|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
 NEWS-TRENDS-ANALYSIS
|
TRENDS & ANALYSIS
Sex & Stereotyping - The Advertiser's Minefield 
Michael Maguire examines the impact of gender politics on advertising imagery and asks the question 'does advertising mirror society?' THERE APPEARS to be one subject that fires passions more than the other hot topics of government's capacity to lose sensitive information on its citizens, the wobbly nature of house prices and the passion for celebrity watching, and that’s gender politics. Political manifestos extol on it, university dissertations are written around it and the advertising profession lives by it. Well it may do, but does it understand it? Here is a case in point. I recently had an opportunity to view a selection of television commercials made in the 1960s. The first thing I noticed was the simple formulaic approach adopted by the advertisers of the period – catchy headline addressing the viewer; build up of product benefits; pack shot and logo, all bathed in a simple jingle. The second observation I made was how the use of English had changed. In the 60s, almost without exception, commercials used standard English. Even American commercials promoted soft middle-of-the-road voices, usually male, to motivate consumers whether for soap powder, cars or tobacco products. Thirdly I noticed the extent to which old commercials depicted family groups for almost every product category – father going to work, mother shopping or ironing, children happily playing; all well dressed and clean. One presumes that creative teams sought to mirror contemporary society. But was it really like this? My memory of those times was of rock music, student unrest, civil rights marches and campaigns for women’s rights – much like today! Was the advertising industry seeking to depict some societal ‘norm’ or could they be accused of gender stereotyping? Let’s bring the issue up to date. The profile of advertised brands has changed markedly over the last forty years. Leisure products, snack foods, cosmetics, cars, supermarkets and financial services have come to dominate. However sales messages are now significantly directed at individuals or identified groups rather than families and while image management is a lot slicker the use of sexual imagery in advertising has grown dramatically. A little while back The Chartered Institute of Marketing released the results of a major UK wide survey on the portrayal of women in advertising that attracted broad based comment from the national and regional press. The survey results reveal that 47% of women say that their portrayal in advertising has become more positive in the last 15 years but half still feel that they are inaccurately stereotyped. So has the advertising industry still got it wrong after forty years? I’m not so sure. Advertising imagery tends to mirror society to a lesser or greater degree and most people see something of themselves in advertising storylines. The problem is one of aspiration. We see ourselves on the screen with certain characteristics and foibles, but we would wish others to see us differently! Thus it may be that stereotyping will always provoke debate. One thing that was hardly mentioned in the current press commentary was that 34% of women chose ‘gullible’ as a characteristic likely to be associated with contemporary men in advertising. It seems that gender politics will be forever!
You may contact Michael Maguire at:
© Quintus Management (2009) |
|
|