A choice to get closer to what’s important.

If only poor people would just *choose* to be better parents!

Also, would it be fair to say that they are marketing *only* to white guys, or just *mostly* to white guys? :p

No no no! It just means poor people shouldn't have kids. Here is a milk ad I think you'll like: http://www.comikal.com/image/ahhh_sure_brings_back_memories

Bagelsan,

The "choice" rhetoric is interesting in light of Pamela Stone's recent book Opting Out, in which she highlights how structural barriers pushing women out of the workplace are ignored in favor of the idea that women simply "choose" to spend more time with their families.

Not that the same processes are working on men, but its interesting to see that particular ad tapping into the same discourse.

Look, just because the ad says that with their private jets a father can be there for his children, doesn't mean that it is saying that only rich fathers care about their sons, or can be there for them. I don't see how you guys got that reading.

"A choice to get closer to what’s important"

Did it ever say something about other non-insanely-rich people NOT wanting to choose that? No.

When something is said, it doesn't means that the opposite of that is being secretly said. If I say I like the color white, doesn't mean I hate the color black.

"But, second, the implication is that only men at the extremes of economic success can “afford” to be an ideal father. "

Not at all. The ads are aimed at people who need and can afford private jets. These being people that travel a lot. If you aren't rich and you travel a lot, then yes, the sad fact is that only being rich you can afford being present. Other that, it is not like that.

And why are all these ads aimed at fathers? Could you imagine one depicting a mother? Well, probably she doesn't need a private jet because she stays at home with the kids all the time. Because she "chose" that.

The ad doesn't say that, and I don't see it attempting to do so. Once again, just because something is depicted, doesn't mean it attempts to say the opposite too.

They conduct researches before marketing a product. It is very likely that the consumer base for private jets is composed mostly by men, rich white men. No surprise in that.

If they find out that chimpanzees are big consumers of private jets, they'll advertise to chimpanzees.

I don't think some of you appreciate how often some "high flying" executives are away from their families or how often they do the "day trip" that takes them away before the kids wake up and then home again after the kids are already asleep. If they want to pay to get home early good for them.

Are there also poorer folks that have the same schedule and don't have the option? yes.

Is life unfair? Grow up.

OP Minded, does U.S. society continually exploit this "unfairness" in favor of making lots of money for big corporations? You betcha! Does that matter? Yes!

Wow, OP, I am suddenly overcome with sympathy for the multi-millionaires who struggle so desperately to have it all. And who, yanno, *do* have it all. It is such a difficult (fabulously opulent) lifestyle they have chosen to lead! /sarcasm

The "choice" thing is blatant product-pushing; sure, you CAN choose not to buy their product, but you'll be a terrible person. "Oh, yeah, I'm choosing *not* to see my cute little kids whenever possible!" isn't a very realistic option, and they have set this ad up to make it a very binary and lopsided false "choice." (The gendered aspect is interesting, too, like Steph said: "oh, sure you're allowed to work! I just thought maybe you *didn't* want your kids to wind up selling drugs on the streets!")

They're wealthy, maybe they worked hard to deserve it, maybe not, that's how the world is. Pretty much anybody in their place would do the same. Not trying to say that rich people have difficult lives, they don't. What I'm trying to say is that they are people like anybody else. They have families and can be greedy, so do I.

If I could I would buy all sorts of useless crap for me, private jet included. It isn't because they are loaded that they are supposed to give away everything. I know I have money I could give away and wouldn't make a difference in my life, but I don't, I keep it. The day I start donating money, doing volunteer work, well, then it'll be the day I can complain about fat wallets.

The world is unfair, eliminating products/advertisement that reflects that won't make anything better.

In some ways, it also strikes me as saying that the only people who can possibly be so busy as to need extraordinary measures to have time to see their kids would be the rich. Because clearly if you're superrich, you got there because you worked hard and were just better than anyone else, and therefore you deserved to have your kids and your job and everyone else who works 120 hour weeks and doesn't make millions doesn't.

On the other hand, the high school I went to had a fair number of seriously rich kids. And the people who I would guess had enough money that I could see them having a private jet mostly saw the money-earning parent once every week or two if they still lived with them (not terribly common) or maybe once every few months in divorce cases. Admittedly most of this information I had from gossip, so it's not terribly reliable, but honestly, if you're making over a million a year, odds are you're spending no time with your family whatsoever because your job is your life. So it's not like I think they're aiming at the target market wrongly, except maybe underestimating the number of corporate sociopaths who really don't care.

Fernando (and other commenters who've been complaining about this site's content recently):

This blog is called "Sociological Images". The point is to deconstruct the kind images that we are bombarded with every day to try to better understand what kind of messages they are sending us and how they influence the way we perceive the word. A huge portion of these images come from advertising. Does it necessarily mean all advertising is bad, or that an ad is unsuccessful as an ad because it has been deconstructed? No. Does that mean we shouldn't deconstruct ads? No.

Talk about dispensing guilt? these ads.

Megan, glad to know that you guys read our coments. You guys have good posts, but also things I disagree with. I don't mean to be rude or anything with my coments, even though sometimes I may get a little excited. I just mean to discuss the posts.

@Fernando:

You said: "If I say I like the color white, doesn’t mean I hate the color black."

No, but you must realize, if, for example, you are in charge of putting together ads, and you choose white over and over and over again, and don't ever choose black, whether you hate black or not, you are sending the message that you don't like black and black doesn't belong. Since this is an unchangeable aspect of a person, they will feel excluded pretty soon. Is this right or wrong? Probably it depends on a case by case basis, but it's hard to think this is a coincidence.

You also said: "The world is unfair, eliminating products/advertisement that reflects that won’t make anything better." Quite agree. I don't see any comments that suggested banning this ad or shutting down the company. The fact that their ultra-rich clients are pretty much all the same race and gender is an extremely complex socio-politico-economic issue. But it is well within the rights of this blog and their commenters to point out the messages that the ad is sending.

I usually read all the comments to the posts that interest me. Even if I disagree with the post or the comments, it's interesting to get different perspectives.

I'm just another commenter, not a contributor to the blog. I just felt I should stick up for the blog because I think it is fantastic.

You're right Will, I regret that coment about stoping ads. On the other issue, it is true that advertisement excludes "minorities" oftenly, though in some cases it is either impossible for them to portray everything or, due to the fact that their target audience is of a specifc ethinic group, it won't make sense for them to display something else.

I will say one more thing, and then I think that's enough from me for one post :-). I have noticed (and it has been remarked upon on this blog) that ads that are meant to show "diversity" often seem to have a bland sameness about them, as if they were going "one white guy, check, one black guy, check, one Asian woman, check... (repeat until you run out of space in the photo)" I can't say I prefer that approach or don't see through it just as easily.

Until the underlying issues of equality are resolved, I guess it'll always be one way or the other.

The other interesting element that caught my eye was the very passive parenting role the fathers are expected to play. Being a good father has been reduced to simply being there. They are not expected to teach their kids to swim or play baseball, or even prepare the meal the family sits down to.

I know this post is pretty old and there's a good chance no one will read this comment, but did anyone notice that in the second ad, the other adult in the background appears to also be male, implying they are a married homosexual couple?

It's not overt enough that everyone would notice it right away, but if you're a gay man it might be a more familiar image, and therefore more recognizable?