I don't think it has to do with control of desire but with healthy eating habits. Good girls think twice before eating greasy food.

I think this analysis is projecting morality onto this ad. I'm not saying that there's nothing problematic here, but the words "good " and "bad" are not used, nor are the words "sinful" or "indulgent".

It's definitely associating food with sexuality and presentation, but I'm not convinced by this analysis. What, exactly, about these womens' presentation suggests this moral dichotomy?

The model(s) they used are actually kind of confusing. Is the first one a scientist? She reads scientist to me (pencil, glasses, white lab coatish shirt), but I don't see what that has to do with whatever is being made or broken (a diet?).

The second woman, I guess, is a partier? Or goes to clubs? And so she eats hamburgers and flautas?

I have no idea where they were trying to go with this. It has a definite in-house feel and doesn't seem very polished. :\

They used the same picture of the "bad" girl for an ad for cigarettes, with some wording about "for play," and the "good" girl for an ad for snus, the glorified spit-free chewing tobacoo, stating that it can be used "for work."

I think that it's still early enough in the year for "make it or break it", to apply to new year's resolutions; so the good girl/bad girl dichotomy is related to keeping the promises made to oneself...although it is interesting how its automatically assumed that women's new year's resolutions will revolve around loosing weight.

I also have photos of the pump toppers in this campaign:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sylvar/4330261462/ [make it or break it]
"Gee, it sure is sexy to stand in the middle of A1A on South Beach!"
"GET OUT OF THE ROAD GIANT SULTRY WOMAN I NEED TO CRUISE IN MY RENTED CONVERTIBLE"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sylvar/4330261466/ [snuff]
Apparently only "nice" women get oral cancer, and only "naughty" women get lung cancer. But if you pay attention to the rhetoric about why only sexually active teens should get vaccinated against HPV, only "nice" women get breast cancer and cervical cancer, so there you have it.

Also, the girl who is "making it" seems to be the cut and paste stock image of the "smart girl" who oh so helpfully (and not so subtly) points consumers in the direction of the smart choice. She is inevitably young and white, wholesomely attractive, dressed like she holds down a smart white collar job, hair pinned up, head tipped at winsome angle, with a thoughtful yet still smiling expression*, flirtatiously tapping a pencil against her chin, "prop" glasses pushed down to reveal her face.

This stock smart woman image seems to be used to sell us everything from insurance (this time posing with a clipboard) to tooth whitening kits (this time demure smile stretched widely).

(*Is she pleased with what she's just worked out?)

Like others above, I don't quite agree with Lisa's analysis of the ad. Rather than the good girl/bad girl dichotomy, I think the photos are using the equally prevalent Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian .

The "Apollo" hot-chick is sensible and self-controlled, and her food choices are presented as color-balanced, artful (well, it's all relative), and orderly. The "Dionysus" hot-chick is the hedonist, so her choices are presented in a chaotic array of artless brown objects that are laughably uncoordinated (I mean, really - a hot dog next to a cookie! burgers and cake!).

For advertising students or photographers, this presentation is likely to be one of your first assignments. Large companies love using Apollo-Dionysus ads to synergistically upsell both the expensive, upmarket product (sensible, high-quality) and the cheap mass-market impulse buy. It actually works the same way without the model, who I suspect is chosen more to catch the attention of hetero men than women. So I don't think we're dealing with a morality metaphor in the vein of all the chocolate ads that emphasize "sin" and "temptation."

Of course, your own values system might favor the Apollonian over the Dionysian - or vice versa - for cultural reasons. But even the dumbest admakers know that your own choices are informed by both aspects, and they can hedge their bets by appealing to each.

Now, whether the Dionysian model would have that body if she actually ate those foods regularly is a whole other debate!

It's the same woman, by the way. Using the same woman for both photos emphasizes the dichotomy, which supports Ofelia's suggestion that the ads are referring to New Year's resolution. I think the ads are offering a choice - "and RaceTrac can meet your needs either way!"

However, it does position restraint versus indulgence, and I do think there are specific moral undertones (or even overtones) in that. And in the real world, it's an artificial divide - I know lots of people who are smart at work and like to party at night. And even more people who eat both salads and taquitos!

As I mentioned when I emailed this in, what jumped out at me immediately was the thought "There is no way I can envision this ad campaign using a male model."

In my professional opinion as a Graphic Artist, only a weak advertisement design uses stereotypes as a crutch.

It is fascinating the that "break it" bad-girl is presented as sexier, since diets are often sold or presented as a way to get sexier. Hmm . . .

"It’s not sinful to have a cookie, for goodness sake, or to eat at Taco Bell now and again. "

Isn't this just more of the same moralizing? It's okay to eat these things as long as I don't eat too many or go to Taco Bell every day? I just find it fascinating that food choices have become so moralized in contemporary American society.

yeah racetrac is my favorite convenience store, so ive seen this ad a lot lately. it gets on my nerves, but really all of their advertisements do.

What crossed my mind upon seeing this was how artificial and clinical the "healthy" food looks to me. My intuition would tell me I probably wouldn't like it. And I am all for fruits and vegetables. AND cookies.

I directed this photo shoot so I can tell you the whole story. We used one model in two looks. The goal was to create excitement and the unexpected at a c-store because people don't expect FRESH FOOD at a c-store. I'd say that it worked based on the buzz I'm seeing. Regarding the food, we definitely want to sell both the fresh (on the left) and what we see as "typical" c-store fare (on the right). So, there was no intention to make her seem "bad". We all have sides of our personality that others may not be aware of. We all occasionally want to indulge. We all occasionally want to "cut-loose". Going out on the town does not imply that she is "bad" or inclined to bad behavior. If we are disciplined in our diets we may be more inclined to eat the fruit or salad instead of the candy bar. The campaign is simply relating to all of our personalities. We want to be healthy but, sometimes we just want a snickers bar.

Maybe if the campaign had more of a clear "many sides to one person" aspect you were going for? Because when I saw it, I though Madonna/Whore (which is the good/bad girl dichotomy to to a more severe degree).

I clicked through to the NPR thingo as was blackly amused to be irritatingly distracted by an animated Weight Watchers ad, "Sign up for free [to their online program?] when you buy our three month plan"! Because no matter who you are, you want to lose weight...

sexy

I didn't really notice the women or the words, just the food. Everything looks delicious except that hotdog :/ lol