I don’t dig the increase in ads idea. 5000 ads in an 8 hour period amounts to one add every 5.76 seconds. This leaves no time for any other programming. Assuming one third ads and two thirds programming, we get 1.92 seconds per ad. Ms Heldman left out the fact that the number of channels has increased in the forty years between 1971 and 1991. As it is impractical to watch more than one channel at a time (observing 16 stamp-sized pictures on a screen isn’t the same as watching sixteen channels), the number of ads people consumes only increases when
a) they spend more time in front of ad-driven media
b) more of the time is devoted to ads.
c) there is no possibility to ignore the ads
As far as television is concerned, while in the pre-remote control days, laziness undoubtedly contributed to people consuming ads, if my behaviour is anything to go by, people actively nix ads by zapping or doing something else. As far as other media are concerned, no matter how much advertising media providers (like Google) try, most people I know remove ads from their computers,tablets and smartphones. I do agree that ads have become more explicit (but our acceptance of sexuality as something positive has also increased).
Ms Heldman claims men are not objectified because they do not appear half-naked in ads. In my neck of the woods, they do, selling body products and underwear. Not as often as women, but then the market is (thankfully) still a lot smaller. But rugged, square-jawed, one-day-beard-wearing male models in executive suits are used all the time, and they are just as much objectified as half-naked women. Just as naked women trigger male sexual responses, powerful men trigger female sexual responses.
In any case, in a marketplace where there is little intrinsic difference between products, ads have convince people that a specific product will make the buyer stand out from the crowd, so the models/actors used have to be above average. Take the particularly offensive ads for a brand of deodorant, claiming that women will fight for access to the happy user — the user (a man) is protrayed as a nerd usually shunned by women, and the women who suddendly adore him are all incredibly pretty. The ad would not work with George Clooney as user and a group of average women. Advertising is all about illusion, and even the white promised by detergents is the equivalent of a human supermodel.
When Ms Heldman concludes by wishing for a world where “women are valued for what they say and what they do, rather than the way they look”, she forgets that intelligence and ability, just like good looks, are a matter of luck. People whom nature gave beauty rather than brains should be able to use what they have to make the most of their lives. It might be sweet revenge for the brainy nerds to get their comeuppance on the beautiful bimbos, but in real life, most people are neither very pretty, nor very brainy. Replacing one unachievable ideal with another isn’t going to make more people happy.
Eh , the term objectification..I don’t think it means what you think it means!
(Ms Heldman claims men are not objectified because they do not appear half-naked in ads.)
If I understand the context, that was a light comment aimed at getting the attention of the audience.
(In my neck of the woods, they do, selling body products and underwear. Not as often as women, but then the market is (thankfully) still a lot smaller. But rugged, square-jawed, one-day-beard-wearing male models in executive suits are used all the time, and they are just as much objectified as half-naked women. Just as naked women trigger male sexual responses, powerful men trigger female sexual responses.)
That is not what objectification means. (see the vedio once more she explains it with pictures. Start from 2.00 or a little bit before that)
(Take the particularly offensive ads for a brand of deodorant, claiming that women will fight for access to the happy user — the user (a man) is protrayed as a nerd usually shunned by women, and the women who suddendly adore him are all incredibly pretty. )
Ah right there…read it slowly…The man is portrayed as a nerd. not as a table with legs, or body parts of a car. See stereotyping is not objectification!
I did not offer the nerd as an example of objectification, but the whole ad concept as proof ads do not work when they do not convince the intended consumer buying the product will improve their lives. The objects in this ad are the women fighting for the deodorised nerd. Obviously, the ad is wrong, as all users of deodorants know if they would examine it rationally, but subconsciously, the seed is planted. Next time, out of the sea of deodorants (which have no real distinguishing characteristics), consumers will shift their buying decisions towards this deodorant. For these
As far as objectification is concerned, I believe many of the ways men are used in advertising meet one or more of Ms Heldman’s 7 criteria. The advertising industry amplifies and isolates those characteristics of people they feel will sell the product. They have a lot of (mostly intuitive) knowledge of the subconscious and target these parts of the mind.
At time 0:11 we see the list of corporate sponsorships.
I wonder what their interest is in promoting this.
Must be pure altruism.
I don’t dig the increase in ads idea. 5000 ads in an 8 hour period amounts to one add every 5.76 seconds. This leaves no time for any other programming. Assuming one third ads and two thirds programming, we get 1.92 seconds per ad. Ms Heldman left out the fact that the number of channels has increased in the forty years between 1971 and 1991. As it is impractical to watch more than one channel at a time (observing 16 stamp-sized pictures on a screen isn’t the same as watching sixteen channels), the number of ads people consumes only increases when
a) they spend more time in front of ad-driven media
b) more of the time is devoted to ads.
c) there is no possibility to ignore the ads
As far as television is concerned, while in the pre-remote control days, laziness undoubtedly contributed to people consuming ads, if my behaviour is anything to go by, people actively nix ads by zapping or doing something else. As far as other media are concerned, no matter how much advertising media providers (like Google) try, most people I know remove ads from their computers,tablets and smartphones. I do agree that ads have become more explicit (but our acceptance of sexuality as something positive has also increased).
Ms Heldman claims men are not objectified because they do not appear half-naked in ads. In my neck of the woods, they do, selling body products and underwear. Not as often as women, but then the market is (thankfully) still a lot smaller. But rugged, square-jawed, one-day-beard-wearing male models in executive suits are used all the time, and they are just as much objectified as half-naked women. Just as naked women trigger male sexual responses, powerful men trigger female sexual responses.
In any case, in a marketplace where there is little intrinsic difference between products, ads have convince people that a specific product will make the buyer stand out from the crowd, so the models/actors used have to be above average. Take the particularly offensive ads for a brand of deodorant, claiming that women will fight for access to the happy user — the user (a man) is protrayed as a nerd usually shunned by women, and the women who suddendly adore him are all incredibly pretty. The ad would not work with George Clooney as user and a group of average women. Advertising is all about illusion, and even the white promised by detergents is the equivalent of a human supermodel.
When Ms Heldman concludes by wishing for a world where “women are valued for what they say and what they do, rather than the way they look”, she forgets that intelligence and ability, just like good looks, are a matter of luck. People whom nature gave beauty rather than brains should be able to use what they have to make the most of their lives. It might be sweet revenge for the brainy nerds to get their comeuppance on the beautiful bimbos, but in real life, most people are neither very pretty, nor very brainy. Replacing one unachievable ideal with another isn’t going to make more people happy.
Eh , the term objectification..I don’t think it means what you think it means!
(Ms Heldman claims men are not objectified because they do not appear half-naked in ads.)
If I understand the context, that was a light comment aimed at getting the attention of the audience.
(In my neck of the woods, they do, selling body products and underwear. Not as often as women, but then the market is (thankfully) still a lot smaller. But rugged, square-jawed, one-day-beard-wearing male models in executive suits are used all the time, and they are just as much objectified as half-naked women. Just as naked women trigger male sexual responses, powerful men trigger female sexual responses.)
That is not what objectification means. (see the vedio once more she explains it with pictures. Start from 2.00 or a little bit before that)
(Take the particularly offensive ads for a brand of deodorant, claiming that women will fight for access to the happy user — the user (a man) is protrayed as a nerd usually shunned by women, and the women who suddendly adore him are all incredibly pretty. )
Ah right there…read it slowly…The man is portrayed as a nerd. not as a table with legs, or body parts of a car. See stereotyping is not objectification!
EXACTLY. When sexy men are shown, they’re still shown as PEOPLE, not as objects like the women are.
I did not offer the nerd as an example of objectification, but the whole ad concept as proof ads do not work when they do not convince the intended consumer buying the product will improve their lives. The objects in this ad are the women fighting for the deodorised nerd. Obviously, the ad is wrong, as all users of deodorants know if they would examine it rationally, but subconsciously, the seed is planted. Next time, out of the sea of deodorants (which have no real distinguishing characteristics), consumers will shift their buying decisions towards this deodorant. For these
As far as objectification is concerned, I believe many of the ways men are used in advertising meet one or more of Ms Heldman’s 7 criteria. The advertising industry amplifies and isolates those characteristics of people they feel will sell the product. They have a lot of (mostly intuitive) knowledge of the subconscious and target these parts of the mind.
“As far as objectification is concerned, I believe many of the ways men are used in advertising meet one or more of Ms Heldman’s 7 criteria.”
Like…..?
Sorry for the editing problems – I should write early in the morning (it’s 0230 here).