Gender stereotypes work with adverts as there are certain things that have been seen as 'the norm' for many many years. A traditional family has a man that goes out to work and earn money, whilst the woman stays at home, cooking, cleaning and looking after the children. This is how life has been for hundreds of years, and even today a lot of families are like this. Gender stereotypes are used in both 'male' and 'female' products such as shampoo for women, and jaffa cakes (as shown in the advert above) for men. Obviously we all know that both men and women use shampoo and eat biscuits, but gender stereotypes have been used to advertise them.
Women are mainly used to advertise shampoo as they are generally more likely to have long hair and be more conscious of grooming themselves and their appearance. However, many men are the same, yet it is very rare to see a man in a shampoo advert. The Clorox advert pictured above also shows a woman cleaning the house with bleach. This is also shows the traditional stereotype of women staying at home is a major thing today, as you are unlikely to see a man in a similar advert.
Another advert pictured above shows two 'average' builders sat discussing the price of jaffa cakes. I think this is quite a controversial gender stereotype because it assumes that all builders are men and that they are just normal (e.g. plain folk, not model material). They have also used quite a chubby man to advertise the jaffa cakes. This is also quite controversial as it assumes that the consumers of jaffa cakes will be overweight, as they don't use muscly men with six packs to advertise these kinds of products.
However, although most people disagree with gender stereotyping, we all do it unconsciously. If we were to think of a builder, we would think of a man. If we were to think of a nurse, we would think of a woman. Just because it is seen as 'politically incorrect' these days to assume that a person doing a certain profession is of a certain gender, it does not mean we are a bad person for assuming, it is just what has been traditional for many years and what we are all used to. In time, as more jobs become gender neutral these stereotypes and assumptions will fade.
This is the way life has been for many many years, and it is only in the past 10 years or so that gender roles are becoming less important in society. Even thought things are changing, people working within the advertising industry still grew up with females in the kitchen and men outside working in both life and on advertisements. So it is very difficult to make the transition to completely gender neutral roles at this point in time.
think that it is good that they are making gender neutral adverts, but at the same time I think they should be kept somewhat traditional for a few years to come. If all adverts for shampoo were to feature men, and all adverts featuring builders were to feature women, it would feel unnatural and forced. That is what not society needs and it is not what advertising needs. The transition should be slow and up to speed with society. As I said in the previous question; yes I do think things are changing. There are more an more gender neutral adverts, and adverts showing men doing 'women's work' and women doing 'men's work'. But I think that these adverts are quite rare at the moment because there are still a lot of gender stereotypes in society and to make adverts completely gender neutral at this point in time would be unnatural and forced.
I had a look on Youtube for an advert that goes against the gender stereotype and I found this advert for 'Kraft Dressings' which features Anderson Davis (an actor and writer) cooking in the kitchen.
Although this advert features a man cooking, it is very much aimed at women. The adverts features a good looking man, cooking various recopies using Kraft Dressings. They have made the man come across as very enticing, with his soft voice, and the relaxing music, as if he is inviting the women into the kitchen with him. He also uses the phrase "oh hey ladies" which shows that this advert is definitely directed at them.
Using this advert shows that although Kraft Dressings have gone against the gender stereotype and featured a man, they have used it to get women back in the kitchen or 'back where they (traditionally) belong'. Had they have used a normal looking man, women would not be so bothered about it, but as they have used this particular actor, women will be interested.
On the other hand, if a 'model-material' woman was to feature in an advert to entice men back into working outdoors, people would find it inappropriate and would class the men as creepy for liking it. I find that these kinds of adverts that use good looking men and women to lure people have double standards. It's okay to sexualise men in adverts but if you are to do it to a woman it's 'weird'. This is very unbalanced and unequal for a society that wants gender equality.
So even though these adverts seem to be going against gender stereotypes, you can see that if you look close enough, they can be used to get people 'back where they belong' in society.
I think that this idea would be hard to understand by the audience. Even though people claim to be all for gender equality, seeing something abnormal (such as a female builder) will shock an audience as it is something new, and not classed as normal in society.
DISABILITY:
Personally, I don't think this advert is of bad taste for featuring a disabled woman. I do think the content of the advert is a bit inappropriate for the product they are advertising, but it is certainly shocking and memorable; which is what maltesers are probably after!
Everyone says they want equality in society; particularly those with disabilities. The only way people with disabilities will be treated equality to those more able, is to treat them the same and not have them singled out. Just because someone is disabled it does not mean they are unable to love and have girlfriends/boyfriends, and do what normal couples do, so why should an advert like this only feature more able people?
Some may find that the joke about her 'spasm' was of bad taste to make fun of, especially in the context they were using it in. But I think it is a good way of normalising the problem she has. It is good that she is also able to laugh off the problem as it shows that her disability does not define her. It is a part of her, and something she cannot help/control, but above this she can have a laugh, maintain friendships and have a love life, just like a normal person. So I think that despite the advert being off topic from the product they are advertising, this is a really effective advert in normalising disabled people in a world that wants to be equal.
Maltesers have used a disability in this way to purposefully make people feel shocked, and possibly uncomfortable as it will make the advert memorable. It is likely that this 'controversial' advert will be a talking point for many people; both those who agree and disagree with it. Companies love attention as the more people that know and talk about a product, the more they will sell. Controversial adverts are spoken about all over social media and on TV so it won't take long til nearly everyone has heard about it or seen it.
THE NORM:
I think society is most comfortable with the image on the right, with the straight male and female couple getting married. This is classed as a traditional marriage/relationship. Homosexuality has not really been accepted in society until recent years. The reason people are more comfortable with straight relationships is because that is what they are used to being around (e.g. parents/grandparents).
I am not sure whether Tiffany uses same sex couples to promote gay marriage or to 'shock' people to gain publicity. I think it could be both. Now that Gay Marriage is legal, people know about it. However, I don't think you can 'promote' gay marriage. Only you know what your sexuality is, a company cannot control who you love. So promoting it I think is the wrong word. I think that showing the company supports gay marriage is a better way of putting it as it proves they are up with the times and they are a caring establishment. On the other hand, It could be used to shock people as although gay marriage is legal, there are still plenty of people who are against homosexuality. Even now, you are very unlikely to see big posters of gay couples advertising products, the majority of advertising is still straight. However, when we do see these posters, it can shock people and give the company publicity. And due to the fact that there are many that agree and disagree with gay marriage, Tiffany will gain both positive and negative feedback meaning that sales will unlikely to be effected. There will be people on social media supporting the gay advertisements, encouraging people to buy from Tiffany, and there will also be negative responses. Just because responses are negative, Tiffany will still be a hot topic of conversation, so they will be fresh in people's minds!
Due to the fact that Gay marriage has only been legal in the UK since 2014, this advert would probably be banned 20 years ago. Even in the 1990s and early 2000s homosexuality was frowned upon. In some parts of America it was and still is seen as completely inappropriate and was even considered a crime! As recent as 1998, George Michael was arrested in a Beverley Hills public toilet for engaging in a 'lewd act' involving homosexual activity. If someone was to be arrested for that nowadays, less than 20 years later, people would be furious. Attitudes towards homosexuality have change drastically in such a short space of time. If a gay couple was to walk down the road holding hands i 2017, the majority of people wouldn't care. But even 5 years ago, people would be really shocked to see it. It is good that such a big American company like Tiffany and co is using homosexuality in it's advertisements to normalise it and prove that 'love is love'.
However, there are a few things about the adverts unrelated to homosexuality that I found quite controversial. Why have they used good looking people to advertise this up market company's products? Surely if it is an accepting company that supports e'everyone' including homosexuals, why have they not used normal looking people in their adverts? Is it to show that they are after a certain 'type' of person to buy their products? This part of the advert I did not agree with because the advert themselves are saying to me "love is love" but it is also saying "only if you look like a supermodel". This is quite downgrading for people as seeing these beautiful and handsome men and women advertising these rings may make them feel ugly in comparison, whereas the rings should make them feel beautiful and good about themselves. They have also used the traditional diamonds for women, and plain for men. Why can a gay man not have diamonds in his rings? Why can't a woman have a plain ring? Why do we have to follow the "diamonds are a girl's best friend" saying? If Tiffany and co are such an 'up with the times' business, why do they have to assume that a girl only wants diamonds?
CONTROVERSIAL ADS DEBATE:
This advert may come across as intimidating and controversial for a lot of people all around the world. However, I think there is a reason that it stayed up in America and not in the UK.
America is well known for it's unhealthy food and high levels of obesity. As you can see from the chart below, obesity in the USA has increased dramatically since 1990, and the number is still going up. Around 35% of adults in the US are overweight. This is a shocking figure compared to the 25% in the United Kingdom.
This advert may have been kept up in America to encourage those who are overweight to change their eating/lifestyle habits. Yes this advert is quite unrealistic for the plain folk amongst us, but seeing a pretty lady may encourage people to want to look like her, and change their lifestyle to a healthier one.
Of course, not everyone in the USA is overweight, but a large majority of the country is. Obesity causes bad health conditions which can be passed on genetically, so it can be damaging for future generations. It is important people start controlling their weight now.
Is it the fact they are advertising weight loss or the fact they have the 'perfect' woman advertising it I think the reason it was banned in the UK is that they are using a 'perfect' woman to advertise it. This woman, has a very toned figure, long blonde hair, soft smooth skin and large breasts; the celebrity figure that most of us want, but not many of us have! A body like this is very unnatural, and even those who eat well and exercise don't always look like this. Models and celebrities spend thousands on plastic surgery to look beautiful, and on top of this, advertisers use Photoshop to fix up imperfections on people.
This video below shows how much Photoshop can change a person's image, and how these 'beautiful' people aren't always as perfect as they seem!
On the other hand, I do not think this would have caused the same controversy if it was a 'perfect' male. The majority of adverts that feature men use good looking young men. It is very unlikely that you will find a 'plain folk' man in an advert as the majority are tall, muscly men with nice hair.
However, when men are featured in adverts like this, they don't kick up a fuss about it. Society has made it perfectly okay for men to be topless in adverts and in as little clothing as just their underwear. However, when a woman does the same, people are furious.
If a man with a six pack was to be in an advert people (women in particular) would say things like "handsome", "hot, "fit". However, if a woman was to be in her underwear in an advert and people (men in particular) were to say the same thing "hot"/"fit" it would be considered as creepy and perverted. I find this double standards in what's socially acceptable to say infuriating. People claim they are all for equal rights for men and women, but when it comes to things like this, they couldn't get much more unequal!
Most adverts feature 'perfect' women but in the majority of adverts they are fully clothed, making them 'un-sexulaised'. However, I think there should be more 'plain folk' adverts as a lot of these beautiful men and women that are being used to advertise products these days are very unrealistic.
I think the context of the advert is acceptable, because as a nation, both in the UK and USA, around a third of the population is overweight and this is not good at all.
However, I do not think that certain woman should have been used in the advert. They should choose two realistically healthy looking men and women. Including their messy hair, spots, stretch marks, scars, bits of their flabby tummies. Show these imperfections because we can't Photoshop real life!
IMAGE:
Advertisers used 'beautiful' people to sell their products as they look attractive, and they can attract customers through it.
The advert above with the topless man lay on the counter may encourage women into the kitchen to cook the food he is advertising. His body language shows he is is very open and inviting, and his good looks will also entice women.
This is a way of 'capturing' customers by giving them something to encourage them to buy a product.
As a society we do seem to respond more to the beautiful than the normal. I am not exactly sure why but it could be due to the fact this is what we want to be, so we buy things in the hope we become like them.
I don't think society actually wants to be like these beautiful people. We are just shown them all day every day and the more we see something, the more we want it. If we were shown more realistic and normal looking people, we would begin to love ourselves and be happy for what and who we really are.
ADVERTISING DEBATE:
Do advertisers create the 'norm' or do they just advertise what we feel comfortable with in order to sell?
I don't think advertisers create the 'norm'. However, I do think they follow what the stereotypical 'norm' is (e.g. men go out to work whilst women stay at home cooking/cleaning), but then at the same time, this is quite normal in society so they are also advertising what we are comfortable with, in order to sell something.
Being comfortable with what we are being seen advertised will draw us towards a product as we are able to relate to it. People like things that are relatable so they will also like adverts like that.
TASK 1:
Find an advert which goes against the norm - what impact does it have? Do you think it works or does it make people feel uncomfortable?
Distinction grade students will use survey monkey to undertake primary research and find out what their peers think
The Norm:
The advert above is advertising a cleaning product. This advert follows the 'norm' of advertising as it features a women cleaning the house and looking after the children. This is a traditional role for women, and although times are changing, this is still how many families operate. From watching the whole of this video there are no men in sight whatsoever, showing that cleaning and caring for children is still seen as 'women's work'.
This advert works because this is what people are used to. It is only in very recent years that men staying at home has started to grow in popularity. Prior to this, women were the housewives whilst their husbands went out and worked. This has been the way of life for hundreds of years. In 2017 it isn't unusual for both parents to work full time, but the female of the house is still considered to be the one that cooks and cleans. Even now, it would still be quite unusual for the man to stay at home and the woman to work full time, therefore, if this advert was to feature a man cleaning the house, it would not work in my opinion.
Yes, times are changing, and more and more men are becoming househusbands. But it is still a very recent thing. I don't think all cleaning adverts should feature a man cooking and cleaning whilst his wife is at work because it is unrealistic! It will be years until everything becomes gender neutral. So for the time being, keep the transition slow and steady.
Against The Norm:
The advert below shows a young male mechanic cleaning up a workshop. As I said before it is very rare for a man to be used to advertise a cleaning product. Although this advert goes against the norm of using women, I still think it follows a lot of gender stereotypes.
First of all, the man in the advert has been placed in a profession which is typically done by men (you are unlikely to find many female mechanics). Fixing cars is a tough and dirty job and females are historically known as 'weak' and 'not wanting to get their hands dirty'. The whole advert focuses around this man who is in dirty clothes after a long day at work, cleaning the very dirty workshop.
The man in the advert gets asked to clean the workshop. Whilst cleaning, he performs a dance along to the music. The dance consists of various flips, jumps, climbing up walls and parkour; which is not your average woman's dance. This shows that this product is strong.
Some people may find this makes them feel uncomfortable because it is quite strange to see a man cleaning in an advert