product: alcohol

Anna sent in a link to Courage beer’s “take courage” ad campaign, in which men are shown in various situations where they are told to”take courage” in the face of a proctology exam, ugly sweater, and the following:

Both Anna and I are a little confused by this one. What’s he supposed to be needing courage for, exactly? Is it that his girlfriend is asking if her butt looks big? Or that she thinks she looks good and he’ll have to be seen with her dressed like that? When I first glanced at it I thought it was her thinking she looked good and him being grossed out, but when I looked closer, I think it’s the “does my butt look big?” scenario. Is he supposed to take courage and lie, or take courage and tell the truth?

Notice how the ad uses a not-super-skinny woman in it, but ridicules how she looks. Clearly the answer to “does my butt look big in this?” is supposed to be “yes,” and we’re supposed to find her laughable in that outfit. What I’m not quite sure about is whether she’s being presented as inherently laughable, or as a woman who is attractive and it’s only the dress that makes her unappealing. Thoughts?

Anna was also interested in how the ad portrays relationships between men and women. For some reason it reminds me a little of the last video in this post of Errol Morris Miller beer commercials, in which men clearly find women trivial and annoying.

UPDATE: In a comment, Christian suggests, “It’s about him drinking her beautiful. Get a Courage and you get over it (the butt) or her attitude “does my butt look big?”.”

And Trevira adds,

I think this ad directly refers to the ‘insecure woman’ character played by Arabella Weir in the popular UK tv sketch show ‘The Fast Show.’  The character’s catchphrase was ‘does my bum look big in this?’ (Weir even ended up writing a novel with the same title!).

So there may be a cultural reference here that escapes us non-Brits.

Burk sent in several Miller beer ads, all directed by Errol Morris, which contain some interesting messages about modern masculinity. Specifically, real men drink beer and don’t worry about stupid things like their diet or health:

This one connects drinking Miller to pro-American patriotism and the value of manpower (and it really means MANpower):

Real men know how to back up Suburbans pulling boats:

Clearly, we’ve lost an important element of manhood when men can no longer do this. Of course, driving a Suburban pulling a boat seems to contradict the whole patriotic non-use of gas element of manhood, but let’s not get into details.

And finally, real men have to restrain themselves while they listen to women:

It’s such a pain to have to interact with gals!

You can find even more here.

UPDATE: In a comment, Chuk says,

In these ads, with the exception of the cyclist, none of the men’s faces are ever fully shown. What if this was a series of adds with images of women? How would the regular poster and commentators normally react to this kind of framing? What would it mean in that context? Does that analysis apply to this context?

I think that’s a good question. One criticism people often make of ads is the way women’s faces are often obscured; this is pointed out as a way of objectifying them, turning them into bodies rather than full people with faces, voices, etc. I certainly think it’s possible to objectify men as well, although it’s also possible to show part of a body because the viewer is supposed to take on the viewpoint of the person in the ad, in which case you can’t, obviously, see the face or head, since you’re supposed to be the face/head. I found the bacon and butter burger ads creepy overall, as well as another one of the Morris ads where a (generally faceless) grandma is cooking for a bunch of men whose faces we never see.

Thanks for the comment, chuk!

Nate Silver, over at FiveThirtyEight.com, points out that whereas sales of beer have generally been relatively unaffected by economic conditions, the current financial situation led to a rather dramatic decrease in beer sales in late 2008:

I don’t have any sociological point here. I just think it’s interesting, and since I thought so, I thought I’d make you look at it too. Nate Silver (who I have a bit of a geek crush on) hazards a few theories (in particular, perhaps people are substituting cheaper beers for more expensive ones, meaning they’re drinking as much or more, but spending less); it’s worth checking his post out.

As I said, absolutely no point to this post other than “Huh. Look at that.”

Text:

Wine doesn’t just come with cheese.  For women it’s also accompanied by hair loss, wrinkles, and obesity, plus the other problems like breast cancer, early menopause and memory loss.

This ad rests on women’s fear of looking like men (whatever that means)

(1) Interestingly, none of the side-effects of alcoholism listed seem, to me, to be masculinizing.  I can only imagine that the creators of this ad thought that straying from the norms of youthful femininity makes a woman seem masculine, thereby conflating aging with masculinization in women.

(2)  Also, notice the excessive make-up.  The ad is relying on the viewer being disgusted at the idea of a masculine face covered in make-up.  That is part of what is supposed to create a negative reaction.  But make-up and masculinity are not intrinsically or naturally at odds.  We only believe this to be so.

(By the way, the fact that most men do not wear make-up, I think, is a beautiful example of the triumph of gender ideology over capitalism.  For example.  But see here.)

(3) Finally, what’s “drink like a man” all about?  I guess men can have all the wine and cheese that they want without getting wrinkles because, gosh darn it, it’s just how men drink!   Maybe they even get more masculine!  (Hmmmm… as someone who loves her liquor, suddenly I do have penis envy.)

Thanks to Julie C. for the link!

NEW! This vintage ad (found here) uses the same logic:

My student, Jacob G., just returned from a semester abroad in Australia. He reports that Foster’s beer is nearly nowhere to be found in Australia and, when it is, it is not considered centrally Australian, but instead, cheap and nasty. This is in dramatic contrast to Foster’s beer commercials. For example:

So, Foster’s beer is being marketing to the U.S. with the notion that it is essentially Australian. Australian-ness, if you watch many Foster’s beer commercials, includes hypermasculinity. This is troubling for Australians–many of whom, I suspect, are not particularly hypermasculine–but it also interesting in that it illustrates how a product can be marketed by branding it with a nation.

I am curious as to what you, Readers, think of the recent rash of advertising capitalizing on Obama’s “brand.” Here are some examples (found here, here, here, and here).

Budweiser American Ale:

A language school in Israel:

Ikea:

In other posts we’ve suggested that ads that appropriate feminism trivialize gender inequality and ultimatly undermine feminist efforts to attain social justice for women (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).  Like many of the “feminist” ads, these ads seem to be genuinely celebrating Obama’s election.  Do they?  Or do they trivialize everything he claim to stand for and the difficult road ahead for both him and the country? Something in between? Something else entirely?

What do you think?

NEW: Breck C. pointed out the Obama Chia Pet:

Amid a controversy that the Obama Chia pet was racist, Walgreens pulled the product.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

Christoph B. sent in these Goldstar Beer ads, found at BuzzFeed, that show the differences between men and women:

I know that I, for one, immediately start thinking about marriage every time I meet a guy. My new male neighbor waved at me the other day, and I ran out and bought a wedding dress, just in case.

The other thing here is the assumption that a) the viewer is definitely a man and b) of the two options, the “man’s” life is always preferable. I suppose in the second two ads that might be reasonable–although I never experience all that many problems using public restrooms, but whatever–but why is it automatically better to have sex with no emotional attachments or expectations of ever interacting again? I doubt that all men enjoy such encounters, any more than all women are thinking of marriage every time they have sex with someone.

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.

Via Adverbox.