Friday, April 7, 2017
Week Eleven: Response 11.4
Advertisers are anxious to appeal to
Millennials, who are increasingly criticizing sexism and racism via social
media. Analyze either the Carl’s Jr. or Pepsi ad campaigns designed to court consumers by aligning brands with anti-sexism or anti-racism
messages. What is problematic about relying on giant corporations to promote social movements?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The biggest thing to keep in mind about companies is that they ultimately only care about themselves and their profits. This rings especially true come the popularization of feminism in recent years, where in order to keep up with the times, advertisements have been trying to re-brand themselves as feminist and socially aware. Problems arise though, when people maybe read too much into marketing strategies and attempt to hold it up to some sort of feminist standard, where if a company produces an advertisement that is socially aware, then it must be “feminist friendly.” It’s a tricky slope because advertisements only run for so long and much of it only scratches the generic issues of societal problems (e.g. sexism or racism) in the form of “oh, so and so is bad” without getting into the messy bits and making a bold statement to turn off their wide consumer base. Such as an example regarding Dove’s feminist marketing as mentioned by Andi Zeisler in “We Were Feminists Once.” Dove has formerly released several pro-women oriented advertisements (including but not limited to one about the effects of photo editing and beauty standards regarding women) in order to, bottom line, sell their products. I suppose while these videos might seem like an inspiring method, it’s important to make note Dove is owned by the company Unilever, which also owns Axe: products for men often featuring hyper-masculine commercials involving the objectification of women. This two faced nature can also be seen in the Carl’s Jr advertisement linked above, which tries to rebrand the company image as more traditional and family friendly after the extremely sexist and arguably even borderline erotic (just what are you trying to sell, burgers or bodies?) content from their contemporary history. Throughout the advertisement you have the Carl Hardee Sr. constantly shutting down his misogynistic son, giving the message, “Oh sexism is bad. Also we sell burgers I guess.” It’s not like Hardee’s has had problem creating sexist “traditional” ads in past either (see: 1940’s Women don’t leave the Kitchen advertisement), so to all of a sudden release an anti-sexism based ad reads more as a safe PR move than actually giving a damn about women’s rights.
ReplyDeleteIsis H
In my opinion, I feel as though aligning with giant corporations to promote social movements creates a double bind. A double bind occurs when we are in a situation where we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, we have these big corporations that have an enormous customer base, some of which might not know the struggles we face whether it is sexism or racism. Having a corporation as big as Carl’s Jr. or Pepsi promote our cause and make it go global seems like the ideal situation. The problem with that theory occurs when we think about the hidden agenda these big corporation have in supporting our cause. In doing these campaigns, they get the constituents of the group whose cause they are promoting as potential new customers, who will go in to buy their product just because of the message they had in the ad about supporting whatever minority group they partnered with. Moreover, these big corporations, no matter how kind hearted we might think they are, ultimately want to sell their product. They make sure at the center of their ad, no matter which cause they’re supporting, their product is visible and the end goal. This takes away from the cause these minority groups were trying to convey because the audience will be turned off as soon as they realize that the goal of the ad was to sell whatever product they’re selling, whether it is a burger or a soda. On the other hand, there is no better exposure for a group struggling for equality than to get together with one of these world famous brands to ensure that the message reaches the biggest audience of which it is capable. If we choose to not team up with these big corporations, the struggle is going to take us a long time to spread awareness let alone work collectively towards a solution.
ReplyDeleteShewakenka K.
ReplyDeleteRecently Pepsi came out with a commercial starting Kylie Jenner leaving her modeling job to go join the protest that was occurring. Although the commercial was aiming towards creating peace during the protest, it failed miserably by displaying to the audience that giving a Pepsi drink to a police officer will end the protest and creates unity. What was problematic about the giant corporation of Pepsi attempting to promote the social movement is that a lot of the time they do not get it right. The protests that have been occurring are sensitive issues to the people who are fighting for what they believe in. Pepsi attempted to join the movement by re-creating a moment from a famous photo of Ieshia Evans getting arrested during a Black Lives Matter protest. Pepsi claimed the purpose of the commercial was to bring people together, but instead started negative conversations on how big corporations should not be advertising what they are not physically being a part of. What becomes problematic about relying on giant corporations promoting social movements is their sole purpose is to make money off the cause that is occurring. Big corporations are a marketing scam to make the consumers believe they are doing their part to make a change on the issues that are occurring. Since the recent election, there has been an increase of protest and people boycotting certain products and services because of who the companies support. While companies claim they support someone or some type of cause a large portion of the time they are really being hypocrites because they are selling products that go against what they are representing. For example, the Dove campaign supports self-love for women and healthy bodies, but yet they are still profiting by selling self-tanners and cellulite remover creams that are targeted towards changing the appearance of a women’s body. Giant corporations are not advocating for social change just because it is the right thing to do, but rather they are doing it because it is “trending” and they know if they advocate for what people are fighting for, people are more likely to buy their products.
-Joselyn G
The problem with advertisers is that they are not actually in line with what millennials want out of major corporations. There is an age divide between head advertisers being 40+ year old and trying to market to 20-year-olds, while trying to keep their brand integrity intact. The majority of millennials are not impressed with giant corporations. This is due to millennials caring more about the individual within the company rather than a company as a unity. Major corporations use the trickle-down economics method by higher ranked employees using their platform and ideas in hopes that they trickle down to mainstream society in hopes that the mainstream society will grasp the idea. Unfavorably for major corporation’s millennials have social media which can shape the way in which consumers view products, and how they influence society. If a millennial finds a way in which a company doesn’t serve a positive service to society than they will target such company to highlight their flaws in hopes that they will change. Regarding the Carl’s Jr. advertisement Carl Hardee Sr., underlying message was “pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can have the same advantages I did.” As well it highlights the ideas that millennials are incompetent in managing higher positions in society because they are wasteful. This advertisement plays a lot in to the preconceived stereotypes that millennials are ungrateful, untrustworthy, and lazy. Carl Hardee talks about how he invented the charbroiled hamburger, while his son is played out to be some low life that has been unable to accomplish anything. Lastly, we see the only other young people in the ad at the lowest level job possible, they are all in cubicles and look to be unhappy with their jobs, while those at the top profit off the intense labor they provided to Fortune 501 companies. It highlights how there is a huge divide in the way in which executives and advertisers operate while they profit off the work that millennials provide for them.
ReplyDeleteAshley L.
Pepsi released an advertisement that shows some sort of political protest happening in the street. There are many people from different ethnicities, genders, religions and sexual orientations protesting in unison. During the protest, Kendall Jenner is doing a photoshoot and witnesses the protesters walk by her. She suddenly becomes inspired and rips the blonde wig from her head and runs to join the protest. When she reaches the police barricade she simply hands a police officer a can of Pepsi and the crowd erupts in applause and the police smile, making it seem like the can of Pepsi solved the issue. The advertisement itself is problematic because it trivializes prior protests and current protests. The protests in the commercial seems more like a block party with people dancing and music playing. Also, when Kendall hands the officer a can of Pepsi and everyone applauds it makes it seems as if the problems people protest about can be solved that easily. Relying on giant corporations to promote social movements is problematic because their interests in the social movement are usually driven by money rather than solving the issue at hand. Protests are very prevalent right now and Pepsi used this advertisement to capitalize on that. Instead of donating to a social movement like, Black Lives Matter they chose to mimic the movement to advertise their product. Pepsi wants consumers to believe that they support social movements, so they should buy their product. What Pepsi doesn’t do is pick a side of the movement, or even name a movement at all. The commercial is very general, there isn’t a specific reason these people are even protesting. Since Pepsi is a multimillion-dollar company it doesn’t want to pick a specific movement or side that could offend some viewers, which would make them lose money.
ReplyDeleteLauren W.
There has been a large controversy pertaining to Kendall Jenner and the recently released Pepsi advertisement which clearly capitalizes on the social movement. Pepsi made Kendall Jenner the face of the advertisement which features borrowed imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement. “Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday. “We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are pulling the content and halting any further rollout.” The ad showcases attractive young people holding signs with non specific messages pertaining to a social movement while protesting.Then comes the point were super model Kendall Jenner decides she will stop her glamour photoshoot and join the protest. “In the ad’s climactic scene, a police officer accepts a can of Pepsi from Kendall Jenner, a white woman, setting off raucous approval from the protesters and an appreciative grin from the officer.” This is in stark contrast to what actually happens to protesters of police brutality. The fact that pepsi chose a white women as their spokesperson for this ad makes it all the more controversial. In this example it is obvious and hard to deny that Pepsi, a large corporation, is trying to capitalize on a social movement and failing miserably. Pepsi wanted to align themselves with the movement in order to appeal to millennials, but the problem with this is that the values of the Pepsi corporation do not align with social movements. They are not sincere in their advertisements and have done nothing in reality to aid in the Black Lives Matter movement however they feel it is okay to capitalize on the movement's ideals. Corporations first order of business will always be to further themselves not to further the movement.
ReplyDeleteElexus T.
Advertisements have constantly told their audiences how they want them to think, feel, and act, solely for their own profit. However, as society evolved into an individualistic mindset, their audiences began to tune out the repetitive messages about what they needed to do according to these advertisements and critiqued them via social media. As a response to this, corporations began airing ads that promoted “empowering” messages and themes in order to gain their audience’s favor again. Ways in which they did this was by promoting important social movement messages with very watered down ways to make a change or help the cause. An example of this can be seen in the Pepsi advertisement promoting an anti-racism message and displaying a can of their soda as the answer to the issue. What is specifically problematic about this advertisement is the fact that both Pepsi and Kendall Jenner, which was the face of the advertisement, have done nothing to spread genuine awareness or have provided aid towards the fight against racism. The advertisement clearly displays a reenactment of how brave individuals resist police force in the widely known social movement of Black Lives Matter protests, which was also show displayed as calm, and understanding which usually is not the case.
ReplyDeleteBig corporations also choose individuals who reinforce dominant beauty, body, and lifestyle ideals as the face of their advertisements. Pepsi chose a white model that has no significance towards the movement as the individual with the tool, a can of Pepsi, to stop police force against minorities. When big corporations attempt to use social issues and movements as a way to gain more attention, the message becomes appropriated and looses its significance in the eyes of society. Since a lot of the media’s audience does not experience or receive a variety of information this Pepsi add could’ve influenced put a lot of population under the impression that Kendall Jenner and a can of Pepsi is the answer to police force. Even though these corporations are promoting these issues, it is still very much appropriated and only used for profit.
Clarisa G.
For the past ten years, modesty has not been at the forefront of Carl’s Jr marketing campaigns. From Paris Hilton to Katie Upton to Kim Kardashian, Carl’s Jr commercials have been notorious for featuring blondes, bikinis and burgers (oh my). At the same time, throughout their restaurants, posters of female models eating burgers and women laughing alone with salad have plastered the restaurants décor. The advertising campaign for Carl’s Jr has been so over the top with the notion that sex sells, that the fast food chains has almost become synonyms with their commercials of Paris Hilton in a bikini covered in soap suds washing a car that the burger she teases almost becomes an afterthought. Ironic, considering it is a burger joint. However, in recent years, a politically heated climate and a more conscience than ever society have (thankfully) ushered in a new wave of young people fighting for justice and equality amongst identities and minorities across the board. Not only are coming-of-age millennials becoming more prone to equality, the new social media outlet technology has provided has made their voice louder and stronger than ever. Suddenly, Kim Kardashian draped across a bed salaciously eating a salad with her fingers is no longer a tongue in cheek farce, but rather an offensive exploit of a women being used to exacerbate the male gaze. And the Facebook posts and Twitter hashtags are going to let you know it.
ReplyDeleteAs imaged, marketing teams are fighting to keep up with the latest trends as the fight to make every dollar they possibly can. Commercial corporations like Carl’s Jr have no interest in making a political statement, fighting for what is right or being politically correct, they are only interested in one thing- your money. This is why companies trying to fall in line with the current social movements is so problematic. In Carl’s Jr commercial for their re-branding there are several problems to explore. The first, and perhaps most obvious, the female models in bikinis (the very thing they are trying to distance their image from) are everywhere in the commercial. The ad talks about removing the sexually charged ads but yet these images are still flooded thought out almost the entire commercial. It almost make you question just how sincere they are about removing this type of imagery. Secondly, the ad uses a fictional young male character as the scapegoat as to why the ads happened. The company itself does not take responsibility for its ill-fated campaign of the past. Instead, it marginalizes straight young males as sex-crazy scumbags who are the reason why ads like that existed. When in reality the actual culprits of these past ads are the marketing executive who were exploiting women and the executives who approved it and kept the campaign running for years. The company fails to take ownership for its past mistakes nor do they ever actually apologize.
Linking a brand like Carl’s Jr to social movements is dangerous because suddenly the movement is no longer taking a stand, it’s trying to sell a product. Corporations worry about their bottom line and appeasing their stock holders, they do not worry about social movements and equality. Eating a burger should not equate to marching for equal pay because those action do not benefit the movement, they benefit the pockets of the company. Market Place Feminism may appear like a step in the right direction on the surface level, but each trending hashtag and retweet puts power in the wrong hands. One too many reposts, and soon the company can have so much persuasion over the moment they can lead the charge down the wrong road.
Steven G.
As time progresses, companies must adapt to find ways to garner attention to their product or service. A form of marketing that is popular to use among companies are video advertisements. Different groups are targeted and obviously, each group has elements that they may or may not want to see in these elements. Some companies have approached this in the correct way, while others have misinterpreted these elements angering many, most notably the Millennials, who have consistently used social media to express their displeasure.
ReplyDeleteRecently, Pepsi served as a strong example of this strong disapproval from Millennials in their advertisement that starred Kendall Jenner participating in a protest led by Millennials of different ages, genders, and races. This advertisement was a poor and distasteful attempt at spreading a message of unity because all the prior protests that have taken place in real life now seem trivialized to a can of Pepsi. As Kendall is modeling, she notices a protest that is fighting for the unification of all people, and is urged to join in. She takes off her wig and agrees to do so. The protest eventually comes to a stop due to a police barricade and the solution to fix this issue was simply by offering one officer a can of Pepsi.
There are many incorrect choices that Pepsi decided on when creating this advertisement. One of the strongest mistakes was how they decided to portray protests. The advertisement makes it seem as if protests can be an extremely enjoyable process when in reality, many have endured physical pain to fight for what they believe in. Although the advertisement does not state a specific movement they are fighting for, they replicated a powerful moment created by Ieshia Evans who stood strong against police officers dressed in riot gear. Not only was it an inaccurate portrayal, but it makes it seem as if Pepsi does not understand the true weight that the Black Lives Matter movement has, the protest that Ieshia took part in.
As one can tell from this marketing ploy, Pepsi took the chance to try and emotionally appeal to Millennials, but did not truly care about their beliefs; the company placed money and branding as their main priorities by highlighting conventionally attractive individuals, exploiting Kendall Jenner’s popularity, and having their product be the sole solution to a serious topic. Although everyone involved in the advertisement possibly had good intentions, this whole situation Pepsi created shows how difficult it is for big corporations to promote social movements. These corporations have profit as their main goal and in order to maximize their gains, they, whether it be intentional or not, feel the need to focus on aesthetics instead of a strong and compelling message. As a result, messages often come across as the product or service being more important than the actual social movement.
Dean V.
While I applaud the fact that Carl’s Jr. now sees fit to turn from the overt sexual objectification of women as a means to promote fast food, there is a problem with this public relations realignment of consciousness. First and foremost, this company has spent years focused on the scantily clad female form to sell burgers. This damage is not undone simply because the political climate within the millennial generation demands a more socially liberated advertising campaign. This is an example of Carl’s Jr. simply following the money. This change of heart does nothing to address the systemic issues of sexism. It seeks to profit on the ideals of sexual equity but it does nothing beyond presenting a good show. Commodifying feminist principles is nothing new, however, it seems awkward coming as a complete 360 degree turn from the all out objectification of women in previous ad campaigns.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I’m sure there are many examples of sex bias in the corporate headquarters of the fast food restaurant chain, as well as, in local stores across the country. If a company is serious about taking a stance against sexism, they might want to be above reproach. When they bring their progressive messages to the American consumer, they should have the integrity of action behind their statements. This is simply another example of brand activism and marketplace feminism.
The Carl’s Jr. ad features a father returning to wrest control of Carl’s Jr. from the hands of his womanizing, vapid son, who we are to believe is responsible for the offensive sexist commercials the company has produced over the last decade or so. This is an interesting tactic for a commercial looking to court a more socially aware millennial demographic. This ad does something completely counterintuitive to gaining millennial consumers; it places the blame on them! The father must return and save the company from ruin because his son would rather look at boobs and play with virtual reality goggles in a hot tub. This is a troubling generalization about a generation that is supposed to be forward thinking and critical of sexism on social media. It seems like an awkward way to reach this demographic.
There is little thought, in my opinion to this ad. These ads are designed to give the consumer a warm fuzzy feeling when they consider spending their money at a company that purports to represent their values. The problem is that a company may say anything they like without doing much, if anything, to make an actual difference. Does Carl’s Jr. ensure equal pay for female employees? Can they claim that they are an active participant in the progressive push for gender equality? Yes. They may claim all of these things. Being an informed consumer requires us to look below the surface and examine the social issues that contribute to sexism and ask ourselves if the company praising feminism ideals has any action behind their words. Unfortunately, American consumers are often satisfied with the show a company puts on and follow the snake oil salesman into doing nothing of any value for society or feminism.
Jeremy F.
Giant corporations like Carl’s Jr. and Pepsi are motivated by the profitable incentives of mass marketing in an effort to increase the consumption of their products. Therefore, the promotion of advertisements through giant corporations will ultimately frame the narrative to make it so that they are the savior in the end. Marketing to the brand of social movements is detrimental to audiences because it allows for the misconception that through the support of these brands, they are contributing to the movement which is the farthest from the truth. To illustrate this notion, let’s first examine the most prevalent and controversial advertisement in mainstream media today. This ad centers on the “Black Lives Matter Movement” to raise consciousness about police brutality by Pepsi. Though the intentions “may” have been pure, the message that came across completely diminished the severity of the issue. Throughout the clip, audiences see attractive protestors joining together to commence the movement, the leading character being Kendall Jenner, a privileged Caucasian socialite model. One would assume that if the message that the company is trying to progress is anti-racism, they would want to feature people of color as the leading protagonists. Unfortunately, that was not the case. However, the moment that sparked the most controversy was Kendall Jenner handing a can of Pepsi to one of the oppressive officers which apparently calmed and healed the harm inflicted by the violence. To think, all we needed to fix the major issues of today was merely a caffeinated beverage. Furthermore, the smirk and shrug from the cop that received the Pepsi at the end lessens the seriousness of the issue, implying that the issue was not much of a big deal anyways. Another advertisement that glazed over crucial issues in society was the Carl’s Jr. commercial. In reference to the Carl’s Jr. Commercial its attempt at making reparations to its previous sexist messages completely missed the mark. Though they agreed to resort back to being all about their burger again, they merely shifted the blame on one individual. As mentioned in lecture, this contributes to the invisibility of individuals. To repair the image of their brand of Carl’s Jr. for the backlash they received for their objectifying, sexualizing advertisements, they attributed one person as being solely responsible. Overall, it’s disconcerting that large corporations intend to utilize vital movements to expand their marketability, motivated by incentives that do little to none to bring about awareness and change for the movement, yet generates exposure and profitability for their companies.
ReplyDeleteDorothy I.
Big corporations are very sensitive to trends and would associate themselves with the trend if doing so will bring them profits. As more and more people became outspoken about sexism and racism, those subjects became “trendy”. Pepsi’s new ad campaigns hired Kendall Jenner and young actors/actresses of diverse ethnicity, depicts a protest as if it’s easy and pleasurable thing to do, and ends the “protest” by Kendall handing Pepsi to a cop. Such depiction masks away the reasons why people protest and their struggles to get their voice heard. Having big companies to promote social movement might seem useful since the movement can be known to bigger amount of audience. However, like a fore mentioned, big corporations would like to co-opt with trends but they also doesn’t want to be associated with any image that could ruin their reputation. That being said, big companies will not show any of negative or controversial side of the social movement are not the best outlet to promote social movement and bring the actual change in the society. Big corporations will mask themselves to look “feminist friendly” when what they should be doing is to hold feminist ideals to their standards. Once the “feminism trend” is over, the companies will follow the next one, even if it is anti-feminism. The main goal for big corporations to even make “feminist” ad is to sell their products, not to promote any ideas to people. It would be ideal if multi-millionaire companies would like to associate themselves with any social movements, they at least show what they are doing to help the movement.
ReplyDeleteJudy L.
Millennials get a lot of criticism and are often given a bad reputation because many people believe that they are entitled and lazy due to the fact that they grew up in the age of the internet. What many people fail to understand is that Millennials actually represent change and are willing to call our those that are setting the society back. It is no surprise that advertisers are anxious to appeal to millennials because they are indeed ready to criticize anything that is oppressive or that promotes injustice. Because of this, ad campaigns are being designed to try and align themselves with anti-sexism or anti-racism messages. Recently there was a release of a huge Pepsi ad that featured Kendall Jenner. The context of the video included a protest that resembled that of a social justice movement. Many perceived the images to resemble those of the Black Lives Matter movement and were appalled at the message it portrayed. In the video Kendall grabs a can of Pepsi and hands it to a police officer who then drinks the soda and everyone cheers as though this moment signifies is the end of racism and police brutality. One thing that is extremely problematic about relying on giant corporations to promote social movements is that they have a goal to sell and make a profit above anything else. If profit is the main goal, chances are that the ad is going to be framed in a way that promotes the item above the overall message. Another issue is that they got a celebrity to represent a movement that she is not connected to as a White affluent woman. As much as they tried to make the social movement not look like it was representing the Black Lives Matter movement it was clearly indicated in the contexts of the ad including the police officers. Kendall Jenner was chosen for the ad because of the social capital that she has behind her. She was chosen because it was believed that her name would make Pepsi lots of money. This all goes back to the profit motive that drives corporations. However, this all backfired because millennials are on to what giant corporations are trying to do with their advertisements and they immediately called out Pepsi. It is not okay to use someone’s struggle to make a profit or to try and get someone to represent a group that they know nothing about.
ReplyDelete- Janira C.
Recently, many companies have integrated feminist messages into their advertising to appeal more towards millennials. Big corporation’s like to co-opt social movements to accumulate more profits not because they actually care about what’s going on in the world. The problem, according to Zeisler, is that these companies’ end goals don’t actually align with the goals of whatever social movement they’re piggybacking off of. Just like with the Dove commercial shown in class, Carl’s Jr. wants to align itself with the more progressive crowd to gain more market share. This goes back to neoliberalist rhetoric where anything can be monetized. Not only is Carl’s Jr. giving off the image that it actually cares about social movements, it gives the illusion of systematic change. By seeing a big company like Carl’s Jr. go back on its ways, it gives people the false impression that social change is actually occurring.
ReplyDeleteEven though it would be great if big corporations actually did care about social issues, it appears as if Carl’s Jr. is just rebranding itself to raise its sales. The whole point of the commercial is so the company can distance itself from its past advertisements featuring over-sexualized women. From Hardee Sr. being appalled by the painting of the women with burgers for breasts to the abundant amount of people of color, the whole commercial reeks of millennial-baiting. Even Sr. saying that he “passed it to the boy” is a way of downplaying their history of offensive content and to make people believe that it’s all in the past and won’t happen again. Carl’s Jr doesn’t actually care if women are or aren’t being sexualized, they only care about whether people are buying their food or not. It certainly didn’t care about equal rights when the civil rights movement was going on, and it certainly doesn’t care now.
-Hector B.
While advertisers may be anxious to appeal to Millennials by creating what they consider sexism or racism free advertising, they continue to miss the mark. This Carl’s Jr commercial is a good example of this, as it utterly fails at producing a positive social message or moving the company, which has explicitly used women’s bodies to sell their hamburgers for decades, away from its chauvinist roots. The basis of the ad is that Carl Hardee Senior is reclaiming the company and its advertising practices from his son, Carl Hardee Junior, and is no longer placing it’s focus on naked women’s bodies and instead focusing back on creating wholesome food. The excuse for the past 20+ years of exploitive and misogynist advertisements? Carl Hardee Junior was just sowing his wild oats “as a young man is want to do”! This disgusting boys will be boys rhetoric is incredibly problematic, especially when President Donald Trump, only months before this ad was made, used it to justify explicitly describing his pleasure for sexually assaulting women. Also, Carls Junior still plastered this ad with photos and videos of naked women, even if it was to joke about how wrong they were to do that for so many years, and are still profiting off of advertising specifically to the male gaze and reducing women’s value to their ability to sell a hamburger whilst looking good naked. At the root of this commercial misfire is an important message; it is, and probably always be, problematic to rely on giant corporations to help feminists or activists promote a social movement. This is because, at the end of the day, Carls Junior’s first thought will always be its profit margins. A big corporation like that is incredibly invested in neoliberalism and is going to package themselves to Millennials in whatever way will make them money. Therefore, their social politics are just a marketing ploy and are not actually going to help marginalized people gain rights or agency. Instead, Millennials are left with a hollow, empty message that does not take back the decades of harm Carls Junior’s advertisements have impacted the way our culture views women—hyper-sexualizing them and reducing them to their body.
ReplyDeleteAutumn D.
The divisive nature of the political climate the country finds itself in at the moment has brought many of the social problems the country faces to the front of a political national conversation. Indeed, the Trump era has forced America to face the fact that misogyny and racism are still a part of American culture. The new Carl’s Jr. commercial addresses this notion by distancing themselves from their from their old campaigns which relied on scantily clad women biting into their products to sell cheeseburgers. The highlight of the new commercial is when Carl Hardee Sr. walks into his son’s, Jr, office and demands that he remove all the pictures of bikini clad woman from the wall before turning to the viewer and assuring one that “ …I passed it [the company] to the boy…he got a little distracted… but I am back to do what we do…” (1:10-1:38). The problem here is that the characters are fictional, thus the company never really has to take responsibility for objectifying women; the company can simply write off the act as part of a storyline. After all, as the words of Sr. indicate, what the company does is revolutionize the burger eating experience.
ReplyDeleteThe commercial is a prime example of how a company will rebrand itself to accommodate the social atmosphere that dictates its market. Here, the company has aligned itself with the anti-sexism movement to attract a new market: the female burger consumer. It attempts to do so by referring back to a time when respecting women was in vogue. This is illustrated in how Sr. conjures up images of couples and families eating at the restaurant in an earlier era, woman and men fully clothed and enjoying their meals (1:49-2:12). The problem with commercial is that the tone is a comical. Aside from the fictional element noted earlier, one cannot tell if the commercial is a whole hearted, but poorly executed, attempt to apologize.
Efrain S