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’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.

Gap has a shoe store. Or, make that, Gap has a shoe store? Yes, Gap, Inc. (GPS) has launched a new online outlet for feet, PiperLime. Only problem is, no one seems to know, or care.

The Gap companies have been struggling to regain the immense popularity they enjoyed back when sweatshirts meant style and tapered jeans ruled the streets, not the runway. Banana Republic is holding strong as an “accessible luxury” brand, but Old Navy and Gap seem to have lost their respective ways. Old Navy brought in Todd Oldham to revive the fading brand(whose best marketing seemed to be commercials that annoyed viewers but stayed with them), and The Gap finally stopped cheapening a cultural icon with their Audrey Hepburn campaign. And who could forget the ill-fated and misconceived baby-boomer brand Forth & Towne?

I love the tagline for the Hepburn campaign, by the way, and I wish Gap would take their advertising slogan to heart.The problem with the majority of Gap’s marketing is branding-they try to be everything to everyone, and it’s just too much.The Gap offshoots of Old Navy and Banana stemmed from this idea-and they worked for awhile- but as we can see with Old Navy, not quite well, or long, enough. Gap had a solid standing as a quality clothing company with reasonable prices; definitely not a high-fashion brand, but a back-to-school staple, wear-to-work pieces that were actually comfortable, perfect weekend wear.

Now, Gap is trying, unsuccessfully, to emulate higher end designers, pushing away their current client base without pulling in their new targets. Old Navy was meant to draw in a younger, hipper crowd, but the clothes are too blah and mainstream, not worth even their ridiculously low prices. Forth & Towne alienated consumers from the get go, positioning itself as an “older” version of the Gap, as opposed to a separate entity. That is where Banana Republic has succeeded beautifully; most people don’t know they are part of Gap, Inc., while everyone knows Old Navy and Forth & Towne are (or were).

Gap needs to stick to what they are good at, what made them a major brand in the first place. This is what major, solid brands (think Nike, Apple) do so well at, what gives them staying power and financial success. Once Gap figures that out, there may be hope. They could try a retro/classic thing like Coca-Cola did after the whole New Coke fiasco.

As for PiperLime? The shoes are nice and very reminiscient of Gap’s classic look, which is a good start, but a lot of the price points are way too high for Gap shoppers. Gap is affordable; hardly anything reaches over $100, save for coats and an occasional leather bag, and that’s the way people like it. If Gap wants PiperLime to succeed as it stands now, they need to cut it loose(it’s highly tied in with Gap’s current site). If they want to make it more like a GapShoes.com, then they need to reevaluate their products and customer demographics.

Good brands know to do what they do well; they don’t waste time trying to get their hands in everything.I would like to see Gap do well, but everytime I see their ads or walk by a store window I hear Everclear’s “Everything to Everyone” in my head.

“Why don’t you ever learn? Spin around and fall down, do it again.”

I hope Gap lands on their feet. My wallet could use some cute, affordable clothes. Until then, I’m shopping at Banana.

This is absolutely hysterical. Tribble Agency’s warning against buying and setting up a domain name for your company without double checking its, uh, other possible interpretations, is hilarious.My personal favorite is “Who Represents,” a searchable database of celebrity agents whose domain is of course, the company name…whorepresents.com. Classic.

The post is over a year old, so its hard to tell if they made up a lot of these names and sites for this express purpose, or if the company’s smartened up and changed URLs. Either way, it’s pretty entertaining-especially if you deal with issues like this with actual clients and sites, as my company does. It’s amusing how clueless some people are.

I don’t want to name names of the clients we’ve worked with, but since Tribble outed the California Therapist Finder (string them together…come on, think about it), I’ll use that as an example. You start a company and decide you need a website. The logical choice is your company name. You look it up, see it’s available, and snap it up. Easy enough, right? Wrong.

You need an outside opinion, preferably from someone not connected to your business at all. Someone who is truly objective and has no prior knowledge of your site or services can tell you what your typical site visitor and potential customer will see when they find your site; in this case, the rapist finder, not therapist finder.

This is why people hire advertising agencies and search marketers; business owners are too close to their own company to do what is really in its, and their, best interest. An outside perspective can do what’s best, business-wise, because they are not personally tied to any idea.We fight with clients all the time over logos, taglines and keywords that they simply refuse to give up.

The only way to break through this is to remind clients that they hired you for a reason-because their method wasn’t working- so they need to let you do your job in order for them to do theirs.  Whatever you’re working on, it never hurts to take a step back and look at it from another angle, whether it is your own project or someone else’s. You need to think like your target, and if you can’t do that, you need to hire someone who can.

Tribble got me thinking of other double entendre website URLs and now I’m dying to hear more. If you have any creative ideas, leave a comment-I could use some more laughter in the workday.