“Advertising hasn’t changed” since “Mad Men” –Hank Wasiak at #140Conf
|
Posted by Jennifer L Pozner April 20th, 2010 |
During his #140Conf solo speech “Why Madison Avenue Should Love Social Media - The Thoughts of a Mad Man Turned Twitterholic,” Hank Wasiak (@hankwasiak on Twitter), who describes himself as an “Author, TV Host, Ad Guy,” made one key point I want to share with you.
I find it is always quite useful to listen to what advertisers say when they believe they are in an audience in which everyone has already bought into the idea that we as citizens exist to be “partners” with marketers. In an environment in which advertisers think we all buy in to their idea that we should and do value the “opportunity” to collaborate with corporations who want to shill to us, you can often hear really revealing tidbits. To wit:
The advertising industry, Wasiak said, has not changed very much since the days depicted in the AMC drama “Mad Men.” It’s a continuum, he explained.
Now, Wasiak was referring to marketing strategy. Yet although he wasn’t addressing the institutional and political mindsets that guide advertising messages, his statement certainly applies on that level. In “Mad Men,” we see how the behind-the-scenes chavinism and bigotry of the white, male-dominated ad industry of 1960s directly affected the way women, people of color and gay people were portrayed within ad content… and the way ad content then shaped cultural perceptions.
Long-time WIMN’s Voices readers know that we pay keen attention to the commercial and ideological motivations of advertisers, and the effects of these over news and entertainment media content. When I hear Wasiak saying that advertising hasn’t changed very much since the “Mad Men” era, I skip right past his marketing pitch and move directly to the institutional mindset that, for just one example, continues to believe that employing images of gruesome violence against women is the most effective way to sell clothes, shoes, cars, reality show episodes, and more.
In my new book, Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV, I make the same point Wasiak made here today — advertising really has not changed since the “Mad Men” era. Where Wasiak described the continuum of advertising’s tools of persuasion (from old-school ad buys to marketing in new media and technology platforms), I focus on the way the advertising industry — especially via stealth marketing throughout the reality TV genre — is hard at work attempting to revive regressive ideas about gender, race, class and sexuality, and to ensure that forty years of feminist, anti-racist social progress are generally unreflected in contemporary advertising imagery.
If you knew nothing about American life and American people other than what you learned from product-placement-driven “reality” television (think: “The Bachelor,” “Extreme Makeover,” “Flavor of Love,” etc.), you would have no idea that the women’s rights, civil rights and LGBT rights movements had ever taken place. Instead, you’d see a world whose “Father Knows Best” values mirror those of “Mad Men.”
April 21st, 2010 09:50
Hey Jennifer. Thanks for writing about my presentation at the 140conference. You raise some great points and insights about some of the misguided values of the Mad men era hit home. Fortunately most of those attitudes on Madison Ave have evaporated but unfortunately they are present in many of the TV fare that we see today. It’s god to see the good work that you are doing to help make a positive change.
Hank Wasiak
April 21st, 2010 10:07
Thanks, Hank. I appreciate your comment here, and was glad to have seen your presentation yesterday.
I have to disagree, though, that regressive, misguided attitudes have evaporated from Madison Avenue. Most of the TV fare that you’re probably thinking of propagates these attitudes is driven specifically by advertisers who do not just place products in as the end result, but rather work with producers from the get-go to influence casting and editing choices, dialog, plot/story arcs and episode contests (for example, fashion, beauty and magazine advertisers sponsor America’s Next Top Model, with predictable results).
But more to the point, Madison Avenue still religiously relies defines beauty via images of impossibly thin, White, Western-looking women to sell pretty much everything. Though decades worth of media research studies have shown that such images damage girls’ and women’s self-perceptions, this trend has gotten worse, not better, over the years, with the increased use of Photoshop and compilation images (you must be aware of the recent hubbub over the Ralph Lauren ad in which a model’s waist was made to look smaller than her head: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1219046/Ralph-Lauren-digitally-retouches-slender-model-make-look-THINNER.html).
And if you click the various links in my post above, you’ll find various examples that show that abject violence against women is still an advertising staple.
This is not to say that contemporary advertising always features violence or reinforces eating disorder-encouraging images, or that Madison Avenue never comes up with anything clever without being offensive. Really, who hasn’t been impressed with the “I’m a Mac/”I’m a PC” campaign, or the Old Spice “Look at me, now look at your man, now back to me… I’m on a horse…” guy?
Unfortunately, creative advertising that doesn’t use lowest-common-denominator misogyny is still the exception rather than the rule. Though you were discussing marketing trajectories, I think you hit the nail on the head: the industry just hasn’t changed all that much since the days of “Mad Men.” If only your contemporaries took as contemplative an eye to their process and results as the writers of “Mad Men” do to their exploration of that regressive era.
April 21st, 2010 10:24
You raise some good points again. Yes, my comment about the misogyny attitudes having evaporated relate more to the internal workings of the business. While I agree that there still are all too many instances of advertising and promotion that show misguided images and mis-representations, especially with women I am hopeful that by “listening” more that will change too. Keep your voice and passion strong and you can help lead this change.
Hank
April 21st, 2010 10:44
Ah, I see. Yes, there had been a great deal of progress behind-the-scenes in terms of employment within the advertising industry since the 1960s. There are now several key laws, as well as non-legal but widely adopted corporate best-practices policies, that prevent gender and race-based discrimination in hiring and promotion. The advertising industry would be hobbled by constant lawsuits (not to mention would miss out on major creative talent) if its leaders continued to operate internally as Don Draper & Co. used to.
That said, I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the portrayal of the advertising industry — and of business practices in general — on NBC’s The Apprentice, which is not only a series-long infomercial for Donald Trump’s various business ventures, but also for a different embedded advertiser per week. In my book, Reality Bites Back ( http://amzn.to/dzo4R4 ) I note that the show encourages workplace practices that would be grounds for termination in most business environments, including: female employees blatantly using their sexuality to get ahead; male employees calling women workers “bitches” and “sluts” and other gendered slurs; worker hurling racial epithets at one another; verbal and sometimes even threats of physical violence in the “workplace,” etc. Yet in this televised fake “job interview,” viewers watch as behaviors that could leave a company at risk for harassment or unfair termination lawsuits, end up rewarded.
I always wonder if the advertisers who embed their products in The Apprentice — to the tune of sometimes millions of dollars per integration deal — consider the implications of associating their brands with those sorts of workplace practices. I know that the numbers work our in sponsors’ favor (for example, limited edition cars selling out almost instantly after debuting on The Apprentice), but I’d be curious to know if you think that sponsors sideline their concerns over the show’s content in favor of the financial benefit of product placement in the series — or if it doesn’t even occur to the sponsors that there’s anything problematic about the show in the first place. Any thoughts, Hank?
April 21st, 2010 11:50
Interesting that you should mention the Apprentice and its value for marketers. Been thinking about that lately. Generally, I’m a fan of embedded brand content in shows and it really only works when it is seamless and not forced and adds to the value of of the entertainment and informational value of the show. That, said, I guess that is the case with the Apprentice. I believe it has helped some businesses and some of it has been done for ego gratification. My issues with the apprentice are concerned more the tone and manner of the show in the way people are handled and lessons communicated. Based too much on negative deficit based thinking rather than positive asset-based thinking. Focusing on strengths is always better than accentuating weaknesses. Good discussion to carry on.
Hank
April 21st, 2010 21:39
[…] After nearly a decade, I can recite every line from her film and am less surprised (but no less outraged by) by the disturbing, and often horrific images created by ad execs and other media makers. But the film is no less relevant or important and, sadly, the images she deconstructs have remained fairly unchanged. Every semester, my new crop of students continue to be shocked awake by her film, the blinder peeled away. Her words and the images she discusses continue to be important and meaningful despite the 4 decades that she has spent discussing this topic. After all, not much has changed. This is why I am so happy that Kilbourne and the Media Education Foundation have released an updated version, Killing Us Softly 4. […]