Alison Driscoll

Definitely “lol”ed when I saw this commercial the other night. However, once my Julie Roberts-esque cackling subsided, I started to think about the subtext of the ad (as I am wont to do), and my brain was off and running. Watch the 15 second clip, then finish reading while you wait for your pizza to arrive.

Domino’s and CP + B are helping to further my theory that advertising is more sexist to men these days than to women. I alluded to that in this post and I’ve become increasingly aware and convinced of this shift since. Traditionally sexist ads and images of women are being turned around to make fun of themselves and old stereotypes, so men have become the new fall guy used to inject laughter into otherwise humorless ads.

Women can laugh at this average joe’s misguided attempt at romance. Tip: greasy pizza and rushed sex does not an orgasm make, my friend. Men will laugh at the guy’s expense, ‘cuz who wants to be that two-pump-chump?

What I think is really funny is the expression on the woman’s face. She’s so earnest and sincere; she doesn’t mock her man, but asks very honestly and seriously what they will do for the other 28 minutes. This is where the real humor could have come from in this ad, if they had taken it a step further and had some great sarcastic line for her. Or gone the over-the-top, macho route and had him demanding a blow job (or something TV appropriate) from the couch while dialing Domino’s.

I could be wrong, and while my versions of the ad demonstrate why I am not working in TV commercials and am best suited for the internet, somewhere in that sex crazed text above is a valid point. Men can’t take a joke the way women can, even to sell more pizza. Or beer. Or whatever will make them money. So their egos are doomed to remain larger than their…wallets.

I’ve often asked if all marketing is sexist, and I think the answer is yes. Or at least, all advertising is offensive, if you look hard enough. 

Advertising works on the principle that something is wrong or missing, and the product being advertised will solve that problem. To get that point across, someone must be portrayed as stupid, lazy or incompetent-in a word, inferior. Women were always the easy scapegoat, so old “classic” ads used women to show how the product they were hawking would make their lives better, by giving them more time, praise, love…whatever.

So, if advertising is simply reflecting the times and mores of society, perhaps we need to change in the hopes advertising will follow, instead of expecting them to sell us values and useless consumer products. I’ve seen a shift in commercials recently as they start to portray men as helpless and unintelligent. But is this a step forward or across? Improvement or redirection of sexism?

I came across this book of old, exceedingly sexist ads which I think gets at a point I made about the Heineken commercial. These “classic” ads are hilarious now because they are so over the top that we can’t take them seriously. But, they were seriously degrading when they were first released.

While it’s obvious we’ve come a long way, I maintain that advertising will always be sexist, or racist, or ageist, or some other -ist that alludes to some form of stereotype, because it is easier to sell that way. It’s just a question of who the next scapegoat will be.

 Oh, and the book is definitely being added to my Christmas list. Please let me know of any similar books or memorabilia that might be of interest, ‘cuz I’ve been very good this year.

I totally got swept up in the holidays already, and it’s barely Thanksgiving. This whole Christmsas shopping thing is becoming a bigger, and longer, marketing ploy every year.  Now, if I were talking about anything other than advertising campaigns, bigger and longer might be a good thing, but it seems like Christmas comes earlier every year (not a good thing in any situation), convincing us to shop early and spend often. But does that stop me from buying into it? ‘Course not, I just use it as an excuse. But more on that later.

As of (Black) Friday, my absolute favorite holiday, I will officially be in the clear to get in the Chri$tmas spirit and start paying some ad execs’ salaries. However, I couldn’t resist sharing this cool article on fun, funky and functional techie gifts just a little bit early.

I personally would love to  see a Swarovski crystal USB memory key under my tree this year. Impractical? Maybe. Pretty? Definitely. And therein lies the marketing genius.

I’m nothing if not girlie. Princess-like at times. And I’ve never pretended otherwise, which I think is why I had a hard time being taken seriously when I first started working at an internet marketing company-the male-dominated office was a microcosm for the entire industry. However, things are changing and  more and more girlie-girls are entering the “man’s world” of computers.

Smart technology companies are taking the “pinking” theory one step further and encouraging women to purchase computer accessories and electronics by making them more feminine. Gone are the boring black laptop bags and lost hours at BestBuy; Target, Coach, Apple, Dell and Sony are just a few of the enlightened brands making tech products and accessories more appealing to females.

Some may call it a cheap marketing trick (what other kind is there?); others think it dumbs down or de-professionalizes the industry or work place. I think it stylizes things women need anyway, so what’s the harm? If I have to carry a laptop case anyway, it might as well match my outfit. As long as I’m still doing my job well, why does it matter that my iPod is accessorized with a pink suede case from Coach and my laptop stays safe in a cute polka dot tote?

Last night I attended the Boston Blogger Dinner and finally came to terms with the fact that I am a geek. A girlie geek, but still. I truly love what I do and feel very lucky that I get paid to write and put my creativity to good use. Talking to so many other bloggers who are as excited by the same things that I go crazy over was really, really cool.

I met a bunch of people and had tons of interesting conversations, and was pleasantly surprised at the number of women in attendance. I often feel outnumbered and ignored as a woman on the web, so it was nice to hear what other women deal with. Alyssa and Amanda each gave me their perspective on how they deal in this male-dominated field.

I’m inspired to be more aggressive, or assertive, or something; whatever you want to call it, what I really took away from last night was how to better stand up for my ideas and back up my opinions. ‘Cuz I know I’m right, so it’s up to me to make sure everyone else does too.

I’m now officially “out” as a geek, and I’m cool with that. I’m even excited for podcamp.

I’ve been contemplating dying my hair for awhile now, and last night I came thisclose to doing it. Dark. REAL dark. I figured it was time for a change; I’ve spent my whole life identifying myself as a blonde (yes, it started out natural…no one knows for sure what color I’d be now, not even my hairdresser). I had nearly talked myself into it too, running through a list of actresses who look amazing as both platinum blondes and a deep brunettes. Reese Witherspoon Walked the Line from Legally Blonde to chestnut brown. Why couldn’t I?

Because blonde has become part of my identity; it’s how I define myself. I’ve spent a large part of my life playing up the dumb blonde stereotype, using it to my advantage and preying on people’s assumptions of me, than surprising them once they thought they had me figured out. Our culture is full of blonde jokes, and I played into every single one of them. I bought the t-shirts, idolized the ditzy blonde celeb of the week. But at some point, being blonde stopped being one of many adjectives to describe me and became my main definition. I was a blonde-fun, flirty, über female.

Just look at my blog; it’s built on this “catch them off guard” idea. I’ve branded myself as a blonde in every aspect of my life. But at what point does this blonde brand stop being an extension of one as a person and completely take over?

Blonde has become a marketing strategy; not even being blonde, just blonde. It is no longer a physical trait, but a way of life, a personality type. There are tons of products that play to our advertiser-driven “blondes have more fun” philosophy.

Blonding works in much the same way that “pinkwashing” does; turn any product you can into some type of blonde joke or reference and watch sales soar. The brunette backlash brought a whole new slew of pro-brunette and anti-blonde products that merely perpetuate the worn out “blondes are better” ideal.

Essentially, advertisers are pitting women against each other to sell clichéd t-shirts that advertise that blondes are stupid and brunettes are boring. I’ll admit that I laugh, and even ocassionally buy, these shirts, I’m old enough to know better. When The Limited Too starts peddling pre-teens this propaganda, it’s a much bigger issue.

No one wears shirts that say proudly proclaim they are tall, or short; see through blue eyes or brown; or were blessed with natural curls. Why the fascination with blondes? This Aryan ideal is still intact, only now we’ve put a Barbie doll spin on it and mass marketed it as fashion. I’m not denying that the shirts are cute, but we need to be aware of what we’re wearing.

As I’m sure most people have figure out, October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, which, in my opinion, is simply a marketing ploy to sell women more stuff and make them feel less guilty about it. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support breast cancer research and awareness-I just don’t think that’s what this campaign is really about.

Every year, retailers cash in on philanthropic females with a propensity for pink. Call me cynical if you want, but 10% of proceeds for one month on one randomly rose-hued item is not a very sizeable charitable contribution for most major brands. So really what they’re doing is making a whole bunch of normal stuff pink to designate them as breast cancer donation items, when in fact they are simply marketing to a large segment of the population who will buy anything because it’s pink, and have been tricked into thinking they are supporting a good cause.

So that’s my issue with using breast cancer to sell useless consumer products. Now, on to a much better use of your hard-earned money and our beloved internet-the Design-her-Gals Virtual Breast Cancer Walk. This walk benefits the Gal to Gal Foundation, which uses the funds to improve the lives of women diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer, the most advanced and invasive type of breast cancer.

The Gal-to-Gal walk does several things very well, for fundraising and for the internet. First, they kept the donation low-$3 to register, with the option to donate more. Definitely doable for anybody with internet access.

Second, they created a virtual event, one of the next big things for the internet. These are really cool when they’re done well, really easy and very viral. Basically, a marketing hat trick. I’ve been pushing one of these types of events at the 9-to-5er, and this walk definitely validated my ideas.

Third, they made the site highly interactive and fun, encouraging people to come back every day to learn trivia on the city they’re “walking” through and search for friends, real or virtual. Both of these features give the site high word of mouth potential, which also raises their fundraising potential.

Finally, Gal-to-Gal cashed in on the avatar craze, a key part of any virtual event. Designing a little mini-you is fun; just look at the popularity of the South Park character generator or the Simpsons avatar creator. People love to look at themselves, and this is just another expression of that. Or, you can think of it as paper dolls for grown ups.

Either way, anything that lets people create virtual versions of themselves is almost sure to be a hit. Combine that with some social interaction and a cause people can get behind, and you have a nearly sure-fire marketing plan. The true test is whether it works in the real…er, virtual…world.

I recently read this article about gender biased advertising, and it definitely got me thinking about some of the overtly sexist advertising out there, as well as the more subtle, and perhaps more damaging, messages we are constantly bombarded with. It’s an issue that’s been around forever, which begs the question not what is left to talk about, but why are we still talking about it?

In my opinion, the in-your-face ads aren’t that offensive to most, because they are essentially making fun of themselves and of the issue. Comedian Lenny Bruce talks about how “it’s the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness” in regards to racist slurs, and I think his point holds true here. Heineken’s “Draught Keg” commercial, for instance, blatantly uses the image of a “perfect” woman, and it’s clever. They exaggerate the joke to make their intentions clear, and it works.

Advertising becomes offensive when it tries to avoid the issue and ends up delivering a more subtle dig at women. This ad for helpmefinddegrees.com lists all the different fields their services can direct you towards. Each profession has a corresponding icon of a person in that job—a cop for criminal investigation, a nurse for health care, etc. And that’s where the ad takes a wrong turn: there was a very obvious gender bias in determining which picture went with which title. Criminal investigator, bounty hunter, graphic designer, accountant and project manager are all male; social worker, teacher, HR officer, psychologist, health care manager and counselor are all female. The ad very clearly differentiates the professions based on antiquated stereotypes.

I’ve noticed this a few times at the internet marketing company where I work. Until recently, I was the only female employee, and therefore the only voice to be (not) heard on this issue. One site we designed used a young, blonde cheerleader on a business site. I politely (and later not so politely) argued that unless you are selling pom-poms, a cheerleader has no place on a website, and we would automatically be alienating a large segment of our target market. I firmly believed using this image was not in the best interest of the client, and so I refused to back down and eventually helped reach a compromise. But I still remember my gut reaction upon seeing that comp and thinking “that must be a placeholder image.”

Another glaring discrepancy was in an email promotion we created for a dating site. The email used photos of supposed members to punctuate the points being made in the text, as many internet dating sites are wont to do. The problem with this one was that the female photos were all full-body shots, while the males were just headshots. When I questioned the reasoning behind this decision, my colleague Dan Zarrella informed me that it was because“that’s what men want.” Apparently, women sell better than men in most markets.

So, when crafting a marketing campaign or choosing images, it pays to get a varied perspective (read: both sexes) before the finals go out. It may be just my opinion, but I think I speak for roughly half the population.