Posts Tagged by Advertising

Women Are Powerful (Natural Resources)

By Joshua Bardwell, originally posted in March 2010 at Jack-Booted Liberal.

This ad, seen in an airport, illustrates the complexity of attempting to support women in a culture that is steeped in female objectification.

On the one hand, the ad is explicitly pro-woman. On the other hand, it represents women as a “natural resource” to be “tapped.” If we are to support women, it should be for the same reasons that we support any person, and those reasons start with basic respect for human dignity. Saying that we should help them so as to “tap” them reduces them to the value that we can extract from them, which is, granted, totally consistent with our culture’s treatment of many people the world over, but is probably not reflective of the progressive values that this charity attempts to represent.

Has Heidi Montag’s Plastic Surgery Gone Too Far?

By Joshua Bardwell, originally posted in January 2010 at Jackbooted Liberal.

Oh, checkout-line magazines. What wonderful reflections of popular culture you are. I was in Wal-Mart last night when I noticed the cover of the latest People magazine, which asks:

“Breasts enlarged, chin reduced, nose redone—and she wants more. ‘I’m obsessed,’ says Heidi, 23. But has she gone too far?”

Yes. Has she gone too far? And if she has, I ask, “How would anybody know?” Because we are constantly bombarded by media with the message that we are fundamentally inadequate. For every aspect of the human physical condition, there is a marketer who is willing to define it as an ailment, and a product to be sold as a cure. When we continuously participate in the idea that our bodies are flawed and in need of repair, who are we to point fingers at Heidi and say, “Oh, that’s over the line.” Perhaps Heidi has just internalized the message a little more thoroughly than those who stop at shaving their legs and underarms, bleaching their teeth and skin, tweezing their eyebrows, putting on wrinkle-reducing cream, and dying their hair.

But really, who can blame her? Magazine covers regularly Photoshop already stunningly-beautiful people (link link link link) to further “enhance” them into completely fantastical realms of physical “perfection.” In fact, in some cases, the person is manipulated so dramatically that they are hardly even recognizable as themselves afterwards! Would you have guessed that the two people pictured below are the same person?

Ugly Betty may be “hot,” but I wouldn’t know, because she’s not actually on that magazine cover. So perhaps we can interpret Heidi’s surgery as nothing more than an attempt to “Photoshop” herself in real life like has been done on magazine covers.

As Shakesville points out, discussing Nia Vardalos,

There’s nothing wrong with being a 46-year-old woman, and there’s nothing wrong with looking like a 46-year-old woman. There’s also nothing inherently and objectively unattractive about a 46-year-old woman. Only according to some bullshit beauty standard that expects women never to age is there shame in showing the hard-earned lines of a life fully lived, and only in a vain and immature culture which axiomatically favors youth over experience can there be found justification for dehumanizing Vardalos into a plasticized doll-version of herself and calling that an improvement.

Oh, but the icing on the cake was this other magazine that I found, just across the aisle.

Because, apparently, it’s scanadlous if Heidi gets radical plastic surgery, but if Cher does it, it’s “Wow!”

And the point of all this, dear readers, is that you can’t win. No matter what you do, you will never be beautiful enough to satisfy Media. You will never have bought enough Product and never have done enough Crunches. And if you do somehow manage to pull that off, you’ll just be vilified for over-doing it.

Stop trying to satisfy the tabloid, Hollywood, magazine-stand beauty standard. Be beautiful. Give up. Love yourself. Oh, and by the way, if you are saying, “I do love myself, I just have to lose five more pounds,” or, “I do love myself, except for this hair on my upper lip,” you’re missing the point.

I strongly recommend reading the “Impossible Beauty” series on Shakesville. It’s got over thirty entries, most of which can be accessed from the list at the bottom of this post.

Baby Bellyaching April 2013

The return of Baby Bellyaching! This snark is brought to you by my friend Sara who is giving me her copies of Parenting magazine. I’m not paying for this drivel myself! Remember, this is a rant. If you require nuance at all times, move along elsewhere.

Parenting Magazine April 2013

The cover does promise a lot. Dieting for kids? Autism? Bribes? Let’s go!

Breeding Fear: These magazines always try to scare the shit out of you (because capitalism!). This month you’re supposed to be afraid of:
  • Germs in your mouth
  • Scissor injuries
  • Infections under your bandaid
  • Grandmas who haven’t kept up on safety fads (Ooh! Scary grandma!)
  • Carrying your kids on the stairs
  • Autism
  • HFCS – Astonishingly this page never mentions “obesity”.
  • Kidnapping – Actual quote: “These days kids get kidnapped every day. If they were on a leash maybe they’d stand a chance.” Okay, seriously? Kids who are in the leash age-range are, what? 1-4? And a leash implies that it’s a time when they should be by a parent’s side, not, say, at school. So, how many times in the US has a 1-4 year old kid been kidnapped when they were supposed to be standing near their parent? I’m going to go with NEVER. If you can dig up one I’m gonna give you a COOKIE. And this quote would still be dumb!
Going Out of Business: Let’s count how many times Parenting magazine (you know, the kind of magazine with paper) begs for a place at social media’s lunch table:
  • In more than one place, they printed some tweets. Printing tweets is when you know you’re a loser. (See also: CNN)
  • There’s an interview with a blogger. Okay, fine.
  • There are 4 stories pulled entirely from Facebook comments.
  • There’s a ”hot on Pinterest” section. You know what else is hot on Pinterest? Being on Pinterest.

How many ways can you signal your irrelevance?

This Month In Fat Hate: Oh my god. Apparently this was the We Hate Fat People issue. The VERY FIRST piece of “letter from the editor”-style content shames the author’s fat family and talks about how we can never give up trying to get rid of fat kids. Fuck you, “Ana Connery, content director”. how about your direct some content that doesn’t shame, stigmatize, and oppress your readers?

There’s a little inspo piece about Jillian Michaels adopting a baby from Haiti. Simply printing her name and giving her a platform is a form of fat-hate. In case you’re not familiar with her, Jillian Michaels hates fat people for a living (see: The Biggest Loser). Was this adoption story supposed to be sweet? Instead, it just shows that she’s not just a fat-hating bitch, she’s also a white saviour, baby-snatching racist. Probably not the effect they were going for.

Fuck you to Shawn Bean, too. He’s written a “humor” column that outright calls for more judgment of the bodies of men while equating fat with health and fat with food. This same dude later on makes fun of his kids’ musical efforts. Way to go, dad. You might be skinny, but you’re an asshole.

Then there’s an article called “Should I put my Kid on a Diet”? The article reads, “No,” and then you turn the page for the next article.

Haha, just kidding.

The first line is “Our culture teaches us that there is little worse than being fat.” By “our culture” don’t you mean “our magazine”, Parenting? I mean, you featured Jillian Michaels, and then you had an article explicitly saying that dads should be thinner. You are the problem!

This article starts off with “epidemic” and fear mongering about fat kids, fat toddlers, fat babies OMGWTFBBQ! then asks you to focus on things “that work”. Oh, good. Get back to us when you’ve figured out what those are! You can plop down some same-old-same-old advice in your little list, but that doesn’t mean these things “work”. Have you READ any diet studies? Have you READ the ones that focus on interventions with children? No? Yeah. I could tell.

I literally felt ill reading “A Letter to My Fat Child” in which an anonymous parent calls her child a “reverse avalanche”, accuses her of sneaking food, and admits to lying about the availability of the swimsuit the kid wanted. Congratulations, you’re a horrible parent. And every single person who works at Parenting who touched that shit and didn’t put up a fuss about printing it is a horrible person.

Bad Science: Amongst all the other anti-fat-kid suggestions is the one that all you have to do is deny your kid the afternoon goldfish snack and there won’t be any more fat kids. What an idiotic representation of already biased science.

Other People Who Don’t Need to be Cured: The Autism article features “epidemic”, “puzzle”, “cure”, and shout outs to Autism Speaks, an organization that DOES NOT speak for the autistic people I listen to. It’s funny (not funny) how no one is allowed to just BE. Maybe nothing needs to be “cured” about people with autism. Maybe they don’t need to sit in daily training sessions with people forcing them to make eye contact. Maybe they don’t need huge organizations focused on parents of kids with autism instead of focusing on actual people with autism.

Underachiever: 5 pages of themed birthdays? In case you have too much time on your hands and are a serious show off? Yeah, let me get right on sewing robes for my kid’s Harry Potter birthday party.

Sex: Oh dear. I’m not sure a mainstream mag should be advising me on “sexting”. They remind you to delete the trail when you’re done, and then they recommend sending your partner steamy texts like, “My mom says she can take the girls for a playdate this weekend,” or “Thinking about last night…XOXO.” I think I just died of an orgasm, right here while reading this. This is just the thing my sex life needs. Joshua’s not going to know what hit him.

The other half – ADS:

There’s never much real content in these magazines, and Parenting is looking even more flimsy these days. I take an ad tally as I read. I only count full or half page ads.

6 ADS for healthist stuff. This is “nutrition”, weight-cycling, “fitness”, etc.

4 ADS for harmful baby stuff.

  • Similac has some new ingredient that makes it more like breast milk. You know what has had that ingredient all along? Fucking breast milk. You know what currently has the ingredient Similac is going to add next year? Also breast milk!

16 ADS in the Beauty/Cleaning category, also known as “The world is scary!” or “There’s something wrong with you! (or your kid!)”

  • There’s a Lysol ad that tries to coin the word “Healthing”, because why shouldn’t fucking Lysol get in on the health obsession. You might think you’re killing germs, but it’s not healthing until you’re 100000% sure.
  • The Orajel advertised itself as gluten-free and dairy-free. Is that normally a problem with toothpaste? Or are those the cool codewords required in all advertising now?
  • An Always ad tells me that “odor protection isn’t just for underarms”. The ad shows a woman who’s been picked up by a man and tossed over his shoulder, putting his face 6 inches from her ass. How about we make a deal? You stay the fuck away from my ass if you don’t like how people smell?

13 ADS for miscellaneous non-offensive things.

  • Turbo Tax advertising is a welcome relief after all this other crap.
  • The Chicco carseat looked so awesome I kind of want one. 9 reclining positions!
  • The Jello pudding ad with “a smile on your face and another in your belly” is just what I’m looking for in a food ad. How difficult is that?

I’m afraid I may have been too annoyed to be funny with this post. How about you? Any parenting advice or advertisements that have pissed you off lately? 

{Guest Post} Social Construction of Sexy

{This post is reprinted with permission from Jack-Booted Liberal, where it was originally posted on July 11th, 2009.}

Social Construction of Sexy

Your preferences are not your own.

One factor that influences your preferences is the perception of what other people are liking. I read in a Wired magazine (and, sorry, but I can’t find a link, nor am I going to dig through my old copies of Wired to find the article) about a study that was performed to determine the effect of people’s perceptions of others’ preferences on popularity. A database of obscure musical tracks was created and groups of people in the study were invited to listen to the tracks and rate them. In the control groups, the tracks started out unrated, and the ratings evolved solely on the basis of the preferences of the participants. In the test groups, songs’ ratings were pre-set, as if the study had been ongoing before the participants arrived, giving participants the perception that other people had already weighed in on the songs’ merit.

Surprise, surprise. Very few songs were consistently rated as stinkers and hits. For the most part, participants preferred songs that they believed had been previously highly rated, and disliked songs that they believed had been previously rated down. If you asked the participants what they liked about a certain song, they definitely wouldn’t say, “I liked that it was rated high when I got here,” but the numbers show that was exactly what was happening. The exact same participant, placed into a different control group, could have ended up liking a totally different song, and hating the one that he or she had loved in an alternate reality.

To sum up: there are some things that people are very prone not to like (the smell of feces and rotting meat), and other things that people are very prone to like (sugar, opiates), but the vast majority of things fall into a middle ground where our like or dislike of them is shaped by multiple factors, one of which is our perception of whether other people like or dislike them.

If you think the same isn’t true when it comes to “sexy,” you’re wrong.

calvin_ad_klein1

Are the people in the image above sexy?

Preference is a feedback loop, especially when Media gets involved. What individual people “like” is dependent on a variety of factors. Oh, you may think you like what you like, but expectation and familiarity play a huge role. Ever been loving a mystery-dish right up until you found out what was in it? There you go.

Media primarily presents content designed to appeal to the largest number of people—the lowest common denominator. The images that are presented are not necessarily inherently sexy, if such a concept can even be said to exist. They are a social construct of sexy that is the result of constant refinement of the images that are presented by media and taken in by consumers. Washboard abs, big boobs stuck onto a bony chest: we disproportionately find these, and other, physical characteristics to be sexy, because they are constantly and exclusively presented to us by media as sexy. This leads to the sub-conscious conclusion that many, many other people must also find these things sexy, which increases our own propensity to find them sexy. There’s your feedback loop.

I came across a great example of the social construction of sexy recently:

Evony_Ad_Jan_2010

There is plenty to critique in this ad, but what I’d like to focus on here is the fact that, in order to create your “ideal” woman, you are allowed to change her: lips, breasts, and butt. That is all. The flat tummy is apparently non-negotiable. So are the skinny legs. What if my idea of a sexy woman looks like this?

That option is not supported by the ad. This woman must not be sexy. Because if washboard abs and big boobs on a bony chest are sexy, then the lack of those things must be un-sexy.

But the fact is that CamGirlKitten (I am told) makes a very comfortable living producing pornography for legions of fans who do, in fact, find her sexy. Although they probably don’t talk about it in public. CamGirlKitten and other BBW porn stars like her are relegated to the realm of “fetish,” or, “kink,” which basically means, “Anything outside of the relatively narrow subset of physical characteristics that are reinforced as desirable by mainstream media.” The powerful negative association that the words, “kink,” and, “fetish,” have with many people is indicative of how strong the social urge to appear to share others’ sexual preferences is.

And it’s a shame, for many reasons. First and foremost, the constructed definition of “sexy” has been so refined that only a fractional percentage of actual, real live human beings match it. This means the vast majority of us are constantly dealing with the message that we are not sexy, not desirable, not attractive. Some people just internalize that message, which is a tragedy, but it’s probably good for some companies’ bottom lines, since they can then sell products that purport to fix the un-sexy condition. Some people manage to reject the message, but they have to deal with the social stigma that comes with such a subversive act. Imagine that: thinking of yourself as sexy is a subversive act.

The second reason it’s a shame is that most of us are participating in propagating that message, which means we are thinking of others as not sexy, not desirable, not attractive, largely because they do not fit the constructed definition of “sexy,” when in fact we might find those people sexy, desirable, and attractive if we could just step outside of that construct. And I’m not talking about pretending to find people sexy in order to “be a good person.” I’m not talking about a pity-fuck. I’m saying that human preference and sexual response is varied enough that most of us are capable of being sincerely attracted to more than just that fractional percent of people who have physical characteristics that are portrayed in the media, and by limiting ourselves to those characteristics, we’re missing out on opportunities for enjoyable and fulfilling interactions with other people.

Your assignment: If you consume mainstream pornography, spend one week consuming only pornography that features models with body types that differ from the mainstream norm (skinny, flat abs, huge penis, big boobs, rock hard pecs, etc…). Notice how your sexual response to them changes. It may take longer than a week to notice a change, depending on various factors.

If you do not consume pornography, you may be able to accomplish a similar result by having sexual fantasies about people who have body types that differ from the mainstream norm. Fortunately, such people are ALL AROUND YOU, so you should have no shortage of material. Imagine them naked. Then imagine them sexy. In case you think that this assignment is in some way inappropriate, keep in mind that YOU ARE POSSIBLY ALREADY DOING IT. If you are like most people, you are already imagining the people around as NOT SEXY all the time. So a shift to imagining them as sexy instead isn’t much of a change.

{Guest Post} Advertising Attributes Unreal Or Obvious Qualities

{This post is reprinted with permission from Jack-Booted Liberal, where it was originally posted on July 11th, 2009.}

Advertising Attributes Unreal Or Obvious Qualities

by Joshua Bardwell

There’s a phenomenon that I’ve observed in advertising. It’s a bit subtle and I’m not exactly sure how to describe it, so I’ve been taking photos (mostly phone-cam) of examples whenever I see them, and I’ve finally got enough to make a post out of it.

The phenomenon has two basic forms. In the first form, the advertising attributes what I’d call “unreal” qualities to the product. For example:

photo_060709_001

The tag-line in this Bombay Sapphire ad is The Spirit of Exploration. The ad shows an exotic locale. How is the act of buying and drinking gin an “exploration”? Unless you’re referring to the exploration of your own intoxication, which can be accomplished equally well using any number of other liquors.

photo_060209_001

In the above photo, Burger King’s coffee is described as Good Hard-Working Coffee. Again, I’m confused. Coffee does not work. It isn’t lazy either. It’s liquid.

In the second form of the phenomenon, the product is advertised with qualities that ought to be self-evident, which leaves me wondering why the hell anybody is bothering to advertise them. For example:

photo_051009_001

Gosh. Thanks for telling me on the side of the cup that my drink is Good N’ Cold. You know, the temperature sensors in my own skin weren’t adequate to tell me that. I expect product packaging to lie to me about the qualities a product has, but have advertisers become so post-modern in their approach that they’re now not even bothering to make up grandiose claims about their products? “This drink? Yeah. It’s cold.”

Here’s another one:

photo_060409_001

This Pizza Hut box helpfully informs me that Now You’re Eating. I am? Shit! What the fuck did I think I was doing with this pizza that you just delivered?

Finally, I present to you the coup de grace. I’m not sure which category this example belongs, but it’s too good to leave out.

imgp0020

Here, the product packaging spins the simple act of selecting a medium drink cup into a deeply personal statement about the customer. Is this the kind of interaction that people want from their fast food companies? Obviously, there is some irony intended in this statement, but even so, I’m astounded that this isn’t a catastrophic turn-off to most of BK’s customers. It seems insulting. I just want to say, “Please. I’m drinking a soda. Noting more, nothing less.” If I’m the kind of person who “knows exactly what I want in life,” I god damn well hope it’s something more meaningful than a medium soda (versus a small or a large).

I wonder what the small and large cups say.

Fat Acceptance and Lingerie Ads

Check out this recent comment I received on a fat-related post:

btw, you might want to consider blogging on a service that doesn’t show me pictures of slender women in their lingerie. It’s rather incongruous to read your posts adjacent to an ad that shows me a picture of a model in Rachel Zoe-designed underwear.

I’m aware of the underwear ads. Interestingly enough, this isn’t the first person wondering why I allow them. A friend of mine asked about how much control I have over what ads are shown because she was surprised about the underwear ads. She asked:

Out of curiosity, what level of control do you have over the ads on your blog?…I know some blogs don’t have that level of control, and I didn’t know if that was the case, or if you just didn’t know about the ads… this is my personal opinion, like I said, but the…Lingerie ads seemed not to line up.

I do have control over what categories of ads show up here. You will never see an ad for infant formula, anything from the diet industry, military ads, or anything from Republicans. I am also informed of upcoming campaigns and can opt out of them individually, but I’m unlikely to take the time to do that unless something really offensive comes up.

Are skinny half naked women out of line with my blog? Out of line with fat acceptance posts?

If I were strictly running a fat acceptance blog, I might feel more strongly about controlling the images that appear with the ads. I would be more likely to attract readers who have been seriously traumatized by fat hate and who want stronger protection from harmful messages. I’m not running a fat acceptance blog, though. I write about a lot of topics and don’t attract a single type of reader.

And the strongest reason I don’t object to the underwear ads is that I don’t have anything against skinny women or lingerie. I have posted pictures on LoveLiveGrow that included nudity, including fully naked photos of myself. And my fat acceptance battle is against a criminally critical culture; irresponsible scientific, medical, and governmental groups; and outright bigots. It is NOT under any circumstances a battle against skinny people.

do object to computerized, unrealistic images of women, but those show up in all kinds of advertising across the board. Those images are relentless and nearly unavoidable, as are other harmful ubiquitously advertised messages.

For example, as I was writing a reply to the comment that starts off this post, I glanced up to see what ad was currently visible to me. I see all kinds of ads here, but what I found in that moment was truly congruent. I was an ad for a water filter that showed the words “Getting healthier?” alongside a glass of water with a tape measure around its “waist”. THAT is offensive. The casual, thoughtless assertion that getting healthier means getting smaller is hateful, harmful, and offensive.

The bodies of thin women are not.

For good measure, here: enjoy some photos of fat women in their underwear, found here, here, here, and here.

A Woman’s World Is Full of Shit

 

Got this snapshot of marketing absurdity at Walmart the other day. Let’s break it down.

  • “Lose 42 pounds drinking coffee.” What if I already drink coffee? Can I lose 42 pounds by drinking more? What if coffee is disgusting (which I find it to be)? Is it worth it?
  • “Add this stir-in to melt fat?” Where will the melted fat go? I’m afraid it will fall out my asshole, in which case I’d rather just keep my 42 pounds. Besides, I’m “obese”, and if I lose 42 pounds I’ll still be “obese”.
  • “Breast protection in your Bloody Mary.” Well, at least we’re drinking! How many calories are in a Bloody Mary, and how much coffee do I have to drink to counteract it? I sense a lot of peeing in my future.
  • “Olympic ‘performance enhancing’ energy berry.” Um, doesn’t “performance enhancing” usually refer to erections? I don’t think getting an erection is going to help me get to the Olympics. Besides, the real Olympic performers are getting the good drugs. Fuck berries. I’m going to need some testosterone, some amphetamine, some weird shit you’ve never heard of, and some blood transfusions. And coffee.
  • “Happy stress-free holidays!” I’m not sure how I’m going to manage that while drinking 42 pounds of coffee, staying drunk on Bloody Marys and winning the Olympics. Oh, nevermind, I see now. Cupcakes! Yes, it all makes sense.

Raising Generation Tech Book Review

A couple of weeks ago on the Unconditional Parenting (UP) discussion group that I moderate, the terrible dangers of cell phones on kids was brought up. One parent mentioned that parents these days felt pressured to give young kids cell phones. I said I didn’t feel pressured about it. Rather, I’m looking forward to Dylan having his own cell phone! I love my technology and don’t fear it in Dylan’s life. Other parents see things quite differently.

Shortly after that conversation, I received an offer to get a free copy of the book Raising Generation Tech by Jim Taylor, PhD so I could do this review. Dr Taylor has written several other books, including Your Children Are Listening: Nine Messages They Need to Hear from You, and as a parenting and psychology expert he blogs for popular websites and appears on news shows. On the heels of that UP discussion, and as Dylan gets more and more interested in the technology around him, Raising Generation Tech popped up at just the right time!

Right off the bat, Dr Taylor makes a distinction between authentic popular culture and synthetic popular culture. I was resistant to this distinction because I don’t want to just reject current popular culture because it’s current and I’m increasingly not. Isn’t it a cliche that parents are always worried about “kids these days”? You can find texts from centuries past moaning about the perils of popular culture. I hate to fall into that trap. On the other hand, Dr Taylor makes the case that because of our fast-pace, broadcast-to-millions technology what we think of as popular culture is not really “popular” but instead comes to us from a limited number of materialistic, capitalistic companies. “Popular culture” these days is advertising. It’s important to pay attention to what we’re being sold. Some of the potentially alarming things that Dr Taylor mentions don’t concern me at all. Kids listing god/heaven last on a list of important things? I approve! On the other hand, the sexualization of very young children is a big concern of mine.

I appreciate Dr Taylor’s attempt to not be alarmist about technology itself. Other books demonize the hardware, such as The Plug-In Drug, which argues that the evils of television are inherent in the machine. Instead, Dr Taylor talks about how it’s not the tech that’s the issue, it’s the particular relationship your child and your family develops with the technology. This can be difficult when parents and kids can view and approach tech so differently, but it’s important not to increase that rift by attacking the equipment itself. Dr Taylor promotes setting a good foundation for your kids’ use of technology.

Raising Generation Tech dives into the potential positive and negative effects that technology can have on kids’ self-identities, self-esteem, thinking, decision making, relationships, health, and more. Dr Taylor gives each aspect of kids’ lives a multi-faceted look and presents research to help fill out the picture of how technology and popular culture interacts with these different parts of life. Since these aspects rely on values and judgements, I suspect that most people will find some disagreement with Dr Taylor’s conclusions. I cringed every time he tossed around “obesity” in the health section, for instance. And I disagreed with much of what he said about what makes positive relationships, because I have experience with people with disabilities that make them less able to benefit from traditional, face-to-face relating.

That being said, it doesn’t matter if you agree with each thing in this book or even most of them. What matters is that this is an important topic worth exploring, and Raising Generation Tech does an excellent job of leading the way for that exploration. There are many practical tasks offered to help you think through your own values and the effects of technology on your kids, and you will come away from reading with a greater understanding of yourself, your kids, the world you are navigating together, and the technology you’re using to do it.

Order Raising Generation Tech on Amazon.

Actors and Watches and Things That Don’t Save The Planet

The small text says (in part), “A PARTNERSHIP TO BENEFIT ENVIRONMENTAL CHARITIES Leonardo DiCaprio and TAG Heuer have joined together to contribute to the National Resources Defense Council. For nearly 40 years, NRDC has led the environmental movement to protect our planet. I have been a proud board member since 2003.”

I don’t know anything about the National Resources Defense Council. I don’t know anything about Leonardo DiCaprio, except that he has a lovely babyface that they’ve done their best to obscure in these ads.

Here are the few things I do know:

  • You can’t save the environment by buying a watch.
  • You can’t save the environment by buying anything, really.
  • These look like expensive watches. You definitely can’t save the environment by being a rich person buying expensive things.
  • You look like an idiot holding the watch like that.

Who wears watches these days anyway?!

Goes All the Way to the Environment

The latest magazine ad to catch my eye:

“THE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS CAR THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE ENVIRONMENT. A gas-free commute is great. But sometimes you want to get out of the city and actually see some of that environment. With the Chevrolet Volt, you can drive 35 miles gas- and emissions-free and up to 375 miles with a full charge and a full tank of gas. It’s electric when you want it, gas when you need it. It’s more car than electric.”

Hmm. I see why attempts to cure the ills of our civilization are failing.

It starts with thinking that buying a car has anything to do with “saving the environment” AT ALL.

And then in the middle there’s some willingness to be a trendy-tree-hugger, but only when you don’t have a 3 day weekend coming up, because, I mean, get real. You’ve got places to go.

It ends with thinking that “the environment” is something over there, out there, somewhere else, not here, and not you.

 

Next Page »