media: marketing

Parents, feminists, and cultural critics often express dismay at Barbie, Bratz, and similar fashion-type dolls for girls that are often sexualized and have extremely unrealistic body proportions, leading many to argue that they provide bad models for children and may promote negative body image among girls.

As a result, every so often “anti-Barbie”-type dolls come out. They often have more realistic body proportions and aim to provide a wider range of images of women and girls in terms of activities, dress, and/or careers. One example of this was the Get Real Girl line that came out around 2001 in the U.S. (images found here):

Here’s a description from this website:

While other dolls teeter on feet formed for high-heels, Get Real Girls stand on their own two feet, have posable, fully-articulated bodies and display physical tone and definition for full-action play. The Girls’ faces have soft natural features and are dressed in authentic sports clothing.

And yet, as with so many of these types of dolls, as far as I can tell, these were short-lived. The website is basically defunct–you can go to it, but there are no working links to the supposedly interactive features. I couldn’t find any websites currently selling the dolls.

This brings up some interesting issues, particularly the fact that what parents want their kids to want and what kids actually want often do not coincide. As I’ve discussed before, kids often have their own ideas about toys and how to play with them and may reject the non-traditional toys their parents think they ought to be crazy about. They may shy away from these toys because they aren’t like the ones their friends are playing with or that they see on TV. Or they may come up against one major problem with creating new types of dolls for girls: if they have more realistic body proportions, they don’t fit into the wide array of clothing and shoes designed for dolls with Barbie’s proportions. There’s an inertia in the toy industry because of this–new, differently-shaped dolls don’t fit the clothes and accessories kids may already own and the range of outfits available to put on them is limited because the market for them is so new and small. However, this problem can apparently be overcome, since according to this website Barbie is bigger than the Bratz dolls and so can’t really wear clothing designed for them (the site also helpfully warns against over-brushing Bratz dolls’ hair), and yet they became wildly popular (to the dismay of many parents).

I just thought these might be interesting for a discussion of the toy industry generally, efforts to provide alternatives to Barbie-type dolls, and the difficulties of doing so due to the fact that kids just might not like them.

Exactly in line with Gwen’s last post on symbolizing an eco-friendly identity, Dorothee H. sent us a link to a commerical linking leftist politics to the smart car.  I think Gwen’s comments say it all and Dorothee’s submission illustrates it beautifully:

See also this commercial that uses pro-communist sentiment to market a car.

This is the fourth installment in a series on why and how people of color are included in advertising aimed primarily at white people.  In the first installment, I argued that people of color are included in such advertising in order to associate the product with a racial stereotype (i.e., hipness, intelligence).  In the second, I showed how people of color can be used to give a product “color” or “flavor.”  And, in the third, I argued that people of color are used to invoke ideas of “hipness,” “modernity,” “progressive” politics and other related ideas.  In this post, I suggest that people of color are used to trigger the idea of human variation itself.

In this first ad the idea that each body is different is illustrated by including women of different fitness levels, ages, and races.

In this ad, Levi’s uses a woman who appears Latina to sell their jeans, which come in various fits because there is “a style for every story.”  The idea is that people are different; not everyone wants the same cut of jeans.

In this Toyota ad, the copy says “For every expression, there’s a Toyota.”  People are unique and so, apparently, are Toyotas.  Race is used to communicate the notion of human diversity.

This is an ad for Playtex bras with half sizes.  The implication is that people’s bodies are more variable than the A, B, C etc sizes suggest, so half sizes accomodate that variety.  I think this ad is particularly interesting because the model is racially ambiguous.  Maybe she’s half Asian, Latina, or white, and she’s being used to sell a product that now comes in half sizes.

NEW:

Next up: Including people of color so as to suggest that the company is concerned with racial equality.

See the other posts in the series:
(1) Including people of color so as to associate the product with the racial stereotype. 
(2) Including people of color to invoke (literally) the idea of “color” or “flavor.”
(3) Triggering ideas like “hipness,” “modernity,” and “progress.”

Remember when FOX News first got all entertain-y and we were all horrified by how unprofessional it was and then, next thing we knew, even CNN was all entertain-y and it was the beginning of the end?

Well, apparently, like all news went the way of FOX, all men’s hygiene product companies are going the way of Axe. Consider this Edge commercial (and compare it to the first Axe commercial in this post):

Also, those cans are mighty phallic.

We’ve been so busy with PETA, we’ve forgotten about American Apparel.  What does one have to do with the other?  They both sacrifice one social justice issue in pursuit of another.  I find this leftist balkanization–where lefty groups choose one and only one social justice issue and ignore the rest, or even exacerbate them–fascinating.  It leads to, if you will allow me to mix metaphors, a leftist cannibalization.  We are eating ourselves. 

So anyway, American Apparel is American Apparel because they are supposed to care about fair wages.  You know, made in America according to fair labor laws.  Anti-sweatship and all that good stuff.  What a lovely thing.  Except… their ads (stolen from Copyranter).  They make me want to wash my eyes out with soap. 

Um… not safe for work.

more...

I found these Ray Ban ads at Copyranter,

I also found this cassette tape belt buckle (here), cassette tape bag (here), and boom box pendant (here).

These remind me of this T-shirt with pictures of safety pins on it.  When you’re so old school that you, um, buy a t-shirt with… well I guess you’re just buying a t-shirt.

Hmmm… which Midol ad will you hate/love the most?

This one is from the 1960s (found here via Pam’s House Blend):

This one is from the 1990s (found at Feministing):

This is a brand new ad campaign from Midol (found at MultiCultClassics).  The text says “Reverse the Curse!”  The curse, of course, being women’s punishment for original sin. 

Susanne T. sent in this photo she took at a gym in Bremen, Germany, of two ads for “Multipower Sportsfood,” a sports supplement of some sort:

Susanne writes:

It’s the same product for women and men, but the ad for women says what roughly translates to: ‘This way you look great.’ ‘Eine gute Figur machen’ in German means literally ‘making a good figure’. The ad for men says ‘Strong/powerful tips for your workout.’ Krafttraining means specifically working with weights. And then, of course, the woman looks sexy and flirty and the guy is made to look powerful and in charge. So the same product is supposed to make women look sexy but make men be strong.

Thanks, Suse!