Jean Kilbourne, who has written extensively about the effects of “the beast of advertising”, succinctly sums up the impact of advertising, saying that it sells more than products. Advertising sells “values, images and concepts of success and worth, love and sexuality, popularity and normalcy” (Kilbourne 121). She notes that young people are especially vulnerable as targets for advertisers because of their inexperience as consumers (Kilbourne 121). When Kilbourne wrote “Beauty and the Beast of Advertising” in 1989, her analysis showed that advertising painted a vision of the world in which no one was ever ugly, or overweight, or disabled; a place where women were either housewives or sex objects and where girls were expected to be “both sexy and virginal” (Kilbourne 124). Ads were conceived to support the patriarchy using film and photo techniques that would make men look dominating and superior while women looked childish and playful. Frequently women were positioned in ads to look submissive, or their body parts were “dismembered” to imply a disconnect between their bodies and their minds. Douglas Kellner dissected and analyzed cigarette ads that appeared during the 1980s and found the different representations of men versus women to be striking. Both ads (a Marlboro ad and a Virginia Slims ad) honed in on what the advertisers felt were socially desirable traits for their target audience. In the Marlboro ad for men, masculinity and ruggedness were implied as desirable while the Virginia Slims ad, which identified the “modern” woman as its target, emphasized smoking as a symbol of progress and, at a deeper level, tied it to being slim, a highly desirable trait.

Both Kilbourne and Kellner note that in the late 1980s changes were taking place in the representation of women in advertising, but they both conclude that the changes did not represent real progress, but rather a “myth” of progress (Kilbourne 125). Kilbourne wrote that a “new woman” was emerging in advertising – a more liberated woman and a sort of “superwoman”. She pointed out, however, that this woman was still depicted as deriving her independence and self-esteem from the products she uses (Kilbourne 125). Kellner looked at ads from the end of the decade and saw a transformation in the depiction of women who were presented as more assertive and powerful. Yet, he noted, the women were still shown as perfectly beautiful and positioned suggestively, thereby continuing to objectify them based on appearance and sexuality. 

Up until the 1980s really nothing much to speak of could have been said about marketing to, or including, the LGBT community in advertising. Prior to that, these groups were entirely excluded both as consumers and as advertising characters. However, the New York Times Magazine published an article by Karen Stabiner titled “Tapping the Homosexual Market” in May 1982.  Around that time several films that included homosexual elements were released and the homosexual community – at least “the white, single, well-educated, well-paid” section of the community - started to become the object of marketing strategies (NYT). As Stabiner noted, “In tight-money 1982, men with high earning power and low financial obligations are making purveyors of luxury items and leisure services take a second look” (NYT). Gay men were also, according to Stabiner, becoming recognized as influencers of style for the mainstream population. This made them even more attractive to advertisers. Things were not the same for the lesbian community and Stabiner wrote that lesbians were still being discounted completely, in part due to their lower earning power and to their lack of visibility. This sentiment was echoed in “Commodity Lesbianism” by Danae Clark. Clark and Stabiner both wrote about a trend, which continues to this day, called “gay window” advertising, which refers to a discreet advertising approach in which ads “speak to the homosexual consumer in a way that the straight consumer will not notice” (Clark 143). Clark noted that this dual strategy “packages gender ambiguity” and has been used in marketing to both lesbian and gay communities (Clark 145). Stabiner’s article concluded with a discussion about whether a homosexual prototype would ever be seen in advertisements, in the way that black, ethnic and career women prototypes were gradually introduced. Opinions from men who worked in advertising were mixed, but the overall consensus was that it would be a long time off.

The relationship between advertisers and the media where they spend their advertising dollars turns out to be very intertwined, as Gloria Steinem found out when Ms. magazine tried to devise a new way of dealing with advertisers. In “Sex, Lies and Advertising” Steinem details numerous examples of her attempts to change the status quo, from wanting to have traditionally “male” products advertised in Ms. to refusing to provide “complementary copy” to advertisers (Steinem 112). Her attempts to increase the diversity in images used in advertising were slow to gain traction and she faced battles with men who would, in a reflection of the patriarchal society, say things such as “but women don’t understand technology” (Steinem 114) to explain why they would not place ads for electronics in the magazine. Her problems illustrate why change in advertising has been so slow in coming: magazines and other media forms typically rely heavily on advertising and find it hard to forego advertising dollars in the name of social progress. Media alone has not been able to force changes in advertising and it is up against corporations that have wanted to reinforce certain images and values in order to sell products. An example of this would be all things related to weight loss, ads for which are still very prevalent today.

In order to determine whether we still face the same issues with advertising in 2017 that we did when the above essays were written, I looked at some more recent ad campaigns and my conclusion is that finally, some progress has been made, although there is still a long way to go. For example, on the negative side, a 2011 ad for Mr. Clean featured on Mother’s Day suggested that women should “Get Back To The Job That Really Matters”. A picture of a woman cleaning accompanied this copy and the image of woman as housewife comes immediately to mind.  A Dolce and Gabbana ad featured a group of men, with one of them pinning a woman down. An American Apparel ad, targeting young women, depicts a woman photographed from above, wearing only socks, and with pornographic overtones. The ads for this year’s Super Bowl were generally considered to be relatively free of the kind of sexual stereotyping that is often seen, however one ad, for an Australian brand of wine, featured a woman in a bikini with a man and a kangaroo and had the tag line “wanna pet my roo?” This ad objectified the woman and was criticized both by media critics and by viewers through social media. Interestingly, advertising analysts noted that while women were less objectified in this year’s Super Bowl ads, they were also very much excluded from a large number of the ads that ran. I would not call that progress.

On the other hand, perusing a current crop of magazines indicated to me that some strides have been made. Print advertisements for products such as cars and appliances often seem to be excluding people altogether and focus more on the style of the product itself. There is more racial diversity in ads that do feature people and advertisers seem to be more sensitive to the layout and positioning of their models. A GQ ad features gay “prototypes” touching hands in a way that seemed almost impossible to imagine when Stabiner wrote her article in 1982. TV ads, including some seen on the Super Bowl, have become more issue based and supportive of issues such as immigration and transgender rights. Companies such as Absolut Vodka have for example run ads in support of transgender rights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHCzV2FrSM

Additionally, companies such as Nike and Johnson and Johnson have used transgender people as the face of their products. Douglas Kellner wrote that “all ads are social texts which respond to key developments during the period in which they appear” (Kellner 128) and I consider that this provides an excellent explanation of why we are starting to see changes in advertising. An article in PRWeek.com from 2016 says that it is early days yet, but that increased images of transgender people on TV, in film and in real-life “will start connecting into communications and marketing strategies as advertisers look to be inclusive of the transgender community” (PRWeek.com). Zandro Zumo, the head of a PR firm said “we are living in an ever-more-multicultural mainstream and consumers want to see greater diversity reflected in marketing efforts. It’s a move toward a greater understanding of shifting demographics and acknowledging diversity and multiculturalism as business imperatives” (PRWeek.com).

One ad that I viewed recently appealed to me as being non-sexist. In an ad for Audi, the advertisers target both men and women equally and create a stunning visual ad free of objectification:

Of course, one of the most significant changes to hit advertising has been the rise of the internet and social media and the ability of advertisers to target their ads specifically to consumers. This actually makes it difficult to analyze ads featured on social media and websites because what appears is aligned with one’s own interests and purchasing habits. It strikes me that it is possible that some users may see ads that are sexist or racist for example, based on their viewing/purchasing history. However, for those who reject this culture, their targeted ads may be very different.

In looking at examples of media that I consume I find that I am exposed to less advertising than in earlier years. Regarding music, I choose to pay to listen “ad free” on Spotify and for news, I turn to bbc.co.uk which has very few (and very discreet) targeted ads. For example, today I had an ad from OpenTable with images of restaurants that I have previously booked. On television, I frequently watch SNY (SportsNet New York), which is partly owned by the New York Mets. Given its ownership, it is unsurprising that it frequently advertises Citibank, the Daily News and other major Mets sponsors. It has a fairly limited rotation of ads. I view Twitter on a daily basis and on my feed I see ads that are targeted to me, based presumably on the tweeters that I follow. In recent days I have noticed one sexist ad but in general the ads I see are for vehicles, sports and the Wall Street Journal. Finally, I will often have NY1 News on in the background. It is owned by Spectrum – my cable provider – and has very few ads along with a few “bumpers” advertising upcoming shows. In general the ads are simple and are often local in content. In my personal viewing experience, content is not really affected by advertising in the way that one finds in women’s fashion magazines or in television shows that trade “product placement” for advertising dollars.

The one last thing I believe must be mentioned is that my review of current ads showed me that, while there has been change, we are still in an advertising world where, as Kilbourne said, no one is ugly. Diversity of skin color and a spectrum of genders appears to be an “easier” bridge for advertisers to cross than the acceptance of people who do meet certain criteria of beauty.

Works Cited

Clark, Danae. “Commodity Lesbianism.” pp. 142-151.

Daniels, Chris. “Marketing to the T: Brands get inclusive of transgender consumers in LGBT marketing.” PR Week. 24 Feb. 2016. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

Kellner, Douglas. “Reading Images Critically: Toward a Postmodern Pedagogy.” pp. 126-132.

Kilbourne, Jean. “Beauty and the Beast of Advertising.” pp. 121-125.

Steinem, Gloria. “Sex, Lies and Advertising.” pp. 112-120.

Stabiner, Karen. “Tapping the Homosexual Market.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 2 May 1982. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.