The latest episode of South Park which aired on December 11th, 2013 was one that really hit home. Here is an image that might give you an idea of what it was about:
As funny as the Kanye West parts were, the underlying message of the episode was what struck me.
It was all about the fact that many people (especially children) are impressionable enough to believe that an image of someone actually represents that person. It ties into the philosophical idea that people form constructs of reality in their mind from images that they see. These images do not accurately represent reality, but many people still choose to live in the world that they have constructed for themselves.
In this episode of South Park, Wendy, the captain of the cheerleading team, creates Photoshopped images of her female classmates to prove how easy it is to make someone appear much better looking than they really are. Unfortunately for her, the schoolchildren choose to believe that the girls are extremely good looking because of how they appear in their pictures. When Wendy does not make one for herself and criticizes everyone else for being so ignorant and gullible, she is accused of just being jealous.
Stone and Parker really hit on something here. They took the aforementioned old philosophy and applied it to modern life. People believe what they see on the internet and other media without much skepticism. If your profile picture is hot on Facebook, you must be hot in real life, too. It's personal branding taken to an extreme level. At the end of the episode, Wendy succumbs to peer pressure and low-self esteem and edits her own profile picture.
This episode is so telling of how our younger generations manipulate their online persona to present the idealized version of themselves. Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of self esteem issues, superficiality, and unhealthy body image.
Hopefully South Park still has enough younger viewers that these kids are able to see the ridiculousness in social media protocol and ease up on the physical criticism of themselves and their peers. No one is perfect, whether online or off, and you can't believe anything the internet tells you. It is a pseudo-reality, constructed 100% by people's imaginations. The only real thing about the internet is the glass on your screen. Beyond that, you are entering into a world of false or idealized avatars.
So, here is yet another viral commercial that is being heralded as "amazing," "progressive,'' "inspiring," etc. etc. etc.
The Pantene Philipines commercial, released in early November, has people all over the internet abuzz.
If taken at face value, the ad is fine, but I have a few problems with it. The message that one is expected to get from the commercial goes something like this: Hmm, that lady is getting different treatment from people than her husband does for doing the same things. That's not really fair. This is an example of how many women are treated in the workplace. That's not a good thing. Pantene is great for exposing this fact. I want to buy Pantene.
But let me share with you what I thought: Hmm, there's definitely some truth to the message, but it's old news. The fact that women are treated differently than men (particularly in the workplace) is pretty widely known at this point in time. Also, what the heck does this have to do with shampoo?
Well, the company attempts to make the transitional leap by saying at the end of the ad: Don't let labels hold you back. Be strong and shine. #Whipit. So, um, if I want to be a strong and confident woman in my workplace, I should use Pantene to make my personality and my hair shine? The fact that women's hair should be shiny (or anything at all except the natural way the woman wants it) is exactly what feminists fight against. Anyone who has studied feminism or women and gender studies knows that women should not aim to be anything other than what they want to be. Not what is expected of them by other people, and certainly not by some corporation who has for years leading up to this commercial only ever made ads that perpetuate the idea of gender inequality and the sexualization of women. In almost all of their previous commercials, they have used celebrities or beautiful models who swoosh their long, impossibly straight and shiny hair around for the camera to make girls envious enough or desirous enough to buy their product. Not to mention the fact that the woman in this commercial is a gorgeous model type who of course is going to have tons of confidence, long, straight, shiny hair, live in a city where there are no other people around and is always sunny and warm, and has a 5,000 dollar a month apartment with a corporate job. The opening scene shows the actress wearing 700$ Christian Louboutin shoes for God's sake! What about the young girls who are living in real life? In the ghettos of that city, whose hair will never look like that, and who will certainly face more challenges in life than what people think of them as they parade around in designer clothes and run board room meetings?
The sad truth here is that the women in real life who are that wealthy and stylish are not buying Pantene. Pantene is a lower to middle class brand. That woman is using a 30$ to 50$ per bottle brand and a blowdrier/straightener every morning. And do you know why she does her hair every morning and spends that much on hair product? She does it to look like the girls in the Pantene commercials.
So, congratulations, Pantene, for making a commercial with a message that feminists have already proved and talked about for years, and for making girls want to have 'perfect' hair even more now because this commercial shows them that not only will they then have pretty hair, they will also have a corporate job, a stunning apartment, and a hot boyfriend.
It is this idealized version of life so rampant in advertising that causes so much unhappiness and the constant feeling of incompleteness in people. The consumer is constantly plagued with unfulfilled desire because commercials show you a world that you want, but will never, ever have.
To change gears a bit, I do commend them for using a race other than caucasian for once. I appreciate the fact that the woman is of Asian descent. The advertising industry has done a good job of incorporating black and hispanic actors into commercials lately, but there are not nearly enough commercials that feature Asian American actors yet.
An example of a large corporation that actually does deserve some credit for their work on breaking down the beauty and gender walls is Dove. Here is the last commercial/video they made that went viral, and for good reason.
Dove is different from Pantene, though, because Dove has been making campaigns like the one shown above for years now. It's their 'schtick' if you will. Pantene is just suddenly interested in marketing with 'pseudo feminism' as I like to call it, in order to sell more products because the classic formula might not be working so well lately.
To throw in another hair product brand, let me mention Garnier Fructis. They seem to be the farthest from updating their marketing strategy. The brand is adamantly clutching to their commercial formula. It is fitting that last night during the Victoria's Secret fashion show, the most frequently played commercial was one by Garnier. The two brands hold strong to the idea that skinny, 5 foot 10 models with straight hair are the only type of beautiful women in this world. Garnier shamelessly uses all models in their commercials, and promotes the idea that if you use their product, you will lead a fabulous life of parties on the beach (often in cars) with other hot models. And all the while, your hair will remain pin straight, shiny, and, let's be honest, probably any color but black.
James Earl Jones and Malcolm McDowell talking like teenagers? Um... YES?!?!
The campaign is called: Everything's Important. And it is a work of sheer genius. The message is simple: Sprint wants its customers to know that everything their customers do over their network is important to them. In honor of that, they had two of the best known voice over actors act out a conversation between some of their (made up) customers. With a mixture of pop-culture slang, banal topics, and lack-luster lines, the script is perfect. The actors are perfect. The concept is perfect. The setting is perfect. Have I gushed enough? No!
One of the most helpful tools for gauging the public opinion of a production is through looking at the amount of likes and favorable comments it has. The commercial embedded above is one that I find particularly hilarious. But all of them are great. For this commercial specifically, there are already over 260,000 views, and a 97.9% positive approval rating.
The ad agency responsible for this work is Leo Burnett. They have perfectly embodied the substance of this generation of tech-savvy youngsters. And while we do more than just talk about nothing on our phones, these conversations sound all too familiar. This viral image comes to mind:
There is one issue I have with the commercial, though. James Earl Jones used to do voice over and commercial spots for Bel Atlantic as well as what later became 'Verizon.' Is there a conflict there? Maybe not, considering the demographic toward which the company seems to be directing these commercials. Most of them will not remember those commercials, but it is interesting to note that Jones has worked for two different competing companies over the last two decades.
There is a key concept in the field of media studies that is important for any company to abide by. Does anyone want to see an ad for Con Edison after a major blackout? How about an ad for BP after a massive oil spill? The answer is, plain and simple: NO. The concept I am referring to is the cultural resources strategy. Or in this case, the opposite.
The reputation of bikers (especially ones in gangs) has been worsening over time. There was the episode of South Park that pretty much stated what we all think: biker gangs aren't cool anymore, they're now seen as obnoxious, loud, gas guzzling bullies. There are noise laws that have been put into place in neighborhoods across the country, and all-leather everything is now reserved only for the likes of our least respected celebrities. The beating of Alexian Lien, a New York father of two, only furthered their negative reputation. So why would any brand want to associate themselves with a group that 86% of people think should be cracked down on by police? Well, the answer might be that they already made the commercial before this nationally-followed atrocity occurred. They didn't want to throw a perfectly good commercial in the trash. In fact, the ad was posted to Youtube about a month before the media frenzy began. Not a very good spot to be in. But, they should have scrapped it.
Keeping it on was a big mistake. They would maintain a much cleaner (pun intended) reputation if they didn't associate themselves with one of the most hated groups in America.
The thing is, even if people don't necessarily associate Mr. Clean's brand with biker gangs directly, the commercial is distracting. Most people are just going to be reminded of the news story that made headlines for two weeks in a row and not even notice the commercial they are watching, much-less what it's for. If anything, they should have aired the commercial a few months into the future, when the story is no longer fresh in the public's mind.
Here's an example of how to elegantly push the envelope of what Americans will tolerate in an ad.
Unfortunately, as great as this ad might be, only open-minded and intelligent people will think highly of it. While many are praising GAP for being so progressive and creative, there are those that have defaced and/or criticized the ad.
Metro PCS, through the work of The Richards Group ad agency, has just released a commercial entitled: Period Power. See it here. Now, the Richards Group is a talented agency that prides itself on "telling the truth" according to the 'About' section on their website. That's a great asset. What customer doesn't want a little dose of truth within an industry that is so often full of lies or idealized images of 'reality?' We're looking at you, perfume ads. *Blergh* The information in this ad is certainly true, but... Period Power? As a slogan?
Not to mention the fact that the slogan has already been used for a more interesting and more artistic purpose. When I googled "period power," the first few listings were not about MPCS, but about an American Apparelt-shirt that was created by artist Petra Collins. So far not so good for the new slogan.
We, the consumers love you, Metro PCS. Who could criticize $40.00 to $60.00 a month for unlimited everything? But come on, we don't want to be reminded of that terrible time of the month whenever your otherwise charming commercial comes on.
