With regards to our given model, "beyond. . .reason", the use of sex in these ads definitely fits the bill. Although, it does make sense in terms of perfume since smell is something that one could correlate to some type of attraction. However, what makes a scent sexy and further can a perfume enhance your sexual appeal? I argue that in a purely biological sense, sure. But, with the addition of advertising, perfume/cologne has become a sex symbol.
Take a look at these ads:
Most people would agree that both commercial's are pretty ridiculous but some elements do stand out. First, the actual product doesn't even appear in the Dior ad and shows up briefly in the Axe one. So what exactly are these companies selling? Well let's see, Charlize Theron strips naked making comments about how diamonds and gold and gold are things of the past and our masculine axe man is sought after by attractive feral bikini clad women. I think it's obvious that they're selling sex. Even though we, as the audience, can make the distinction that perfume isn't going to make you look like Theron, and cologne isn't going to make the entire cave woman population chase after you, it doesn't change the fact that these ads really tap into our subconscious. With to Leppert and the idea of intelligible bodies, it follows that these images and ideas manifest themselves within us. I personally wear cologne but never really thought about the reasons behind why I might do so. I don't smell bad when I perspire (or so I've been told) so why wear it? Well, read from my heterosexual male perspective, I have come to believe that it does enhance my male sexuality and makes me more sexually appealing.
We know from our work that every cultural object has some sort of economic basis. Obviously, these companies want the sell their product. Could they have achieved the same marketing goal by having Theron simply spraying herself with Dior or the Axe guy splashing on some Axe? Maybe. But in light of our work in the News and Journalism project in regards to Chomsky we know that the employment of sex in media sells AND sells big. I'm sure there are exceptions to this next statement but who doesn't want to be a sex symbol, or sought after in the ways we see in these commercials?
Let's examine some of the dialogue in these two commercials. Theron comments that, "gold is cold, diamonds are dead, a limousine is just a car" as she strips off her gold, diamonds and then her dress. At the end it's implied that the nouveau chic is Dior and that's all she needs. And that Status, sensuality, and sexuality are derived from wearing Dior. Again, we can't smell her through the ad but does it really matter after she's delivered her monologue and is naked? J'adore by Dior could smell terrible but the effects of this ad have already taken hold. I thought in a brief moment that it might be nice if I buy this for a girlfriend at some point. . .
The Axe commercial is a bit more verbally blatant. The ending dialogue is "Spray more, get more". . .it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that "get more" reads as get more sex. The vehicle to "get more" is decidedly Axe and the more you wear, that is, the more you smell of Axe the more action you get. Again, whether or not this is valid, the seed has been planted and even though we may laugh at it and think the message is completely nuts, it wouldn't hurt to try it right? Worst case scenario, you just smell like Axe. Best case scenario, bring on the cavewoman orgy.
Now as a contrast to the perfume/cologne industry let's take a look at some fast food commercials.
Ok, first off fast food is NOT attractive. Greasy burgers and fries, calorie content through the roof, deep fried everything etc. . .clearly NOT sexy in the least. However, a quick glance at these ads seems to say other wise. I think it's also safe to say that you wouldn't take your gorgeous boyfriend or girlfriend to a fast food joint for some a date.
Again, the rational objective audience member knows better than to be fooled by an attractive man with a big chicken sandwich, or a beautiful woman eating some mcdonalds. So what's going on here?
I think that these are easier than the perfume commercials but the comedic nature and utmost ridiculousness of the ads seems to be what makes them most effective. Again, the element of sex is clearly there especially in the BK ad. I don't think it happens often but maybe you can pick up an attractive woman on a subway if you happen to be holding a chicken sandwich between your legs. Or strike up a conversation with another beauty if you happen to be sitting next to each other eating McDonald's.
In a more general view, consider all if not most of the fast food commercials you see. There is most often a group of attractive people in the commercials, both the consumers and the workers. I think it makes sense that these companies choose to employ sex in their advertisements. Not in the same way that the perfume ads do but with aims at improving their image in lieu of how fast food is viewed. A clear romanticism of fast food is evident - good times, attractive people, hell maybe you'll get a date. The mechanism, the cheap and easy fast food.
Thanks for reading,
Marcus
*NOTE: This blogpost is late but was approved for submission by Robin. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment