Gender Stereotypes
Why do gender stereotypes work with adverts?
I wouldn't say it worked with every advert nowadays because of the increasing complaints of people who disagree with the stereotypes but I do think it works sometimes, for example the Lucozade advert beside is very stereotypical because the use of 'OMG' as you can imagine a girl saying that when seeing the new product. It's also the fact that it's pink meaning girls will defiantly like it, as the girl next to it is showing the reaction. Even though it's very stereotypical, it still works and makes girls think that this drink is specially for them and them only, because Lucozade has always approached boys and sports so by making it girly, it attracts females.
We are in the 21st century and yet adverts still put women in the kitchen and men as manual workers? Why?
I think they still put women in the kitchen and men doing manual work because it could be classed as traditional advertising, we've all grown up with adverts where women will do what they 'usually' do and same with men. There is a decrease in adverts that stereotype but there still is plenty out there. It's that stereotype where women are in their mothering nature and men will work, so a woman 'must' be in the kitchen cooking for the family and the man 'must' be working late paying for his family.
Do you think its changing? Can you name an advert which goes against this stereotype?
I do think it's all changing, I think it's changing a lot for women then men. The advert at the top for BT Sports is an example of going against stereotypes, first of all it's a little girl who you know has an interest sports as she watches the TV. On her way to school she plays different sports against top sporting players. In one part of the advert she uses her football skills around two professional football players who turn out to be just two teenage boys once it comes back to reality, this is a big difference between usually stereotypes, for one thing it wouldn't of been a little girl but a boy and also the fact that she's very good at sports and can play better than boys. I do think adverts are changing, I see a lot more adverts about girls being told that they can do just the same and just as well as boys but I don't see many adverts where boys aren't stereotyped.
Is it because this is an idea that is understood by the audience? Would anything different throw us of our normality?
I think people used to think that this is what women and men should be doing these certain jobs but now times of changed, now adverts would show a man in a kitchen and a woman working. I think switching roles within an advert would be different that throw us of the normality, just like the BT Sports advert where the little girl is obsessed with sports than having a 'normal' advert where it's a little boy.
I wouldn't say it worked with every advert nowadays because of the increasing complaints of people who disagree with the stereotypes but I do think it works sometimes, for example the Lucozade advert beside is very stereotypical because the use of 'OMG' as you can imagine a girl saying that when seeing the new product. It's also the fact that it's pink meaning girls will defiantly like it, as the girl next to it is showing the reaction. Even though it's very stereotypical, it still works and makes girls think that this drink is specially for them and them only, because Lucozade has always approached boys and sports so by making it girly, it attracts females.
We are in the 21st century and yet adverts still put women in the kitchen and men as manual workers? Why?
I think they still put women in the kitchen and men doing manual work because it could be classed as traditional advertising, we've all grown up with adverts where women will do what they 'usually' do and same with men. There is a decrease in adverts that stereotype but there still is plenty out there. It's that stereotype where women are in their mothering nature and men will work, so a woman 'must' be in the kitchen cooking for the family and the man 'must' be working late paying for his family.
Do you think its changing? Can you name an advert which goes against this stereotype?
I do think it's all changing, I think it's changing a lot for women then men. The advert at the top for BT Sports is an example of going against stereotypes, first of all it's a little girl who you know has an interest sports as she watches the TV. On her way to school she plays different sports against top sporting players. In one part of the advert she uses her football skills around two professional football players who turn out to be just two teenage boys once it comes back to reality, this is a big difference between usually stereotypes, for one thing it wouldn't of been a little girl but a boy and also the fact that she's very good at sports and can play better than boys. I do think adverts are changing, I see a lot more adverts about girls being told that they can do just the same and just as well as boys but I don't see many adverts where boys aren't stereotyped.
Is it because this is an idea that is understood by the audience? Would anything different throw us of our normality?
I think people used to think that this is what women and men should be doing these certain jobs but now times of changed, now adverts would show a man in a kitchen and a woman working. I think switching roles within an advert would be different that throw us of the normality, just like the BT Sports advert where the little girl is obsessed with sports than having a 'normal' advert where it's a little boy.
Disability in adverts
Do you think this advert is in bad taste?
I find this advert quite funny, it's just three girls having a coffee talk together. I do think this advert is for adults or people who understand what they're talking about. What is good about this advert is despite one of the girls having a disability she doesn't mind to joke about it and likes to have a laugh with her friends. The advert is to show that even though she has a disability she can still have fun.
Why do you think Maltesers have used a disability in this way?
I think Maltesers used this technique to shock the audience, they want people to talk about the advert that has a girl with disability because it's very rare. But I also think Maltesers used disability to show people that you should treat everyone the same and that she is still able to have a laugh with her friends. I would say they used Transfer as their technique because it's a positive advert and doesn't say anything about disability expect the jokes she makes.
Does the context of this advert make the audience uncomfortable because its out of our understanding and norm?
I don't think it would make people uncomfortable, maybe because she's making jokes abut her disability sometimes people question if they're allowed to laugh but other than that it's three 'normal' girls who are having normal girly conversations. It's not a 'normal' advert, as it's rarely ever been done but I think it should encourage more disable people to go onto advertising more because they're are just like everyone else and it should become a norm in adverts.
I find this advert quite funny, it's just three girls having a coffee talk together. I do think this advert is for adults or people who understand what they're talking about. What is good about this advert is despite one of the girls having a disability she doesn't mind to joke about it and likes to have a laugh with her friends. The advert is to show that even though she has a disability she can still have fun.
Why do you think Maltesers have used a disability in this way?
I think Maltesers used this technique to shock the audience, they want people to talk about the advert that has a girl with disability because it's very rare. But I also think Maltesers used disability to show people that you should treat everyone the same and that she is still able to have a laugh with her friends. I would say they used Transfer as their technique because it's a positive advert and doesn't say anything about disability expect the jokes she makes.
Does the context of this advert make the audience uncomfortable because its out of our understanding and norm?
I don't think it would make people uncomfortable, maybe because she's making jokes abut her disability sometimes people question if they're allowed to laugh but other than that it's three 'normal' girls who are having normal girly conversations. It's not a 'normal' advert, as it's rarely ever been done but I think it should encourage more disable people to go onto advertising more because they're are just like everyone else and it should become a norm in adverts.
The 'Norm'
Which advert do you think society is more comfortable with?
I think society is more comfortable with the different sex couple, only because it is just now people are becoming more comfortable with same sex couples, even though the newer generation is very comfortable with same sex couples, there are still people who are stuck in old ways, because that is how they were brought up, who don't really agree with same sex couples.
Do you think Tiffany use same sex coupes to promote gay marriage or to 'shock' and therefore gain publicity?
I think Tiffany used a homosexual couple to gain a 'shock' to people and make them think that they can have trust in Tiffany's to go and buy their wedding rings, it would gain publicity because it shows that Tiffany's supports same sex marriages. Though I would like to think that Tiffany's use a homosexual couple to help promote same sex marriage to show that it isn't a bad thing at all and its a normal thing.
Would this advert have been banned 20 years ago? Why is it acceptable now?
I think it wouldn't of even been a thing on an advert, I do think that if it was a thing on an advert 20 years ago it would of had complaints and could later be banned but I don't think people thought it was really something they should show in an advert. Same sex marriage wasn't even legalised 20 years ago, which people still found it unacceptable. It's acceptable now because people are fighting for what they think it right and children now understand that it's a normal and acceptable thing, it's the newer generations who are being brought up to learn that same sex marriages are a good thing, even more children now have same sex parents.
I think society is more comfortable with the different sex couple, only because it is just now people are becoming more comfortable with same sex couples, even though the newer generation is very comfortable with same sex couples, there are still people who are stuck in old ways, because that is how they were brought up, who don't really agree with same sex couples.
Do you think Tiffany use same sex coupes to promote gay marriage or to 'shock' and therefore gain publicity?
I think Tiffany used a homosexual couple to gain a 'shock' to people and make them think that they can have trust in Tiffany's to go and buy their wedding rings, it would gain publicity because it shows that Tiffany's supports same sex marriages. Though I would like to think that Tiffany's use a homosexual couple to help promote same sex marriage to show that it isn't a bad thing at all and its a normal thing.
Would this advert have been banned 20 years ago? Why is it acceptable now?
I think it wouldn't of even been a thing on an advert, I do think that if it was a thing on an advert 20 years ago it would of had complaints and could later be banned but I don't think people thought it was really something they should show in an advert. Same sex marriage wasn't even legalised 20 years ago, which people still found it unacceptable. It's acceptable now because people are fighting for what they think it right and children now understand that it's a normal and acceptable thing, it's the newer generations who are being brought up to learn that same sex marriages are a good thing, even more children now have same sex parents.
Controversial ads
In 2015 this advert was banned in the UK but is stayed up in America - Why?
The advert had around 360 complaints, it was said that it 'objectified women', people complained about it being unhealthy body image. It was taken down within three weeks of being up. The UK banned the poster because it was said to be harmful, offensive and not the UK 'taste', meaning we wouldn't agree with the amount she was wearing and the message it's trying to share. Though it wasn't banned in America, I think it wasn't banned because it could be a usual advert in America, their adverts are still stuck in the 'norm', there isn't much of a push on what you should and shouldn't wear compared to the UK, in the UK it's inappropriate to wear swimwear around, unless you're at a pool or beach but in a America, they're more 'free' on what you can wear.
Is it the fact they are advertising weight loss or the fact they have the 'perfect' woman advertising it?
I think it's the fact they're advertising a 'perfect' woman, it can really knock a woman's confidence down if she thought she was expected to look like this, that this is what a man wants. Some people can feel upset that she's very skinny and that they want to look like her, which they is the whole point of the promotion, which is to sell a weight loss product but others don't like this advert because they think society would expect them to look just like her and that is what everyone expects woman to look like.
Would it have caused the same controversy if it was a 'perfect' male?
It would really depend, I don't think many people would complain and I don't really understand why, maybe because people are more sensitive when they see a 'beautiful' woman but it doesn't have the same effect when there's a 'beautiful' man, maybe men don't think they need to look like him or it could also be that woman can be quite sensitive and think they're expected to be something they're not.
Most adverts have 'perfect' women on them so why is this different?
I think it's because she's very revealing, she is only wearing a bikini, you can still be beautiful without wearing clothes that catches people's eyes. In other adverts, women tend to wear fashionable outfits and lots of make-up, the woman in this advert could be said the same but it's the fact she's wearing less clothing.
Could you argue that the 'context' it is in is actually OK and maybe people are over reacting?
I personally think what they're trying to sell is okay, it's trying to convince people that if they buy this product that they could possibly look like the girl in the advert but on the other hand I don't think it's appropriate, especially where the poster is put up because it was in up in the Underground station, where a lot of tourist would be travelling around and families visiting London. I do think people are overreacting but I can understand why, it's very 'shocking'. Though lots of people didn't like it but there are loads of other adverts around that are very similar, of men and women, so it's not the most inappropriate advert around but it's because she's wearing hardly any clothes and people feel uncomfortable when looking at her. I think a lot of women were effected by this advert, as it could body-shame lots of women but I also think that because you don't hear a lot of complaints if it was a man just wearing swimwear, maybe man don't feel the need to complain about a poster.
The advert had around 360 complaints, it was said that it 'objectified women', people complained about it being unhealthy body image. It was taken down within three weeks of being up. The UK banned the poster because it was said to be harmful, offensive and not the UK 'taste', meaning we wouldn't agree with the amount she was wearing and the message it's trying to share. Though it wasn't banned in America, I think it wasn't banned because it could be a usual advert in America, their adverts are still stuck in the 'norm', there isn't much of a push on what you should and shouldn't wear compared to the UK, in the UK it's inappropriate to wear swimwear around, unless you're at a pool or beach but in a America, they're more 'free' on what you can wear.
Is it the fact they are advertising weight loss or the fact they have the 'perfect' woman advertising it?
I think it's the fact they're advertising a 'perfect' woman, it can really knock a woman's confidence down if she thought she was expected to look like this, that this is what a man wants. Some people can feel upset that she's very skinny and that they want to look like her, which they is the whole point of the promotion, which is to sell a weight loss product but others don't like this advert because they think society would expect them to look just like her and that is what everyone expects woman to look like.
Would it have caused the same controversy if it was a 'perfect' male?
It would really depend, I don't think many people would complain and I don't really understand why, maybe because people are more sensitive when they see a 'beautiful' woman but it doesn't have the same effect when there's a 'beautiful' man, maybe men don't think they need to look like him or it could also be that woman can be quite sensitive and think they're expected to be something they're not.
Most adverts have 'perfect' women on them so why is this different?
I think it's because she's very revealing, she is only wearing a bikini, you can still be beautiful without wearing clothes that catches people's eyes. In other adverts, women tend to wear fashionable outfits and lots of make-up, the woman in this advert could be said the same but it's the fact she's wearing less clothing.
Could you argue that the 'context' it is in is actually OK and maybe people are over reacting?
I personally think what they're trying to sell is okay, it's trying to convince people that if they buy this product that they could possibly look like the girl in the advert but on the other hand I don't think it's appropriate, especially where the poster is put up because it was in up in the Underground station, where a lot of tourist would be travelling around and families visiting London. I do think people are overreacting but I can understand why, it's very 'shocking'. Though lots of people didn't like it but there are loads of other adverts around that are very similar, of men and women, so it's not the most inappropriate advert around but it's because she's wearing hardly any clothes and people feel uncomfortable when looking at her. I think a lot of women were effected by this advert, as it could body-shame lots of women but I also think that because you don't hear a lot of complaints if it was a man just wearing swimwear, maybe man don't feel the need to complain about a poster.
Task 6
Why do advertisers still use 'beautiful' people to sell their products?
To be 'beautiful' is a big thing in society, so using 'beautiful' attracts people because it's either something they want to be like or something they want in a partner, not only does it cause contraction towards the 'beautiful' person but makes viewers think that they can be like this because of a certain product that is being sold.
Do we as a society respond to the beautiful over the normal? why?
As a society we now tend to have very high standards, most tend to concentrate more if they saw someone they found beautiful on an advert then just seeing someone who is classed as 'ordinary'. I think that people prefer seeing someone 'beautiful' on an advert than someone 'normal' because it's to have someone to look at or even imagine what a future partner could/ 'should' look like or someone you want to be like.
Do we 'understand' this context because it is thrown at us daily or are advertisers tapping in to what we secretly want to see?
I think it's a mix of both, advertisers wouldn't use 'beautiful' people if it wasn't something people didn't want to see but at the same time we've always been presented with 'beautiful' people in adverts and it seems that most advertisers think it works, so they carry on using them, making it a normal and daily thing.
To be 'beautiful' is a big thing in society, so using 'beautiful' attracts people because it's either something they want to be like or something they want in a partner, not only does it cause contraction towards the 'beautiful' person but makes viewers think that they can be like this because of a certain product that is being sold.
Do we as a society respond to the beautiful over the normal? why?
As a society we now tend to have very high standards, most tend to concentrate more if they saw someone they found beautiful on an advert then just seeing someone who is classed as 'ordinary'. I think that people prefer seeing someone 'beautiful' on an advert than someone 'normal' because it's to have someone to look at or even imagine what a future partner could/ 'should' look like or someone you want to be like.
Do we 'understand' this context because it is thrown at us daily or are advertisers tapping in to what we secretly want to see?
I think it's a mix of both, advertisers wouldn't use 'beautiful' people if it wasn't something people didn't want to see but at the same time we've always been presented with 'beautiful' people in adverts and it seems that most advertisers think it works, so they carry on using them, making it a normal and daily thing.
Task 5
What is the company behind the advert saying about themselves?
That they will no longer sell/use palm oil products, they want their audiences to understand the damage that is being done when people buy palm oil products. It can decrease sales in Iceland because people will stop buying palm oil products but Iceland still decide to release the advert because they want to spread the message.
Which advertising techniques are being used by the makers?
They use Pathos, they want the audience to feel bad, to make then stop buying palm oil products. They want viewers to have an emotional connection with the characters, making you feel bad for the monkey who doesn't have a home because of the increase of palm oil.
That they will no longer sell/use palm oil products, they want their audiences to understand the damage that is being done when people buy palm oil products. It can decrease sales in Iceland because people will stop buying palm oil products but Iceland still decide to release the advert because they want to spread the message.
Which advertising techniques are being used by the makers?
They use Pathos, they want the audience to feel bad, to make then stop buying palm oil products. They want viewers to have an emotional connection with the characters, making you feel bad for the monkey who doesn't have a home because of the increase of palm oil.
Task 7
Flash |
Nike |
This 'Flash' advert follows the norm, the advert is celebrating 50 Years of Flash by showing all their old adverts to newer ones. The reason the advert follows the 'norm' is, that in every single advert they've had a woman doing the cleaning. It's part of this 'norm' where women are in the kitchen, cleaning and looking after their children, while the man is at work. It works because that is what Flash have always advertised, a woman in the kitchen so it's nothing different and people wouldn't complain because that's their strategy in advertising, they are trying to sell to a certain audience, which is women (mostly mothers).
How would you change it so it went against the norm? Do you think it would still sell?
To change the advert I would place a man in the kitchen, it would hopefully send a message to show that men can do the same as women. The man would be cleaning the kitchen and looking after the children, while the woman would be at work. I don't know if it would sell as well as if it was a woman, mostly not because the audience Flash want to reach is women, I wouldn't see anything wrong with having a man in the kitchen than a women because it's the product you buy, not the person who's using it. Maybe it could put off men because they would feel they'd need to clean in the kitchen and some people prefer the 'norm' where women are in the kitchen.
Find an advert which goes against the norm - what impact does it have? Do you think it works or does it make people feel uncomfortable?
The advert I chose is the Nike Equality advert, it's all about being equal and in sports it should all be about equality, Nike's adverts are always very different from the 'norm', they have adverts about girl power and being equal. The impact of the advert is that anyone can play sports, doesn't matter the colour of your skin, where you're from, your gender or your age, it shows a whole range of people, it gives people confidence and lets them know that sports could be their safe place because every is equal and should be treated the same when doing sports. I think it really does work for people, it's giving a strong message and it goes against the norm by showing people playing different types of sports, and that woman can play the same sports as men and that people with the different colour skin can all play together. It shouldn't make people feel uncomfortable because it brings everyone together, there is nothing wrong with the message it is trying to send and doesn't stay within stereotypes.
How would you change it so it went against the norm? Do you think it would still sell?
To change the advert I would place a man in the kitchen, it would hopefully send a message to show that men can do the same as women. The man would be cleaning the kitchen and looking after the children, while the woman would be at work. I don't know if it would sell as well as if it was a woman, mostly not because the audience Flash want to reach is women, I wouldn't see anything wrong with having a man in the kitchen than a women because it's the product you buy, not the person who's using it. Maybe it could put off men because they would feel they'd need to clean in the kitchen and some people prefer the 'norm' where women are in the kitchen.
Find an advert which goes against the norm - what impact does it have? Do you think it works or does it make people feel uncomfortable?
The advert I chose is the Nike Equality advert, it's all about being equal and in sports it should all be about equality, Nike's adverts are always very different from the 'norm', they have adverts about girl power and being equal. The impact of the advert is that anyone can play sports, doesn't matter the colour of your skin, where you're from, your gender or your age, it shows a whole range of people, it gives people confidence and lets them know that sports could be their safe place because every is equal and should be treated the same when doing sports. I think it really does work for people, it's giving a strong message and it goes against the norm by showing people playing different types of sports, and that woman can play the same sports as men and that people with the different colour skin can all play together. It shouldn't make people feel uncomfortable because it brings everyone together, there is nothing wrong with the message it is trying to send and doesn't stay within stereotypes.