Do ‘lame stereotypes’ make for bad ads?
In recent days, I’ve been spending some time browsing Ad Standards Board complaints.
And in quick succession I came across the same observation a couple of times.
BWM’s Selleys ad featuring a housewife flirting with a tradie and Lavender’s Westpac ad with a camp male duo, both attracted complaints, and were both cleared by the ASB.
But its observations were similar in both cases – the ads were undeniably stereotypes, but they were acceptable.
To quote the AFA Code of Ethics:
Respect all people. No stereotypes please. Individuals should be understood, not portrayed in a way that could bring disrespect. Use humour, but avoid cheap shots.
Why did they bother?
The ASB seems to understand that “stereotype” is not a dirty word. When I read articles like this in the advertising/media press it worries me that we’re our own worst enemy. Oh der…advertising is about “stereotypes” aka “old fashioned target audiences”. Is it just me or are we so bamboozled by the social media phenomenon that we will sell and discredit the key principles of successful marketing and advertising that has been established over decades just so we look like we know what we’re talking about when it comes to the new media….?
Stereotypes shouldn’t be banned in advertising campaigns. Marketing is all about semiotics- culturally specific symbols. When making ads, marketers are limited by time so using semiotics and associations make it easy for the audience to understand the message of the ad.
Even if these associations are unjust or offensive, banning stereotypes in ad campaigns is not going to solve a socio-cultural problem.
1. Who said ban? Tim said stereotype ads are lame.
2. The AFA has a code of ethics that we simply ignore. Why does it exist? What does ignoring our own code of ethics say about us and our industry?
3. Semiotics = sign and symbols, not stereotypes. There are many ways to arrive at communication shorthand other than stereotypes, a cursory flick through the annals of award-winning ads will demonstrate.
Bottom line @Fran and @Salt you are defending not stereotypes but lameness.
Why do you think we should settle so readily for lame work?
Schroeds what’s your measure of lame work? Sound fairly subjective to me have we bothered to ask the target audience of Westpac whether they think its lame? Please lets not confuse our industry intellectual mumbo jumbo as a voice of the consumer….
Sorry salt, I haven’t had time to run focus groups on this particular ad, but you’re missing the point we’re not talking about this ad, we’re talking about stereotyping in advertising. One of my measures of lame work is that which falls back on easy cheap shots. Stereotyping is an extreme over-complication and presents the opposite of authenticity…fake portrayal means an audience won’t relate and that make the ad lame.
Research shows that stereotypes can perpetuate ignorance and prejudice (Pollay, 1986). Consider this from 1975: an analysis of 1,536 ads in six general interest magazines and 4,371 ads in the New York Times over 1 month, and 368 television commercials on three networks over 2 weeks period. African Americans appear in less than 7% of magazine ads, less that 5% of the newspaper ads which featured people, and 5.5% of commercials.
Fortunately that changed but it seems unimaginable now, right? Maybe not…consider the prevalence of blondes in our imagery, the lack of arabic and aboriginal faces. The point is, Salt, stereotypes do NOT represent the ‘voice of the consumer’, they’re actually out of whack with the real world. And the other point is that we as people who portray people as tools to sell products, have a responsibility to do it with respect for the people portrayed and also for the people we’re selling to.
Seriously, how does this ad make an arabic person feel :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6rBrJhWAfk&feature=player_embedded
If you’re interested you might like to read my blog post about authenticity here http://wp.me/pHdCH-3z
So your position suggests that the advertisers role is to lead and drive social change, eradicate ignorance and prejudice vs. relaying back what the vast majority of our society currently believes? There in lies the disconnect. Advertisers on the whole aren’t trying to change the world, they just want to stand out and sell product at the lowest possible investment. The simple equation is if 90%+ of their consumer base have certain beliefs advertisers will only want to reflect what they believe back to them to make their offer more relevant…
Advertisers aren’t trying to change the world? Salty, haven’t you realised yet? Selling product DOES change the world! Selling lots of products changes it more.
Go to thestoryofstuff.com if you don’t understand what I’m saying.
Every ad contributes to cultural and environmental change. So we do carry a responsibility. Which few of us are even aware of, sadly.
So the advertisers role may not be “to lead and drive social change, eradicate ignorance and prejudice” but nor can it be as dumbly passive as “relaying back what the vast majority of our society currently believes”. Sorry to sound ike Ben elton but that’s what hitler’s followers did. Mate we all have just a little bit of responsibility and if we all use it wisely we’ll all be the better off.
I believe we should try to reflect the best of our society and not the worst or most ignorant and discriminatory tendencies…which is where the path that starts with lame stereotypes eventually leads to