There has been much debate about how advertisers portray men and fathers in the media. For sometime now men’s rights and father’s rights groups have been creating awareness and engaging in protests campaigns in an effort to derail the common default logic that the best way to reach the male consumer is to portray him as dumb, selfish, immature, irresponsible, inferior to women, and most disturbing, show numerous acts of physical violence upon him, particularly by women, as standard humor that leads to increased sales.
Besides the obvious absurdity in the advertisers logic, a strong argument for the men’s and father’s protest groups is based in solid logic; would advertisers use the same approach for women? Of course not. The public outrage would cripple their image and strangle their sales revenue. Advertisers inherently know that the risk vs. rewards in portraying women in such a manner is not good business.
But for men, advertisers throw simple logic under the table, and proceed with a logic similar of someone suffering from serious head trauma. The pendulum swings to the extreme opposite of female consumer rationale, and dives head first into a world where humiliation and loss of dignity are revered as the gateway to the elusive and capricious emotional mosaic of the male consumer. Advertisers believe his attention and loyalty is derived from polarizing his humanity, demonstrating to him that he is not just a human being who makes mistakes, but he and his manhood, as a whole, are delegated as an unequivocal mistake, which society reluctantly tolerates.
Advertisers defend this type of male advertising by consistently referring to the fact that their focus groups approved it. Well, excuse me for being such a prick and placing the whole arduous logic thing back in their laps, but just because a focus group approves of something, does it automatically remove the corporations involved from any responsibility? Years ago in this country, a focus group would have approved without hesitation an advertiser’s campaign of dressing white people up in black face to sell products to black people. The suggestion would never leave a person’s lips today.
Consider that a requirement in today’s business schools is to teach diversity issues, cultural differences, minority sensitivity issues, and ethics. And all major corporations have extensive programs and policies in place to construct a corporate culture that is aware and sensitive to these issues. So sorry corporate America, blaming focus groups for insensitive advertising is a blatant cop out. You are well aware of the intention and impact of your advertising. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the advertisers and the corporate clients for the creation and implementation of any advertising campaign, and how it will affect those in society. Both of them have the opportunity to stop careless advertising of men and fathers, and with all their education and training, it is apparent they have chosen not to.
So is progress being made? Yes it is, and a woman is leading the way. Her name is Rose Cameron and she is the “go to girl” in advertising circles when corporations want to find out how to capture the attention of the elusive male consumer.
In an article written by Jason George titled, Delivering the Male, Rose implies her skills may be the result of her attitude. She states, “I just love men.” And as senior vice president and planning director for Leo Burnett USA advertising agency, Rose found herself becoming an expert on men after the agency asked her to oversee a global study of men in 2005. What the study found was that men were becoming more insecure and confused about their roles in society as it rapidly changes. Rose says, “[Men] are losing all their institutions. All day they have to control the way they behave, and they need places to relax. Men have to decompress somewhere,”
The article notes how she applies her skills when visiting the Hooters restaurant chain. Rose says it’s success is not based on the girls. Instead, it’s a place whose careful consideration and construction in the details of the environment make men feel very comfortable and very relaxed - a place where they can be themselves.
The study she took part in showed that 74% of the men interviewed (over 2000 participated) said they could not relate to the male images portrayed in modern advertising. The study proved that advertisers were out of touch with male consumers.
The article then states these interesting facts:
According to the study, the greatest insult to a man is when someone declares that “he’ll never amount to anything” (29 percent), followed by “everyone laughs behind your back” (24 percent) and “you’re stupid” (21 percent).
Rose Cameron shows how compassion and understanding for men and fathers concerning the issues they face in their lives is the best way for advertisers to connect with them. The article gives an example of how McDonald’s used this totally “radical” approach to connect with fathers in comparison to Pizza Hut, whose similar ad used the traditional humiliation method.
Both ads used the concept of how the family responds emotionally when dad is responsible for dinner that night. The Pizza Hut spot showed the wife and children in fear of putting this responsibility in the hands of dad, and emphasizes how shocked they are that dad actually has the mental ability to bring home a dinner favorite without screwing up. The McDonald’s ad portrays fathers faced with a similar responsibility, but the emotions are different in this spot. Dad intuitively knows what pleases his family, and more importantly, the ad shows his children waiting in anticipation when dad is bringing home dinner, because to them, dad has proven himself on many occasions that he cares about his families happiness, and can be counted on to do the right thing.
So what’s the down side to all this?
To put it bluntly, advertisers aren’t really concerned with how men or fathers are portrayed in their advertising. They’re only concerned with how to connect with them on some level in order to sell products for their clients. Rose Cameron’s work to change the thinking of advertisers concerning men and fathers began, and is still, predicated on the success of sales revenue coming from a particular demographic, not out of a concerned corporate consciousness. The 2005 men’s study was initiated not because advertisers felt an uncomfortable feeling about their work, or felt they were becoming morally or ethically shallow. It was initiated to address sagging numbers for a particular demographic. In my opinion, it appears the bottom line - the spreadsheet- is a greater priority than simple respect and ethical integrity towards the consumer for advertisers and their clients.
I’m not attacking Rose’s work. Sshe properly demonstrates to advertisers that men and fathers are more than just data/numbers, and are actually human-beings who are well aware on some level of society’s lack of sympathy, understanding, or interest in their well-being, particularly when juxtaposed to women’s issues.
So what’s the next step?
Keep putting pressure on advertisers to change. Keep writing letters. Keep reminding them that us men and fathers are more than their narrow judgements of us.
And remember, it will take time. Be patient with them.
These people have proven they’re a little slow when it comes to understanding what we want.
Contact:
Photo courtesy of Free Images
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
