So you thought slap and tickle carry-on flicks were a thing of the past?
Think again.
[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/20155716[/vimeo] A Gold Coast property dealer has breathed new life into old-fashioned sexism with this one and a half minute clip flogging a property on the Gold Coast. The clip has already gone viral so I’m posting it as a case study in sexist advertising in the year 2011.
The video is full of nudge nudge wink wink innuendos and double entendres such as “Property isn’t the only thing going off!!” and “No ifs or buts!! (butts, get it?). A model is shown in various states of undress while agents Ian Adams and Adrian Jenkins (that’s them, left) talk about the property listed by NEO. This sterile, soulless strip pad is pitched as a family home.
Adams said it was “unashamedly sexy and fun” and all done “tongue-in-cheek.” . They wanted to cut through the competition and “get noticed” by “going that extra mile”.
What better way to do that than have a woman take off her clothes? Adams seems to think he’s some kind of out-there genius. Since when was this approach clever and innovative?
“My kids can get up and watch far worse on Video Hits every weekend. This is about selling a product,” says Adams. Oh, well that makes it alright then. You can objectify women as long as it’s for a worthy cause – like making people like him rich.
Tell Adrian Jenkins what you think he should do with his property. Ph: 0412080290.
9 Responses
They think they have hit on a new advertising strategy… but we fought for years to stop ads that did this. We said women were more than just sex objects and advertising tools. Now it’s worse than ever and to top it off the advertising standards group often don’t see anything wrong with it. All that work down the drain.
Also what does it say of us as a nation that almost nobody wanted to look at the property until we put a naked woman in it! They have lots of interest since. really people is that what it takes to get your attention?? if it is then heaven help us!
Here is the email I went them.
Just wanted to let you know how appalled I was with your sexist Ad for the gold coast property.
Women fought for years to not be used as advertising tools. Women fought for years to be regarded as more than just sex objects. In one hit you have set us back years. Your ad objectifies women and portrays them as only interesting if taking their clothes off. To say it was ‘tongue in cheek’ is a cop out. You make the money by using women in a sexualised and demeaning manner.
Shame on you. This is not new aged or intelligent advertising. This is mindless soft porn which requires no skill or imagination at all.
I have posted this letter and your contact details at collectiveshout.org.
maybe you should have a look and see what people really think.
This was my email to them today, and their response:
———
“I should like to express my extreme disappointment with your recent clip to advertise this property – supposedly “sexy and fun” and “tongue in cheek”. I am sure you have achieved your aim of garnering attention for this property but I do not happen to think that this justifies the means by which this attention was achieved.
Of course we all know that sex sells. That doesn’t make it okay to objectify women. Women are objectified by being represented as silent, faceless body parts. In your 90 second clip the woman’s face was seen in full, as the focal point of the frame, a total of four times. The rest of the clip was either her face in the corner of the frame while the camera focused on her cleavage, or a montage of disconnected body parts – suggesting that women are useful as bodies, not as people. I notice that YOU kept your clothes on, YOU engaged with the camera, YOU represented yourselves as people, not objects, YOU were not silenced (although given the lame innuendo, I can’t help wishing you had been).
It may have been ‘sexy and fun’ for you. For a woman, it’s highly offensive and not fun to be represented as a sex object. It’s dehumanising.
As for your comment, “My kids can get up and watch far worse on Video Hits every weekend. This is about selling a product.”… do you really think that just because there are WORSE examples of objectification, it makes YOUR objectification okay? Or that it’s okay if you’re doing it to make a sale? There are no degrees. All objectification of women is wrong. You need to allow women some dignity and remove that clip.”
—————
And their response:
“My apologies if you have been offended, we never have and never will wish to offend anyone
I can appreciate your comments, but please be aware that we surveyed a lot of woman before we released it from various demographics and all approved it
We have had plenty of female support since, including female agents and staff wanting to come and work with us from this exposure
It is a piece of guerilla marketing intended to go viral to bring attention to the home
Our videos will be edgy but have different themes and will not be the same so hopefully that clarifies our view
Thank you for taking the time to write to us”
The phrase ‘neanderthal dickheads’ comes to mind…
Disclaimers from male corporate businesses determined to sexually exploit women are common. The men who make these misogynistic claims never provide factual evidence of having undertaken research prior to promoting their misogynistic advertising.
It goes without saying that just because a tiny number of female respondents supposedly claimed ‘advertisements featuring naked women are harmless’ does not alter one iota how women as a group continue to be subjected to male sexual harassment and male threats of sexual violence. Male hatred and male contempt for women does not occur in a vacuum – rather it continues to exist because businesses refuse to accept they are promoting and condoning male hatred and male contempt for women.
Would these fully clothed business men promote this claim ‘racism harms no one because our research shows women and men of colour considered the advertising to be ‘humorous.’ I think not because racism is ‘real’ whereas male hatred and male contempt for women is not ‘real’ but just a tiny number of women refusing to accept they are all men’s dehumanised sexual service stations and who can be subjected to male hatred and male contempt ad naseum.
Why then on the rare occasions when a male is depicted without his shirt promoting a product, men rush to their computers decrying such advertising as ‘humilating men.’ But then of course men are the default human are they not whereas women are not human but just dehumanised sexualised body parts and that is why businesses consider it appropriate to promote male hatred and male contempt for women. Women have yet to achieve human status!
Perhaps someone can clarify whether, as a confessed piece of ‘viral advertising’, this is covered by advertising standards regulations. There would obviously be a lot of problems if this ad were to be shown on TV, but are internet ads held to the same standards, particularly those which are designed to be distrubuted by private forwarding of emails with ‘LOL, Check This Out!!!’ in the subject line?
As a man, this video makes me very embarrassed and it has NO place in our society. If those two sniggering idiots are the ones responsible then I hope their mothers give them a good spanking!
I called up the phone number and spoke to a guy named Ian, who I gather is one of their bosses.
I said was disgusted by the ad, and if they have a decent product, why do they feel the need to use a woman taking her clothes off to make sales?
His general response was that I was a minority, and out of all the women they initially surveyed, none found it offensive, and that they all loved it- and that many other women now wanted to work there, etc. I asked him, did he think that because there were some women who had no problem that they spoke for all women?
He just went on about how sex sells, and how it had been successful here. I agreed sex sells, but that it doesn’t make them new or innovative, it makes them unoriginal and lazy. (The word “whorish” may have also been used…..)
Then he started going on about other examples of sex selling, like some laundry detergent ad or something, and I just interrupted and said that we weren’t talking about laundry detergent, we were talking about using women’s bodies to sell houses. I said it looked more like an ad for a brothel than for a house, as the house was shown so much less than the undressed woman.
He also asked if I would care if it was a man instead of a woman. I said I would, but the instances of that happening are far less frequent.
I told him I was trying to teach my children to respect women, and seeing things like this would send a confusing message to them. He asked me if I let my kids watch TV. I said no, I only let them watch dvds I have chosen for them (Disney etc). But he basically just kept going with the arguments that “sex sells, and it’s everywhere, so you better call up the whole world and complain”, and “all the women love it and want to work for us now”.
About the time that I made some reference to him trying to get rich by the degradation of women, he hung up. Oops!
What makes this so infuriating is that so many people actually responded to the ad. Are people really that sucked in by advertising? Do they realize it’s still just a house, and the woman doesn’t come with it?
Dear god, some men are stupid.
This reflects even worse on their company than it does on the woman. And they can’t even manage to use the ‘sex sell’s mantra the least bit subtly. This is just revolting. I laugh in their pathetic faces.
I wish women would take a stand and show that they are so beyond this.
Why does this woman do it ? I am starting to think we need to reach these girls who do this first. But how? Why would a beautiful girl like that think that’s all she is capable of? I’m just at a loss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9LBQZ3nxCU