Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Degradation of women in today’s advertising

Rate this topic


0096 2251 2110 8105
 Share

Recommended Posts

This newest one is immoral because it won't make anyone want to eat that sandwich, so it will fail, and bring BK's popularity down considerably. It's a very disappointing example of self-destruction, if you ask me, because that ad is just stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This newest one is immoral because it won't make anyone want to eat that sandwich, so it will fail, and bring BK's popularity down considerably. It's a very disappointing example of self-destruction, if you ask me, because that ad is just stupid.
Like the Axe ads, this ad is aimed at getting a laugh from its young male audience, who are always the best audience for the large sandwiches. It will probably leave them with the idea that this is one humongous sandwich, nothing more nor less in any practical sense. I see no reason to think the target audience would be dissuaded by the ad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This newest one is immoral because it won't make anyone want to eat that sandwich, so it will fail, and bring BK's popularity down considerably.

Well, I think that's a non sequitur, and the sandwich sold pretty well actually (this was almost a year ago). The target audience was young males, and it did work. I really don't think that the morality or immorality of the ad simply lies on popularity and sales, that is just a by-product.

Edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think that the morality or immorality of the ad simply lies on popularity and sales, that is just a by-product.
Well, in this case it does. The ad is obviously morally unobjectionable in other ways, so all we're left with is the worthy (aka moral) end of selling sandwiches and making a profit. If it achieved that end, it was moral.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in this case it does. The ad is obviously morally unobjectionable in other ways, so all we're left with is the worthy (aka moral) end of selling sandwiches and making a profit. If it achieved that end, it was moral.

Hmm, OK, but what I'm looking for is the moral evaluation of the ad, within that frame. And..I'm still not clear about this, it's not obvious to me, if X company sold a health product, and promoted itself by presenting an ad with a mutilated kid and his mother crying next to him, with a "this could happen to you, buy X" or something, would the publicity be moral? Let's pretend that tactic would actually work and it would increase the sales (it probably would, a similar campaign promoting the use of seatbelts worked prett well here.)

Edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if X company sold a health product, and promoted itself by presenting an ad with a mutilated kid and his mother crying next to him, with a "this could happen to you, buy X" or something, would the publicity be moral?
Assuming it is the truth, why not? For instance, if the government did not mandate polio vaccines, one might see ads with a child who has polio, with a warning that this could be your child if you do not vaccinate him. Indeed, such ads are often run by government agencies trying to convince people to get their kids vaccinated, in poorer countries. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming it is the truth, why not?

Well, I don't know, I think that would be a complete disrespect and lack of consideration towards the kid's family, and many others would think so too, if the pictures were taken from a real situation (the ones from the seatbelt campaign were). But, even if they weren't, exploiting suffering and agony in that way would be perceived as moral reprehensible, probably grotesque and repulsive to some, but still selling, and I think that would give an indication of some psychological flaws from the people behind the ad. But let's stay on topic. I just want to get this clear:

1) so is the BK ad absolutely moral then? As long as it sells?

2) Isn't that a sort of pragmatic approach?

Edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know, I think that would be a complete disrespect and lack of consideration towards the kid's family, and many others would think so too, if the pictures were taken from a real situation (the ones from the seatbelt campaign were).
Using someone's picture without their consent is a completely different issue. For the purposes of evaluating the ad itself, we should assume that the models (or their guardians) have volunteered their photographs.

..., exploiting suffering and agony ...
That's a morally loaded way of describing it. Neutrally, you mean "they demonstrated real life suffering and agony".

..., would be perceived as moral reprehensible, probably grotesque and repulsive to some...
The thing is that people often understand intellectually that they ought to act a certain way, but they still don't. There is often a disconnect between the way they think of a particular value / disvalue intellectually and their emotional-level valuation of the same. Though a picture is not an argument, it can sell the argument. it can make the abstract more concrete.

1) so the BK ad is absolutely moral? As long as it sells?

2) Isn't that a sort of pragmatic approach to it?

No, an ad is definitely not moral just because it sells. However, there is nothing objectionable about the BK ad. We next examine its intent, and find that to be moral as well. So, the final question is whether it was effective in achieving its morally-justified purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This newest one is immoral because it won't make anyone want to eat that sandwich, so it will fail, and bring BK's popularity down considerably. It's a very disappointing example of self-destruction, if you ask me, because that ad is just stupid.

It is of course relevant if people act in their self interest, in every choice they make, but the most important footnotes to that statement, which Ayn Rand insisted upon seemingly every time she discussed it, are avoidance of what she called rash, indiscriminate moralizing, and psychologizing. Of course, what she meant by the first is not to suspend moral judgment in some cases, as someone suggested in another active thread, but "condemnation without knowledge". And by the second, she meant guessing at psychological problems in the absence of factual evidence (I assume you haven't even met these self destructive execs, you're just guessing based on the ad).

So, I have to ask: what qualifies you to judge the potential efficacy of ads above the executives at this company which chose to ran with it, and how do you know for a fact that the executives are self destructive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I think us europeans - and swedes in particular - are perhaps a bit more metrosexual than americans. :D

I think you are right.

My son used AXE for a while. The stuff smells foul. I never did like after-shaves and colognes. Occasionally, I may wear a bit of Stetson, but usually, nothing - I just make sure I am clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the Axe ads, this ad is aimed at getting a laugh from its young male audience, who are always the best audience for the large sandwiches.

As a young male, I can honestly say that no sandwich with a semblance to a penis is an attractive lunch option to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a young male, I can honestly say that no sandwich with a semblance to a penis is an attractive lunch option to me.

Right, so you have a problem with food being associated with a penis, not the joke itself. As a young male, I can tell you I'm not bothered by penises in any way, shape or form. I guess BK figured most young people are like me, and don't mind an oral sex joke before, during or after lunch. Can you prove that's not the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[.img]http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/BKsevenincher.jpg

What do you have to say about this piece? (morally wise)

You mean the obvious phallic reference and a woman about to perform fellatio with an expression that says; "damn, that's big!"?

I think it's a fairly fun way to say it's a big-ass sandwich. Morally, I see nothing wrong with making jokes like that.

This newest one is immoral because it won't make anyone want to eat that sandwich, so it will fail, and bring BK's popularity down considerably. It's a very disappointing example of self-destruction, if you ask me, because that ad is just stupid.

I would. Looks big and tasty.

Pun intended.

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a young male, I can honestly say that no sandwich with a semblance to a penis is an attractive lunch option to me.

You've never eaten a submarine sandwich? Standard sizes (at least here) are 6" and 12". Would a 12" sandwich be more or less like a penis than the one in the add? I love gobbling down 12 inchers - it really fills you up. There are so many foods with "semblances to penises" that I'd think you're starving yourself.

The ad isn't bad at all, and can still be taken as just a woman eating a sandwich. Maybe the catch phrase could be more subtle, but I would say they're very far from crossing any line. They aren't saying, "THIS SANDWICH LOOKS LIKE A BIG DONG, EAT IT"; they're saying, "Our sandwich is big. So big, that if it was in your pants, girls would be very impressed. Eat our surprisingly large sandwich".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've never eaten a submarine sandwich? Standard sizes (at least here) are 6" and 12". Would a 12" sandwich be more or less like a penis than the one in the add? I love gobbling down 12 inchers - it really fills you up. There are so many foods with "semblances to penises" that I'd think you're starving yourself.

I understand that most sub sandwiches are penis-shaped. But to actually relate eating a particular one to performing oral sex? Bad advertisement, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Whenever I am asked to evaluate the "vulgar nature" of todays sexual advertising, whether for classes or simply in debate, I always enjoy turning it on its head and talking about the negative stereotypes that are applied to men in advertising (ie, stupid, single minded, easily manipulated etc) it always makes people stop, and in debate people are often unable to even formulate a response because they're so surprised, but if you do it right and make your arguments properly then there's not really anything they can say to refute you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that BK ad was immoral...though I would say that it's in very bad taste. Taste and immorality do not necessarily line up, and some people have different tolerances and tastes. Personally, I hate Burger King food and I think that ad is silly and yes, definitely in bad taste. I wouldn't buy that sandwich because of the implication of oral sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...