Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,536
edits
Unfortunate Implications/Advertising: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Fixed Justifying Edit link, bit of rewriting and other small grammar fixes) |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
== Clothing ==
* American Apparel has just started{{when}} a new line of children's clothing, which many found... creepy, considering the company's hyper-sexualized ads (look around, there's probably one on this page if you need an example) and the sex scandal involving AA's CEO Dov Charney, who apparently has a habit of sleeping with his employees and models, sexually harassing them, and his penchant for masturbating in front of women. Try not to think of that when you see AA ads with nine-year-old girls.
** And they did it again! American Apparel ran a contest to find plus-sized models for ads, to show that they were totally not fat-shamers guys, for real, why don't you believe me? Only some people felt the way they went about it and the language they used in explaining the contest were sort of degrading, so one of them, a model named Nancy Upton, decided to take a dig at the company by entering the contest with patently ridiculous food-themed AA-style photos. And she won! The voters at home loved her and she ran away with the contest! So American Apparel... chastised her for being offended by their contest, and said that the real winner was someone who had taken the contest "seriously". "We want fat girls, but only ones who don't think for themselves or have opinions of their own", says American Apparel.
* In the 1990s, Australian clothing store Katie's ran an ad saying that bosses shouldn't expect female employees to turn up for work on the day they were having their sale. It got pulled after they received complaints.
Line 54:
** And then, there are some food ads that invert that and have the parents being jerks to their kids by scaring the life out of them with either horrifying stories or (irrational) threats of punishment if they touch the product being advertised. Possibly even more disturbing in that the kids are usually around kindergarten age or so and therefore, too young to realize it's merely a tall tale.
*** In the recent Jello "Chocolate Temptations" ads, the parents aren't telling them a tall tale; one ad features a mother who pretty much tells her daughter (albeit passive-aggressively) that she'll take away her [[Companion Cube|stuffed bunny]] because she took one of mommy's temptations. Another ad features a cute little rhyme telling of "... Olive, [[Hypocrisy|who lacked self-control]]/she took mommy's temptations/[[Disproportionate Retribution|now she's polishing coal]]".
*** There's [http://youtu.be/W8-m014al-s another] where a mom is in a tent with two kids and tells them about the "Choco Beast" who goes after kids who steal Mommy's Chocolate Temptations, but they don't have anything to worry about, right? Cue the dad making monster noises outside and shadows on the tent, causing the kids to run inside screaming so he and mom can enjoy it by themselves. Holy traumatic childhood memories, Batman! [https://web.archive.org/web/20131009035414/http://www.customerservicenumbersblog.com/2011/03/jello-temptation-monster-commercial.html Quite a few parents (and others) were] [[Dude, Not Funny|not amused]].
** In contrast to their own "Chocolate Temptations" ads, Jello also runs a series in which people are caught after stealing somebody's snack because they develop 'pudding face' -- an abnormally wide grin that distorts their face. Despite this evidence, the thieves are ''always'' [[Karma Houdini|left unpunished]], with the unfortunate implication that if you buy this product, everyone around you will want to steal it, and it's your own fault if that happens because you weren't watching it closely enough.
* Kraft has a similarly themed campaign for another of their products: macaroni and cheese dinners. In these ads, kids complain about the various deceptive techniques their parents use to keep them from enjoying their dinners, such as distracting them so they can steal bites right off their plate, sending them to their room without supper on false or trumped-up charges, or only serving mac and cheese while they're out of the house. Because teaching kids that their parents will lie, cheat and steal about food is a good way to foster family togetherness, right?
Line 120:
*** And even if the woman were actually overweight and not just [[Hollywood Pudgy]], there would still be the implication that overweight people can't wear any of the clothes she mentions.
** There's an ad for Jenny Craig featuring [[Star Wars|Carrie Fisher]] where she says "Thank you for helping me feel pretty, one more time". She's a woman who has overcome drug abuse and depression, and apparently it's not worth it unless she sheds some weight in order to feel "pretty".
* A Kleenex ad campaign had some issues. Their "Get Mommed" campaign featured [
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZN6TqqE-yI This] TV ad for a company selling corrective eyewear. It's bad enough that at the end the girl avoided her ugly partner after she got glasses, but then the company [http://www.eo-executiveoptical.com/advertisements started issuing print ads] showing the same couple getting married and having a child, with the girl still having poor eyesight. The unfortunate message — never mind that the guy was a great boyfriend, husband, and father... he was still ugly, and the girl would've ''never'' ended up in a relationship with him had she gotten glasses.
** Speaking of which, a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCkwjSWe8B8 TV Ad for Sears Optical] is a [[Double Subversion]] as it features [[Ugly Guy, Hot Wife|a similar couple]] with the man asking [[What Does She See in Him?|how he got a girl like her]] and the woman replying "I'm the lucky one." The fact that the voice over immediately asks "Missing something?" may imply that he's the one that needs glasses since he accidentally cut off her hair (He was trying to cut off the tag of her dress. But given that the offer is for ''two'' pairs of glasses at a single price (Implying one for each of them) suggests that not only would the man not have accidentally cut her hair, but the woman wouldn't be dating him if they both had a pair of glasses.
Line 137:
** The TV Tropes version of "[[Me Love You Long Time]]" turns up ads for an interracial dating site, featuring an European male and an Asian woman.
* [http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2954/ewwwwwwwwww.png This] Google ad result on a Cracked article about animals.
* So, how do you guys feel about online game ads that show Germany invading France? If one looks at [http://ads.erepublik.com/images/parts/banner.jpg this ad for]{{Dead link}} ''[[
* An ad campaign from ''[[The Economist]]'' aimed at women used its traditional brand of quirky humor when it said on the front, "Why should women read ''[[The Economist]]''? They shouldn't." Then, on the inside, it said "Accomplished and intelligent '''people''' should read it." Even some women who made it to the punchline on the inside [http://www.good.is/post/why-should-women-read-the-economist/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_1 got offended], taking it to mean that a female point of view (the magazine's staff is mostly male) was invalid.
Line 220:
** And that's before the overall Unfortunate Implication of everyone involved being young, attractive, straight and white.
* A recent advertisement for [[Direct TV]] has a man so upset over his cable bill, he ends up injuring himself. That's not so bad. It's what happens ''after'' the injury. While it's intended to culminate in some sort of parody of [[Insane Troll Logic]], the poor man ends up beaten to a pulp in a ditch... for wearing an ''eyepatch''. The general gist of the commercial seems to be "Get [[Direct TV]], because if you don't you will end up wearing an eyepatch, and people with eyepatches get beaten up because they look tough and mean." Putting aside the cancer survivors, war veterans and accident victims who have lost or injured eyes and require some form of cover/prosthesis, what about the people who have ''lost eyes in beatings?''
* [[Investigation Discovery]] has a bit of a problem. When they advertise television shows about men or groups doing crimes, the criminals get portrayed as evil criminals. When it's a show about women criminals or crimes of passion, the ads typically show women of model-caliber beauty casually sitting next to their male victims or committing their crimes. It's a ridiculous double standard. When men commit a crime, it's horrible and cruel. [[Evil Is Sexy|When a woman does it, that makes her sexy]]. One advertisement even had a woman walking through her house pretending to search for clues, right up to fantasizing that her sleeping husband was a freshly-murdered corpse. It's even more unfortunate since the shows themselves (especially ''Deadly Women'') are ''[[Trailers Always Lie|nothing like this]]'', often horrifically [[Averted Trope|averting]] [[Double Standard Rape (Female on Male)|Rape]]/[[
* [[Been Verified]].com essentially encourages the viewers of its commercials to never trust any other human being they meet, under any circumstances, and instead use quasi-legal databases like their website to look into the private information of anyone they intend to interact with. Because fear!
{{tropesubpagefooter}}
| |||