Entries Tagged 'marketing' ↓

The argument for ‘lads ads’ seems to be much the same as for ‘lads mags’; they aren’t really offensive, just harmless suggestive fun, a bit of titillation with no real damage intended. This of course is from a male perspective. Talk to most women and the response is more like; they are degrading, humiliating and offensive.

There has been a string of such ads lately, they began with a barrage of airline ads including Air New Zealand, the Russian airline Avianova and Spain’s Air Commet.

Then more recently came the Brut campaign, described by Pharmacare “a body spray deodorant range targeted at male deodorant users in their late teens to early 20s. The principle behind the Code element of Brut Code refers to ‘the amusing codes that friends live by’. An example might be ‘No matter what, two guys should never share an umbrella’.”

So what makes these ‘lads ads’ so offensive and degrading to women?

Well let’s start with the airlines, words that come to mind include raunchy, erotic, risqué, sexist, creepy, soft porn and voyeuristic.

In this day and age how on earth can we allow advertising campaigns that depict female flight attendants washing planes while wearing bikinis? It is like watching an old James Bond movie, which we all know depicts the ‘bond girl’ as a trophy to be won by Bond during the movie.

Then there was Aeroflot’s calendar featuring a female flight attendant posing completely nude. This however was surpassed by Air Comet; their calendar showed staff in various flight-related poses including one in which a woman stretched out on a jet engine clad only in an emergency flotation vest.

Ms Jo-Ann Davidson, Secretary of the Flight Attendants Association of Australia pointed out that raunchy advertisements are offensive and place cabin crew at risk.

“Such suggestive advertising portraying cabin crew as part of the product they’re selling sends wrong messages and puts cabin crew at risk of sexual harassment and abuse – all for a $10 air fare,” she said.

“Cabin crew deserve to work in a safe environment and be treated with respect and dignity.”

Ms Davidson made a very shrewd comment when discussing airline executives; “it’s a sad reflection of the attitude of the airline’s executives – dare I say more than likely middle aged males – towards cabin crew, in particular, female cabin crew by portraying them in such a demeaning, distasteful and irrelevant manner.”

You may be feeling comforted that these airlines are all overseas and that in our part of the world the media is more ideologically sound. But oh no, just take a look at last years’ ads by Air New Zealand. They well and truly took their place among the most offensive ads by showing staff carrying out their duties wearing nothing more than body paint.

Now if we turn our attention back to Brut again. The Brut campaign with its tagline “still brutally male” and the series of “spot and share” ads – a set of amusing codes that friends life by – serve as a thin veneer covering the depiction of women as sex objects to be ‘shared around’ by men.

All the ads use a beautiful woman posing in a T-shirt and bikini. In the online video clips she whips off her T-shirt (not much product shot here, remembering this is an ad for male deodorant) to reveal a code. There is an obvious play on the word ‘reveal’. The double entendre about the ‘revealing’ of the codes is clearly intended to refer to women taking off their tops in addition to ‘revealing what the message of the next code is.

This sends a very strong message to teenage boys and adds to their understanding of how a man should treat a woman. In this case men should view women as nothing more than the sum of their body parts to be ‘spotted’ ‘noted’ and ‘shared’ around. Could this description also be applied the appreciation of soft porn or even gang rape? Surely these ads depict inappropriate role models for young men.

This is how The Advertising Standards Bureau dealt with complaints for one of the poster ads.  The poster features a beautiful blonde woman with her back to the viewer in nothing more than a bikini bottom (no surprises there). The words for the ad reads - BRUT Code #85: Always alert your mates to the presence of fine form. 

The complaint addressed the issues of the sexualisation and objectification of women and the affect this might have on both adolescent boys and girls. “No individual within society should be subjected to such over-sexualised and demeaning images that objectify women.”

“The site where this add is situated is a busy thoroughfare for both primary and high school students all of which are influenced by popular culture and the society that surrounds them. Firstly young women see images in which females are being sexualised and objectified for the means of appealing to the male audience – thus creating the view that a woman’s body is her only asset. These ads also affect young boys as they are sent the message that women are simply objects for their own pleasure.”

In their defence Pharmacare said “using attractive people in adverts is very common practice and in no way does this objectify or demean women.” They dispute that the ad is “overtly sexually suggestive” by arguing that the woman in the ad was smiling and looked happy.

The Advertising Standard Bureau (‘the Board’) decided “that the advertisement did treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and that the advertisement did not breach section 2.3 of the Code.” They went on to determine that “the general community would find the portrayal of the women acceptable in the media utilised” and concluded  “finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on any grounds the Board dismissed the complaints.”

In an ironic twist, The Board was quick to come down on the ads where health and safety issues were concerned.

“The board considered that as the vehicle is depicted in motion the depiction of the person in the boot and the person sitting on the car rather than in a seat is a depiction of material that does breach community standards on safety in vehicles and safe driving.”

Finally in its deliberation the board wrote: “The board considered that the overall theme of the advertisement is light-hearted and is specifically directed to depicting men who appreciate the beauty of a woman.”

It added: “The board considered that the song ‘spot and share’ does not imply sexual behaviour … and that the song and language are not suggestive of rape.”

It is very neglectful of our society to encourage teenage boys to view girls in this way. It is a view that they will take into adulthood and it will undoubtedly be reflected in the way they treat women in the future.

Writer Helen Splarn. Editor Dr Ramesh Manocha.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald.  The Advertising Standards Bureau

Published in Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 2010.

It is common practice for food companies to advertise to children by using cross-promotional agreements with other companies (to promote each other’s products); these include licensed characters, sports teams and theme parks. Many food companies team up with other companies to help them sell their food products.

In 2006, 2007, and 2008, researchers visited a large supermarket chain and purchased all food products featuring cross-promotions. The target audience for each promotion was identified as preschool (less tha 6 years), child (less than 12 years), or general audience (more than 17 years).

Findings:

• More than half of the 397 promotions targeted children
• Cross-promoted products increased from 96 to 171
• Cross-promotions targeting preschoolers increased to 21%
• Cross promotions for fruit snacks fell from 27% to 7%
• Sweets had no cross-promotions in 2006 but accounted for 13% in 2008
• Only 18% of food products with cross-promotions met the Institute of Medicine’s nutrition standards for foods sold in schools, and
• Foods targeted to a child audience had significantly more sugar than foods targeted to other age groups, while fat content was significantly higher in foods targeted to a general audience.

Comment:
In 2006, the Council of Better Business Bureaus launched a voluntary program for food companies to reduce the use of licensed characters in advertising and to promote healthier food choices to children younger than 12 years.

Clearly, food companies have not met this challenge. — Robin Drucker, MD

Published in Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 2010.

Citation(s): Harris JL et al. Marketing foods to children and adolescents: Licensed characters and other promotions on packaged foods in the supermarket. Public Health Nutrition 2010.

Editor Dr Ramesh Manocha.

It is becoming increasingly evident that children are being targeted by the media from a very young age. They are being encouraged to become consumers before they can walk, spell, read or write. How? Through advertising and strategically placed marketing campaigns.

Australian author and Generation Next speaker, Maggie Hamilton points out in her book “What’s Happening to Our Girls?” that “Material goods cannot replace loving, human interaction. Parents who get caught up in the need to shower their baby with new possessions end up passing these values on to their children, who grow up believing they’re nothing without brand-name clothes and accessories”.

This point of view is confirmed by Martin Lindstrom, global marketing expert “kids spend less time with their parents than with advertising and brands, so the ads have a major influence on the kids’ vocabulary and use of brand names”. (BRANDChild: Remarkable Insights into the Minds of Today’s Global Kids and Their Relationships with Brands. Martin Lindstrom with P.B. Seybold 2003).

 
All over the world campaigns are being waged against the advertising giants to give children a childhood where they are free to be themselves and explore the environment around them instead of being at the mercy of consumerism and branding.

On April 8 the American based organisation Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood honoured Annie Leonard with the 2010 Fred Rogers Integrity Award for her internet film, The Story of Stuff (featured on U-Tube).

The Story of Stuff explores how our obsession with Stuff is destroying the planet earth, our communities, and our health. It is both entertaining and humorous in its delivery and talks directly to young people. Annie’s message is clear “Let’s have a little more appreciation and reverence for the stuff we have instead of this mindless consumerism”.

This award was previous given to Morgan Spurlock – writer/producer/director and star of the Academy Award nominated film Super Size Me.

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is an American organisation comprising of   health care professionals, educators, advocacy groups, parents, and individuals who care about children.  They are devoted to limiting the impact of commercial culture on children.  
 
Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood advocate that a marketing-driven media culture places profit above the public good.  The commercialisation of childhood is the link between many of the most serious problems facing children, and society, today. 

Childhood obesity, eating disorders, youth violence, sexualisation, family stress, underage alcohol and tobacco use, rampant materialism, and the erosion of children’s creative play, are all exacerbated by advertising and marketing. 

Writer Helen Splarn. Editor Dr Ramesh Manocha.

SOURCE: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood

Melinda Tankard Reist appeared in The Australian this weekend in an article criticising magazine Marie Claire’s use of a ‘real’ image of supermodel Jenifer Hawkins to launch their “love-yourself-just-as-you-are” campaign.

SHOCK horror: nude supermodel has dimple on thigh. In a move labelled daring and revolutionary, this month’s edition of Marie Claire features nude photos of Australian model Jennifer Hawkins airbrush-free. The shoot reveals “brave” Jen with all her flaws.

And what exactly are these impediments? A tiny crease in Hawkins’s waist, a slightly dimpled thigh and “uneven skin tones”.

Labelling hips, a little dimpling on the thigh, a small waist crease (which looks like what happens when any woman sits down) and supposedly uneven skin tone as flaws is already problematic. Who decided these were flaws and not part of being a woman? And if these are flaws, then how are other women supposed to feel feel?

Why would an editor and an organisation concerned about body image choose a Miss Universe title holder as the pin-up for the love-yourself-just-as-you-are campaign? The images attract comparisons and judgment, and provide more opportunity for objectification.

Melinda’s full article can be found at The Australian‘s website.

Tristan Boyd, Dr Ramesh Manocha.

Generation Next Brisbane is on tomorrow! Speakers including Dr Michael Carr-Gregg  and Paul Dillon will talk on topics including drugs and alcohol, depression, cybersafety and sexualisation to a sold out auditorium in the University of Queensland.

If you’ve missed out you may like to subscribe to the newsletter to keep up with our regular updates or if you know of a school which might like to host a future seminar perhaps you’d like to contact Generation Next founder Dr Ramesh Manocha to organise a Generation Next seminar at your school.

Two images depicting women digitally edited to look unrealistically skinny have been making waves in the media recently.

In the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney an advertisement for Ralph Lauren with an unrealistically skinny model is displayed. The model in the picture has had her waist significantly reduced to make her appear much smaller, as can be seen in this before and after shot from NineMSN. A larger version of the altered image can be found here.

Also in the news, Demi Moore is on the cover of December’s edition of W magazine with an attempt to airbrush her waist to a smaller size having gone awry. Part of the model’s hip has been trimmed so much that it doesn’t line up with rest of her body. A spokesperson for the magazine reportedly said the magazine “did not do anything unusual or out of the ordinary” to the photo.” The image can be found here.

These advertisements emphasise the call from a group of academics, doctors and psychologists for all digitally altered pictures in the media to be clearly labelled as such. The group cited research linking airbrushed images to health problems including depression and eating disorders.

Writer Tristan Boyd, Editor Dr Ramesh Manocha.

We are currently in the process of planning the 2010 Generation Next series. Thanks to your feedback we have learned a lot of lessons about how best to run the events and use the limited financial and other resources available to us.

Importantly, in 2010 we would like to explore the possibility of running the events at a school hall rather than in a commercial venue. This will allow us to use our limited funds for more important things such as advertising and supporting the stakeholder groups that work with us.

A group of approximately 20 schools in Canberra, for example, have teamed up to offer both a school hall and help with ticket sales to each of their school communities. We think this is a way for Generation Next’s important information to get to more people in a way that is not only financially viable but also allows local communities to develop a sense of ownership with regard to these important issues.

It will also allow us more versatility in terms of timing and location.

Our calculations show that we need to sell about 800-1000 tickets to make each Generation Next event viable. Therefore we need to find a school hall (or halls) in each city that can accommodate an audience of that size or more in relative comfort.

If you think that your school’s hall may be suitable to a Generation Next event and that your school may be interested in working with us then please do get in touch with us by  emailing me at r.manocha@healthed.com.au or at info@gennextseminars.com.

Your help with this matter is deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

Dr Ramesh Manocha, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD,

Founder, Generation Next.

Issues like the sexualisation and abuse of children aren’t humorous. They are serious.

The Cotton On store declared in August that it would remove inappropriate slogan t-shirts after public pressure from around Australia and New Zealand – including comments from child development professionals, calling for the removal of the slogan t-shirts.

Today in The Herald Sun,  http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/boycott-call-on-tot-shop/story-e6frf7kx-1225799481123 it was revealed that Cotton On have continued to sell t-shirts such as ‘I’m a Tit’s Man’ ‘I’m bringing sexy back’ and ‘milk today, beer tomorrow’.

Retailers, marketers and advertisers need to be proactive in their responsibility to children and the messages they are exposed to.

It’s time for them to pay attention to child development professionals, and increasing research, which says the sexualisation of our children is impacting on their mental health and well being.

• Adult sexualised innuendo/humour does not belong on children’s/baby wear. It should be a no-go zone!
• Children/babies become billboards, and this is involuntary exposure for other kids, siblings and  friends to receive those messages.
• One of the strong messages is that this is OK. It’s acceptable…it’s normal.
• It’s part of the normalisation & desensitisation of what many academics are calling the pornificaiton of society and is symbolic of the broader issue of the sexualisation of children.
• Sexualised messages have become so all pervasive in our society that there are no longer any boundaries. It is no longer the preserve of adulthood.
• When retailers happily promote ’edgy’ and ‘provocative humour that pushes the boundaries’ on baby’s wear – then it is a clear sign that we have crossed a line.

Writer Julie Gale, Editor Dr Ramesh Manocha

Generation Next is coming to Perth! Featuring speakers such as Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, Julie Gale, Paul Dillon and Susan McLean, the seminar will provide solutions to the challenges facing generations Y and Z. The seminar will cover a range of topics including cybersafety (including cyberbullying and sexting), the sexualisation of our children in the media, mental health and depression, and drugs and alcohol.

For more information check out our homepage, and you can buy tickets for $45 at Tickatek.

‘Take a peek inside any underwear or sock drawer across Australia and New Zealand and you’re sure to find some Holeproof products. With a huge range of popular and instantly recognisable brands, we are one of the region’s leading clothing companies supplying the equivalent of two briefs and a pair of socks for every man, woman and child in our market every year.’ So says the Holeproof Australia website, the company that was under siege a few years ago for a provocative advertisement that appeared on the website for pop princess Kylie Minogue’s junior line of underwear called Love Kylie Princess, which is targeted at girls from 8 to 16 years old. The range features items like bras and high-cut briefs trimmed with glitter. The site directed children to the adult Love Kylie range, describing the items as ‘sexy, lacy, racy, girly, fun, comfortable for every day… and night’.

Instead of admitting a howling error of judgement, Holeproof have become defensive claiming their marketing is “…about little girls. It’s about having fun…we’re really specific about the audiences that we target.”

These companies must think that Australian Mums’ and Dads’ are stupid. In defending the indefensible they have elevated themselves to a hall of corporate shame, alongside the tobacco industry and parts of the alcohol industry, who over the years have regularly claimed that their marketing only targets adults. This is as sensible as claiming you can have a chlorine free part of a swimming pool.

Obviously the folk from the marketing department of Holeproof need to read the report released in December last year, by the Australia Institute entitled “Letting Children Be Children- Stopping the sexualisation of children in Australia”. This report so upset David Jones that their chief executive Mark McInnes threatened the Australia Institute with a lawsuit unless it removed references to David Jones on the institute’s website.

The report’s author Emma Rush noted that images of sexualised children were becoming increasingly common in advertising and marketing material and she used the term ‘Corporate paedophilia’ to describe advertising and marketing that sexualises children in these ways. Notwithstanding  the obvious negative effects of eroding childhood and fast-tracking little girls into adulthood, psychologists have begun to document the consequences of the early sexualisation of girls in media and found them to be very real.

According to a report released in February this year by the American Psychological Association, evidence had been found  that the proliferation of sexualised images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising and the media was harmful to girls’ self-image and healthy development, leading to a lack of confidence with their bodies as well as depression and eating disorders. The researchers said such images also have a negative effect on healthy sexual development in girls.

Holeproof’s production of “hot” clothing in children’s sizes is not the first, nor I suspect the last time we will see as retailers continue to offer G-strings, padded bras and sexy lingerie to the ‘tween’ market. So we must rely on parents to show good judgment and boycott this line of underwear and if Holeproof  continue to show the ethics of a cash register I for one will ‘peek inside my underwear or sock drawer’ and toss out their products and urge parents of Australia to do the same.

Dr Michael Carr-Gregg is an adolescent psychologist working in private practice in Kew, Melbourne and is the author of the Princess Bitchface Syndrome (Penguin 2006). Editor Ramesh Manocha.