 30 seconds) about the positive
    points of a product.
    
    So I'm with the "I think it stinks, but unless you complain directly
    and make it clear you won't buy their product, they won't stop using a
    technique that works" camp.
    
    Addressing the "why men, but not women" question,  it is now
    "incorrect" to portray women as dumb.  People in the feminist movement
    have made it clear to advertisers that this makes them angry.
    
    Furthermore, the areas where men are portrayed as being stupid are not
    areas anyone really wants to be smart in.  I mean, who wants to be the
    world's best dishwasher or floor mopper?  Yes, it plugs into the "men
    are dumb at housework" stereotype, but who is really unhappy about
    that?  For women, it reinforces the idea that they're seen as experts
    in SOME field and, for men and for society in general, reinforces the
    idea that men (the poor ignorant dears) shouldn't have to worry about
    performing confusing tasks like buying laundry detergent.
    
    I think it's the WOMEN who ought to be angry about these commercials! 
    :-)
    
    Pam

>Note 958.33                  Dumb Men in Advertising                    33 of 41
>CONURE::AMARTIN "Teenage Mutant brat pukes!"         32 lines  26-JAN-1990 08:32
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    
>    I am sure that there are other also.... but the question still remains,
>                                                    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>    why is it OK to portray while males in a negative stereotype, and women,
>    blacks, etal it is NOT OK?
>    
>

To answer your question with a question. Who makes the ad? 

And if that needs explanation. It is perfectly OK for you to negatively
stereotype yourself/your group. Can also be extended to your country
"etal". Check your feelings when someone else does it for you. 

Convince the minorities that they have an equal representation in the 
groups making the ads and the objection will disappear.

Convince the public that you are a fellow countryman portraying a negative 
image and they will laugh. .. Need I explain farther.

    Yeah, all those ads showing dumb men not knowing anything about 
    matters of vital importance are getting to me, also.
    
    And, when are we men finally going to be equally represented
    in the commercials for tampons and douches? 
    
    I'm really getting tired of seeing only women discuss the benefits
    of paper versus plastic applicators. :-)
    
      Alan

<    
<    I'm really getting tired of seeing only women discuss the benefits
<    of paper versus plastic applicators. :-)
<    
<      Alan

    Oh Alan, and I thought you didn't care! ;*) liesl

    Alan,
    
    it is so wonderful to see your thoughts in the notes files again..
    
    especially in such a thoughtful and insightful fashion..
    
    :-} :-P
    
    Bonnie

    
    About a year ago I was on a business trip with 3 men - I being the only
    woman. We had approx a two hour layover waiting for the plane around
    5:30. Fortunately, one of the guys had a club card to one of those nice
    airport lounges sponsored by the airlines.
    
    We were having coffee watching the evening news when a commercial came
    on.  It was a woman modeling a bra.  Here I am, the only female,
    surrounded by my colleagues and other men, watching an exposed female
    dicuss how this push up bra enhances here appearance.
    
    No one laughed. No one made a remark. Everyone felt uncomfortable. I
    have never again purchased a Playtax bra, or anything else distributed
    by that company. 
    
    It was extremely poor timing for the network to put something that
    intimate during the newshour; and poor taste to find it necessary to
    expose anyone to feeling uncomfortable. 
    
    I have been in advertising and marketing for many years and have often
    thought it would be extremely beneficial to put together a real
    advertising course for school kids, etc. to show them exactly how
    phoney  the whole thing is. I am becoming more and more concious of how
    people are shortchanged just to help businesses make a buck.
    
    Yes; I am also watching and sponsoring the public broadcasting
    programs. Personally, I can't stand to be bombarded by rediculous
    advertising and innuendos.  Look at what advertisers have done to the
    "cholesteral" and "fat" content in products. The food labels are really
    "stretchinggggg" on that stuff.  And when the American Heart
    Association tries to do something that the government ought to be
    doing, everyone yells fowl.
    
    I used to be part of the problem in my advertising efforts - although
    on a much smaller scale. Nonetheless, our products (this was before
    Digital) did go to the general public and we used to stretch the truth
    about the products to get people to buy.  I am much more concious of
    the fact that that behavior is definately inappropriate, and hope I can
    be part of the solution. 
    
    Enough of my soapbox...
    
    Darlene

    The girdle industry took a tremendous dive when panty hose came about.

    The bad thing was... many people were put out of work because they
    relied on that industry for their "support."

    -dwight

    in re .48
    
    I believe that consumer reports has done something in the way of
    a presentation for kids in school on advertising. Can anyone else
    confirm or deny this?
    
    Bonnie��

I think it was called, "Buy me that"

Pete

    Re:44 << ..Who makes the ad ?  >>  I'll like to know too !
    
    WASHINGTON: - The R.J Reynolds Co. plans soon to introduce a brand of
    cigarette that according to the detailed marketing strategy prepared
    for the company, targets young, poorly educated, white women the company
    calls "virile females".
    
    RJR plans to test the new brand called DAKOTA this April in Houston,Tx.
  *The ad campaign focuses on a certain group of smokers whose favorite pastimes
    according to the marketing plan, include "cruising" "partying" and attending
    "Hot Rod shows" and "tractor pulls" with their boyfriends.
    The extensive proposals for Project V.F. for virile females were provided
    Friday Feb. 16th 1990  to The Washington Post.
    
    They describe the preferred "Dakota" smoker as a woman with no education 
    beyond high school, whose favorite t.v. roles are "Roseanne" and
    "evening soap opera bitches" and whose chief aspirations is to
    "get married in her twenties" and spend her free time "with her boyfriend
     doing whatever he is doing.."
    
  
    From my limited understanding of the complexities of human behavior it
    appears to me that *most sexist bigots are also racist bigots.
    If they do it to the white women they will do it to les autres. 
    
    Fazari,

    
    I wonder what constitutes a "virile female"?
    

    From the context of the previous article, how about "ripe"?
    
    Jim
    

>>    From my limited understanding of the complexities of human behavior it
>>    appears to me that *most sexist bigots are also racist bigots.
>>    If they do it to the white women they will do it to les autres. 
  
Actually, I don't think it was specifically racism or sexism that drove
either advertising campaign, but rather social group (which does break down
largely into race (but not -ism) and sex (but also not -ism). 

The largest single group of smokers now is (if you believe what you read)
uneducated. More young women smoke than young men, therefore the campaign
aimed at young, uneducated, women. Why are they aiming it specifically at
white women? Probably for the same reasons - maybe they find that young,
uneducated, white women are more likely to smoke than young, uneducated,
black women. Or maybe the overall interests of the two groups are so
completely different that an advertising campaign aimed only at uneducated
women of any race would be difficult. You never see a cigarette commercial
showing a bunch of doctors & nurses standing around smoking (though you can
see lots of them smoking in hospital cafeterias).  

Like it or not, advertisements are aimed largely at socio-economic groups.
Listen to some of the McDonald's ads - they're very obviously aimed at
children and young adults.  If it's a rap song, it's probably aimed at the
black segment of the advertising market.  If it's the non-rap theme music,
the target is more general.  But no one complains about that.

M

    One fact pointed out (in the article version I read) is that
    the *only* group where smoking is on the rise is women
    18 - 20 years old. Why is that ? 

RE-.1
An increase in stupidity in 18-20 year old women? 8^) [plz no flames]
Now R.J. Renolds has targeted that group with the Dakota coffin nails.

-j

    Re: >>Age group>>
    
    The article stated:
    
    [ The marketing plan's chief goal is to capture the lucrative market
      among  *18 --> 24-year old women, the *only <age group>  whose
      rate of smoking continues to increase. The competition for that group
      has become intense ]   Reported on Feb. 18th 1990.
    

    RE: .8
    
    Steve, I finally saw this TV ad. It is pretty offensive, suggesting
    that, yes, "if you have men and boys in the house, you need these." I
    couldn't believe it; I laughed at their ignorance!