My last blog was about the new Axe Shower Gel and their attempt to out-do themselves with their new sexually-encouraging commercial contest. It appears that Maxim is doing much of the same. In an attempt to be even more sexist that usual, Maxim, which annually releases a very much-hyped sexiest women alive list, recently unleashed a new list.
This list is the "Unsexiest List." In other words, they are blatantly calling these women ugly, which may be better because at least they would honest. The list included Madonna, Sarah Jessica Parker and Britney Spears among others. Not only did Maxim list the girls, but they also described in detail why these female celebrities are so unappealing. They didn't shy away from their true feelings, either.
I can't help but wonder why this list was created. It is because these five women repulse the collective Maxim staff so much that they had to do something about it? I doubt it. My guess is that it was done for sheer publicity through debate and shock value. What is certain is that they have achieved in their goal.
The message this is sending to young girls is as bad as anything else Maxim has ever done. What are all the girls who like Madonna and Sarah Jessica Parker supposed to think now? Their idols have been labeled as the ugliest in Hollywood. Not only do these young girls have to look like the women on Maxim's sexiest list, but now they probably feel like they shouldn't look like any of the five women on the unsexiest list. Maxim, like Axe, never ceases to shock me.
PS: The story I found, which I am sure has ran on countless other websites in countless other stories, is as follows:
The folks over at Maxim magazine think it's too easy picking Charlize Theron as the Sexiest Woman Alive. They'd rather weigh in on who's unsexy.
The unfortunate recipient of the lad mag's Unsexiest title is "Sex & the City" star Sarah Jessica Parker, whose character Carrie Bradshaw is not only in high demand with the opposite sex, but is also a fashion diva among the fair sex.
Maxim, however, points out her more, um, equine features: "How the hell did this Barbaro-faced broad manage to be the least sexy woman in a group of very unsexy women and still star on a show with 'sex' in the title? Pull your skirt down, Secretariat, we'd rather ride Chris Noth."
In the runner-up position is the Beehived One herself, "Rehab" singer Amy Winehouse, whose "openly hemorrhaging translucent skin, rat's nest mane and lashes that look more like surgically attached bats."
On the small screen, "Grey's Anatomy" star Sandra Oh took third place for playing "Dr. McSkinny, with her cold bedside manner and boyish figure."
Rounding out the Unsexy 5 is Madonna in the penultimate position "with a mug that looks Euro-sealed to her skull." The heir to her pop princess throne, Britney Spears, took last place because, "Less than five years ago, Britney had a python wrapped around her well-toned torso onstage at the VMAs. Since then, she's lost the ability to perform, but gained two kids, two useless ex-husbands, and about 23 pounds of Funyun pudge."
Monday, October 29, 2007
Blog 7: More on the Axe girls as first discussed in class
For a few weeks now I have been seeing this commercial for Axe Shower Gel that encourages the viewer to go online. Once there, the viewer should enter into a contest to create "The World's Dirtiest Film." The promos for it has perennial B-List actor David Spade and several dozen scantily clad women.
The women are doing many things. Some are eating very messy ribs with barbecue sauce that smears all over their bodies. Others are playing in a large bathtub, throwing bubbles and suds at each other. I find it interesting that while the girls are playing in the tub, Spade is standing in the center, watching them have their fun, not doing anything himself.
I am blogging about this because a few weeks ago in class you showed us the Axe commercial with the Bow Chica Wah Wah ladies of the evening. These women encouraged clean, responsible women to throw caution to the wind and just go crazy and sleep with many men.
If you can, please find a link for this video contest online as I feel it would be great to show the class. I haven't been able to find a link for it myself just yet, but I will keep looking.
Ultimately, it appears that Axe is at it again, but on a much grander scale as they are trying to recruit as many men around the country to add to their self-labeled "dirty" commercial. I wonder how far the participants will take it? How dirty will their versions be? Will any of it be able to be viewed on television? I'm sure the answer will be no. Some will do a nice, artistic job, however I am sure that many will not and will only go for gross sexual shock value. Axe, you've managed to out-do yourself.
The women are doing many things. Some are eating very messy ribs with barbecue sauce that smears all over their bodies. Others are playing in a large bathtub, throwing bubbles and suds at each other. I find it interesting that while the girls are playing in the tub, Spade is standing in the center, watching them have their fun, not doing anything himself.
I am blogging about this because a few weeks ago in class you showed us the Axe commercial with the Bow Chica Wah Wah ladies of the evening. These women encouraged clean, responsible women to throw caution to the wind and just go crazy and sleep with many men.
If you can, please find a link for this video contest online as I feel it would be great to show the class. I haven't been able to find a link for it myself just yet, but I will keep looking.
Ultimately, it appears that Axe is at it again, but on a much grander scale as they are trying to recruit as many men around the country to add to their self-labeled "dirty" commercial. I wonder how far the participants will take it? How dirty will their versions be? Will any of it be able to be viewed on television? I'm sure the answer will be no. Some will do a nice, artistic job, however I am sure that many will not and will only go for gross sexual shock value. Axe, you've managed to out-do yourself.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Blog 6: Looking into gay vague advertising
We have learned many terms in this class, most of which I was familiar with concerning the basic principle while not necessarily the literal term itself. One term has stuck out above all others so far. Before I took this class, I had never before heard of gay vague advertising. The concept intrigued me and after understanding what it is and why it is used, I started to wonder how many other straight people like myself have failed to notice this? After doing some research online, it appears that gay vague advertising is on the rise.
I never realized what was going on in certain ads because the sole purpose of those ads was for me to see what I as a straight man would traditionally see while a gay person would naturally see something else altogether. I didn't know such ads were out there because I didn't know what to look for. I knew there were advertisements targeted towards homosexuals, but I never knew there was a stealthy concept out there that allowed for advertising to everybody.
Some people think gay vague advertising is offensive. I do not think this is the case. Gay people have a right to be advertised to, as well. If anything, those people who are offended by such things should rejoice because gay vague advertising is meant to please all parties. I'm willing to bet that those people who are angered by such a concept have failed to realize examples of gay vague advertising in the past, thus proving my point.
Now that I am familiar with the concept of gay vague advertisementing and having seen examples of such in class, I am purposely on the lookout to see how many such ads I can realize on my own. I've already told some friends of mine who are not taking this class about the concept and they were just as surprised as I was. This includes a gay friend who loves the idea.
I never realized what was going on in certain ads because the sole purpose of those ads was for me to see what I as a straight man would traditionally see while a gay person would naturally see something else altogether. I didn't know such ads were out there because I didn't know what to look for. I knew there were advertisements targeted towards homosexuals, but I never knew there was a stealthy concept out there that allowed for advertising to everybody.
Some people think gay vague advertising is offensive. I do not think this is the case. Gay people have a right to be advertised to, as well. If anything, those people who are offended by such things should rejoice because gay vague advertising is meant to please all parties. I'm willing to bet that those people who are angered by such a concept have failed to realize examples of gay vague advertising in the past, thus proving my point.
Now that I am familiar with the concept of gay vague advertisementing and having seen examples of such in class, I am purposely on the lookout to see how many such ads I can realize on my own. I've already told some friends of mine who are not taking this class about the concept and they were just as surprised as I was. This includes a gay friend who loves the idea.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Blog 5: Discussing Ch. 10
After reading chapter 10, I realized what was going on in my youth between the beer kingpins which I had never noticed before. In the section labeled, "Coors Light" it said that the three kingpins of Coors, Anheuser-Bush and Miller, began to increase their efforts more than ever before to attract the younger demographic, starting in 2001 to today. I found the many ways they went after the younger demographic to be slick and well-played. I say this because at the time I was in high school and my friends and I would always laugh at and enjoy their new commercials, not really knowing the truth behind them as I do now.
I still remember the softer, more family-oriented Coors Original commercials with the grandfatherly Pete Coors walking through the snow. Such a commercial today probably would not attract a lot of attention and be successful compared to the current racy beer commercials as they are the new standard lately.
The Coors Light commercial with "the twins" was a favorite among my friends and I. I was 17 at the time, still four years from 21, but the campaign worked it's subtle magic by generating conversation and positive buzz among the younger crowd like my friends and I. We were the next beer drinking generation and the beer kingpins knew they had to hook us early.
Still, probably the most favorite one among my friends and I would have to be the "Catfight" commercial. This Miller commercial was seen as a stroke of genius among my friends and my older brothers and their friends. Looking back on it now as a 23 year-old, I can see through the facade and notice how sexist such a commercial really is. Not only that, but it's about as unrealistic as you can get, but it worked because it played to our fantasies. The fact that it was a product of one of the actors in the commercial, it being his way of making a beer commercial, made it relatable to every straight man. Heck, I mean even the twins commercial is more realistic because there's just two hot twins who love football. But this one could have only worked on the level that it did because it was presented in a fantasy setting.
Looking back on all those commercials now I can't help but wonder how much they influenced me at the time. My friends and I certainly enjoyed them, but did they eventually lead me to drink alcohol? I am a responsible social drinker, but would I even be drinking if not for those commercials? I'm sure they had some influence since they glamorized and sexualized the act of drinking. I'm glad this chapter was included in the book because it not only revealed to me what I didn't know about the behind the scenes aspect of the commercials (such as the large volumes of money the kingpins were spending, the shift in campaigns and so on), but i also reaffirmed some theories I had been considering for quite some time.
I still remember the softer, more family-oriented Coors Original commercials with the grandfatherly Pete Coors walking through the snow. Such a commercial today probably would not attract a lot of attention and be successful compared to the current racy beer commercials as they are the new standard lately.
The Coors Light commercial with "the twins" was a favorite among my friends and I. I was 17 at the time, still four years from 21, but the campaign worked it's subtle magic by generating conversation and positive buzz among the younger crowd like my friends and I. We were the next beer drinking generation and the beer kingpins knew they had to hook us early.
Still, probably the most favorite one among my friends and I would have to be the "Catfight" commercial. This Miller commercial was seen as a stroke of genius among my friends and my older brothers and their friends. Looking back on it now as a 23 year-old, I can see through the facade and notice how sexist such a commercial really is. Not only that, but it's about as unrealistic as you can get, but it worked because it played to our fantasies. The fact that it was a product of one of the actors in the commercial, it being his way of making a beer commercial, made it relatable to every straight man. Heck, I mean even the twins commercial is more realistic because there's just two hot twins who love football. But this one could have only worked on the level that it did because it was presented in a fantasy setting.
Looking back on all those commercials now I can't help but wonder how much they influenced me at the time. My friends and I certainly enjoyed them, but did they eventually lead me to drink alcohol? I am a responsible social drinker, but would I even be drinking if not for those commercials? I'm sure they had some influence since they glamorized and sexualized the act of drinking. I'm glad this chapter was included in the book because it not only revealed to me what I didn't know about the behind the scenes aspect of the commercials (such as the large volumes of money the kingpins were spending, the shift in campaigns and so on), but i also reaffirmed some theories I had been considering for quite some time.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Blog 4: Discussing Chapter 8's content
The issue presented in chapter 8 (sexual content on television commercials) is one that I found very interesting beyond the obvious nature of the content being discussed. I think this issue is one of the most pertinent in the book and was wondering why it was listed so deep into the book at chapter 8. I am not sure how the setup of the book came about. It is clear that the book is very well researched and if there is a specific order to the book that logically relegated this issue to a later chapter, I was previously unaware of such measures.
But I did notice that it was appropriately listed as the first chapter in the section 2 heading of sexualizing products. My point of all this being I found it to be the most fascinating chapter we've read yet. I credit this, among other great aspects of the chapter, to the statistical breakdown of television programs/sexual content per show/percentage of boys who watch and so on as seen in tables 8.3 and 8.4. In fact, the breakdown per network was also well researched as seen in table 8.2 which discusses the seconds of sexual content in certain areas.
As for the text itself, there was on single line that stuck out the most and really got me thinking. "While media scholars, parents, and politicians often talk about whether adolescent exposure to television is problematic, the discussions rarely focus on advertising."
I always thought that sexually explicit advertising was potentially harmful if not highly suggestive to young, impressionable minds. The way I see it, it's just a quick 15 seconds to 30 seconds of jokes and sexually-related dialogue which can be easily remembered. I guess I was in the minority. I suppose I was a little naive, but I'm not ashamed of that. I'm proud of my thinking and will continue to keep a watchful eye open when I'm around my younger cousins while watching television.
But I did notice that it was appropriately listed as the first chapter in the section 2 heading of sexualizing products. My point of all this being I found it to be the most fascinating chapter we've read yet. I credit this, among other great aspects of the chapter, to the statistical breakdown of television programs/sexual content per show/percentage of boys who watch and so on as seen in tables 8.3 and 8.4. In fact, the breakdown per network was also well researched as seen in table 8.2 which discusses the seconds of sexual content in certain areas.
As for the text itself, there was on single line that stuck out the most and really got me thinking. "While media scholars, parents, and politicians often talk about whether adolescent exposure to television is problematic, the discussions rarely focus on advertising."
I always thought that sexually explicit advertising was potentially harmful if not highly suggestive to young, impressionable minds. The way I see it, it's just a quick 15 seconds to 30 seconds of jokes and sexually-related dialogue which can be easily remembered. I guess I was in the minority. I suppose I was a little naive, but I'm not ashamed of that. I'm proud of my thinking and will continue to keep a watchful eye open when I'm around my younger cousins while watching television.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
