Selfish Saving

There seems to be a theme emerging this week. While watching TV last night, I happened to see yet another commercial utilizing controversial methods to sell their product. 

The advertisement was Groupon's 2011 Super Bowl Commercial, "Tibet." 

The ad starts off almost as a public service announcement, saying that Tibet is in trouble, that their culture is in danger and needs our help. It then cuts to a restaurant scene where Timothy Hutton explains that regardless of that fact, they still "whip up an amazing fish curry." He continues talking about Groupon and all the money people saved on Tibetan food by using the website. The unsavory tagline of the commercial is, "Save the money."

I must say that I was incredibly disappointed with Groupon's commercial. The entire point of the website is to offer people discounts on various merchandise, restaurants, concerts, activities, etc. The message should, in my opinion, be something that encourages saving money, one that tells Groupon customers, "we understand that everyone is on a budget these days, here's a way to save some money." Wanting to cut back on spending should be considered a good thing, especially by a company whose MO is offering discounts. 

What this commercial does, however, is portray users of Groupon as selfish, greedy and without empathy. It implies that the "struggles of Tibet" don't matter to Groupon users, they don't want to save or help anyone else, they simply was to "Save the money." 

I think that this ad does a poor job of shedding a positive light on Groupon. Instead of promoting saving, i.e. their livelihood, they are mocking it and making it into a selfish and greedy act. 

Sexism Sells

A pattern seems to be emerging in this blog because I was, yet again, inspired this week by an advertisement shown and discussed in one of my communications classes.

The ad in question is Dr. Peppers commercial for their newest soft drink Dr. Pepper Ten.

Just as a short introduction, I would like to say that I hate this advertisement.

I can honestly say that I have ever seen an ad -- print, television, billboard, or otherwise -- that is more sexist in my entire life. The main reason being because it is not just offensive to females, the tagline is "Not for women," but also stereotypes and degrades males, as well.

I consider myself something of an advertising nerd, so it's no surprise to me that sometimes shock-value and controversy are exactly what a company needs to sell products. It's hard to leave a lasting impression on a consumer in only 30 seconds, and pushing the envelope does greatly increase probability of information retention.

That being said, I can concede to the argument that Dr. Pepper's ad was effective. It certainly pushed enough buttons to get a people talking. And, in the advertising world, a lot of the time, all buzz is good buzz.

What I won't concede to, however, is the argument that this advertisement is funny, or entertaining, or good.

Not only does it stereotype women -- you're right, Dr. Pepper, no woman in the history of the world has ever liked an action movie. You got us -- but it also stereotypes men.

Or perhaps, like Dr. Pepper advertised, real men would never drink "girly drinks," all they want are explosions and guns and big, manly calories.

I understand why Dr. Peppers advertisement is effective. It uses it's controversy to create a lasting impression in viewers minds. But I believe they could have come up with a concept that was less offensive to it's target audience.

All airbrushing is NOT created equal...

So I might be breaking a couple rules of Feminism by saying this, but....is Julia Robert's Lancome ad really THAT bad?

If you don't know, the ad I am referring to is the following:

The ad was banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for being too "misleading," and not giving a true representation of what the product could actually do. In addition to the ASA, women around the world bashed the ad for being overly perfected and unrealistic.

While I am the first to complain about our society's standards for female beauty -- correction: our society's completely unrealistic standards for female beauty -- I cannot say that I agree with those who were truly offended by this ad.

The main reason for this is because I honestly cannot see the difference between this ad and every other makeup ad. The way I see it is that EVERYONE is airbrushed in makeup advertisements. I'd like one of these outraged women to show me a makeup ad featuring a model who isn't airbrushed to within an inch of her life. I can tell you right now that they won't be able to find one, becuase they don't exist.

The point of every makeup ad, and even more broadly, every ad in general, is to make the product look like the best product on the market, to make the product look like exactly what it's target market is looking for. Why, then, would Lancome want to produce an ad featuring a model who didn't look the best she could possibly look?

I know that I may be offending some by saying that, but when it comes down to it, in this day and age, shouldn't we know by now that advertisements are not the best representations of reality?