Advertisements portraying sexist stereotypes are to be banned in the UK by next year. This means no more women mopping floors, no more incompetent dads failing at changing nappies.
‘Great,’ we say. ‘Advertising has a huge influence on how people see society. We need to set good role models.’
Hang on, wouldn’t advertising be better reflecting what actually happens? Statistically women are more likely to be doing the cleaning, so they might be the ones buying the advertised product in the first place. Aren’t they the target audience?
‘Advertising is overwhelmingly run and created by men. The nature of the ‘reality’, real or desired, is skewed. We have to skew it back to portray a more holistic approach.’
Ok so more female advertising executives. But does that mean we have to actually create a law? Anyway, who decides on the finer points of what’s sexist? This could get awfully complicated. But very good news for lawyers.
The case may be a perfect example of misuse of a medium. The very nature of advertising is to make us want to do and have things. It’s psychological coercion. We use it in every area of life, from product placement in films, to a parent dressing up a piece of broccoli as a bug-eyed monster to get their kid to eat it. We’re not about to be able to eradicate the notion from our lives, so we have to control it. Ergo, the ban.
But there are two ways of control. There’s force (bringing in a law, hitting someone, taking military action). The other is persuasion. Traditionally called the ‘carrot and stick’.
Our gut reaction these days is to get the stick out immediately. Migrants? Stick. Anti-migrant problems? Stick. Terrorists? Definitely stick. Dictators who invade other countries? Sti… no wait, they’re scary so let’s do a carrot but very small and hold it a long way off. In fact let’s just pretend not to see. But I digress. The very point of advertising is, it’s a carrot. Why use it as a stick, or use stick on it?
Why not instead incentivise ‘positive’ and helpful portrayals? Why not, instead of spending all that money hammering out the fine details of what needs to be sticked, and how big the stick is, change tack and create a prestigious award for best/most helpful advert of the year? Of the month? Award for promoting the most environmentally beneficial product? Recognition for inspiring people to behave in a more civil way?
Yes, we do that. From the Nobel Peace Prize downwards. But somehow, people are never as interested in that as in when companies get busted for not doing the right thing. Or don’t get busted for not doing the right thing.
Here is a challenge for advertising companies. You hold some of the most powerful sway over human life. Use it. Make people want to do things that will benefit others. It will make you more money than ever, because there’s one desire that’s universal. Haven’t you noticed?
Everyone wants to be the good guy.
‘Great,’ we say. ‘Advertising has a huge influence on how people see society. We need to set good role models.’
Hang on, wouldn’t advertising be better reflecting what actually happens? Statistically women are more likely to be doing the cleaning, so they might be the ones buying the advertised product in the first place. Aren’t they the target audience?
‘Advertising is overwhelmingly run and created by men. The nature of the ‘reality’, real or desired, is skewed. We have to skew it back to portray a more holistic approach.’
Ok so more female advertising executives. But does that mean we have to actually create a law? Anyway, who decides on the finer points of what’s sexist? This could get awfully complicated. But very good news for lawyers.
The case may be a perfect example of misuse of a medium. The very nature of advertising is to make us want to do and have things. It’s psychological coercion. We use it in every area of life, from product placement in films, to a parent dressing up a piece of broccoli as a bug-eyed monster to get their kid to eat it. We’re not about to be able to eradicate the notion from our lives, so we have to control it. Ergo, the ban.
But there are two ways of control. There’s force (bringing in a law, hitting someone, taking military action). The other is persuasion. Traditionally called the ‘carrot and stick’.
Our gut reaction these days is to get the stick out immediately. Migrants? Stick. Anti-migrant problems? Stick. Terrorists? Definitely stick. Dictators who invade other countries? Sti… no wait, they’re scary so let’s do a carrot but very small and hold it a long way off. In fact let’s just pretend not to see. But I digress. The very point of advertising is, it’s a carrot. Why use it as a stick, or use stick on it?
Why not instead incentivise ‘positive’ and helpful portrayals? Why not, instead of spending all that money hammering out the fine details of what needs to be sticked, and how big the stick is, change tack and create a prestigious award for best/most helpful advert of the year? Of the month? Award for promoting the most environmentally beneficial product? Recognition for inspiring people to behave in a more civil way?
Yes, we do that. From the Nobel Peace Prize downwards. But somehow, people are never as interested in that as in when companies get busted for not doing the right thing. Or don’t get busted for not doing the right thing.
Here is a challenge for advertising companies. You hold some of the most powerful sway over human life. Use it. Make people want to do things that will benefit others. It will make you more money than ever, because there’s one desire that’s universal. Haven’t you noticed?
Everyone wants to be the good guy.