What's Wrong With Cinderella?

As pink and all its power becomes highly lucrative, the make-believe fantasies of children are becoming commercial successes. It’s not just Barbie and G.I. Joe anymore. Peggy Orenstein wrote a fantastic article (aptly entitled "What's Wrong with Cinderella?"), exploring these issues and fall-out of the Princess marketing phenomena and young girls. It’s available from the New York Times, but requires subscriber access. I’ve pasted two excerpts below. Definitely an interesting read and I highly recommend it.

“[Discussing the Disney Princess line of merch]…It is also worth noting that not all of the ladies are of royal extraction. Part of the genius of "Princess" is that its meaning is so broadly constructed that it actually has no meaning. Even Tinker Bell was originally a Princess, though her reign didn't last. "We'd always debate over whether she was really a part of the Princess mythology," Mooney recalled. "She really wasn't." Likewise, Mulan and Pocahontas, arguably the most resourceful of the bunch, are rarely depicted on Princess merchandise, though for a different reason. Their rustic garb has less bling potential than that of old-school heroines like Sleeping Beauty. (When Mulan does appear, she is typically in the kimonolike hanfu, which makes her miserable in the movie, rather than her liberated warrior's gear.)”

“….If nothing else, pink and Princess have resuscitated the fantasy of romance that that era of feminism threatened, the privileges that traditional femininity conferred on women despite its costs — doors magically opened, dinner checks picked up, Manolo Blahniks. Frippery. Fun. Why should we give up the perks of our sex until we're sure of what we'll get in exchange? Why should we give them up at all? Or maybe it's deeper than that: the
freedoms feminism bestowed came with an undercurrent of fear among women themselves — flowing through "Ally McBeal," "Bridget Jones's Diary," "Sex and the City" — of losing male love, of never marrying, of not having children, of being deprived of something that felt essentially and exclusively female.

I mulled that over while flipping through "The Paper Bag Princess," a 1980 picture book hailed as an antidote to Disney. The heroine outwits a dragon who has kidnapped her prince, but not before the beast's fiery breath frizzles her hair and destroys her dress,
forcing her to don a paper bag. The ungrateful prince rejects her, telling her to come back when she is "dressed like a real princess." She dumps him and skips off into the sunset, happily ever after, alone.

There you have it, "Thelma and Louise" all over again. Step out of line, and you end up solo or, worse, sailing crazily over a cliff to your doom. Alternatives like those might send you skittering right back to the castle. And I get that: the fact is, though I want my
daughter to do and be whatever she wants as an adult, I still hope she'll find her Prince Charming and have babies, just as I have. I don't want her to be a fish without a bicycle; I want her to be a fish with another fish. Preferably, one who loves and respects her and also does the dishes and half the child care.”

I’ve long heard the mantra that feminism is about choice. Rather than confining it to a set of decisions about A or B or black or white (pink vs blue for that matter), perhaps it’s more apt to say it’s about personal balance. After all, I know I’ve got a little Cinderella as well as some ass-kicking She-Ra in my veins.

Lavazza's "Brand" New Mistake?

Lavazza Coffee's new run of print ads are bewildering at best, and at worse, can be easily confused with Target's branding. It took me awhile to spot what was being advertised, and even then, was thoroughly confused by the concept.

Bad branding aside, I'm also put off by the use of the scantily clad women. Wasn't that the domain of the alcohol industry? Since when did coffee rely on the "sex sells" position? Just to prove awards don't mean anything in this biz, the campaign's photography won an Epica award this year...

Via Adpunch.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

I've got a good feeling about 2007, but let's wrap up '06 first. I happen to be a fan of stats and odd tidbits of information. If you're curious, here's a snapshot of various stats from '06:

Most Searched For Term: Motley Bird/ That Girl Emily (tie)
Most Discussed Post: Sure/American Apparel
Most Blogged Company/Product: Dove

Lastly, my personal favorites:
- Dove's "Real Women" campaign continues to impress and surprise me, but I'll stand by my comments and continue to wonder how long they can keep this up. Can you actually build a brand on honesty and integrity? Will it slip into something condescending?
- The EDA's anorexia PSA. Still absolutely brutal.

Say it cheaply, with Kay Jewelers.

Kay Jewelers has been running their holiday campaign since November now, and I don’t know about you, but it makes my eyes bleed every time I have to see one of their god-awful commercials. The spots may be aimed at the guys out there, but ultimately, it's the women in the world who this stuff is for.

Here are the main messages I get from watching these spots:

1. Our jewelry is special, and will help you create memories to for years to come.
2. Doesn’t the woman in your life deserve it?

Yet message number three is in direct conflict with the above:

3. It’s cheap.

What on earth does that say about your brand, and about the intelligence of your customers?

I don’t have a problem with the initial premise of these spots where some dopey guy thinks he’s scored big by getting his girlfriend/wife some diamonds.

I do have a problem with how the voice-over then goes on to tote how cheap these particular items are. Create memories that will last a lifetime, with Kay Jewelers. Sure- she’ll remember the Christmas when you got her some shitty diamond earrings for $99. But do you really want that particular memory embedded in her head?

Women in Refrigerators

A friend of mine pointed me in the direction of the cultural commentary blog, Crocodile Caucus. It’s good reading focusing on pop culture, television, comics, commentary, and more. Anyhow, I was reading through it yesterday, and found a terrific post about the television show Heroes, and the “Women in Refrigerators” phenomena.

For those that don’t know (and I didn’t, until yesterday), Wikipedia explains the WiF theory (and website) thusly: exploring “female comic book characters that had been injured, killed, or depowered as a plot device within various superhero comic books. Also, the site seeks to analyze why these plot devices are used disproportionately on female characters.”

These are superheroines who have been either depowered, raped, or cut up and stuck in the refrigerator. I know I missed a bunch. Some have been revived, even improved -- although the question remains as to why they were thrown in the wood chipper in the first place.

I know I missed a bunch -- I just don't know my comics deaths the way I should. I'm not editorializing -- I'm just curious to find out what you guys think it means, if anything. – From the site

Good question—what does this all mean and why is it happening? I don’t think this use of female characters is limited to comic books. As Crocodile Caucus points out, it’s branching out into television, and I’m sure with some thought and research, you can see this attitude in movies and literature as well.

Positive female role models and characters are really needed in our media. Sure, some of these women mentioned are intelligent, but they still meet a dreadful end because a man was powerless to save them. Why can’t they have power in their own right? What is this teaching the audiences (both children and adult) who watch or read these stories?

With Spiderman 3 coming out this summer, I’ll be curious to see how they handle the infamous Gwen Stacy plot line, and see if she meets a WiR ending. Another obvious example would be the fate of Jean Grey in the recent X-Men movies.

Get a better role model.

Another great article on Salon, analyzing the effects of associating with Paris Hilton, and the harm she's doing to society. Traister, the author, puts it best as she begins to make her case against the strumpet:

"You know that point in a Stephen King novel when you've sort of figured out that the creepy dollie -- the one with the plastic hair and serenely stupid eyes that roll in two different directions -- is actually an animate object wreaking havoc and destroying people and you wonder why the townspeople haven't cottoned on and crushed the damn thing under a truck or something?

I think it's safe to say we've reached that point with Paris Hilton. We need to acknowledge that Hilton is not simply a tabloid diversion but a malevolent blight on the pop culture landscape."

Read, and spread the word.

Jane is the new Emily.

Remember Emily? The "woman" who put up a billboard about her cheating husband but it was all a CourtTV stunt for a new detective show?

The UK's got their own version, Jane (via AdFreak). Instead of a Blogger site, she's got MySpace. Poor jilted Jane has friends and comments galore-- if not for the fact that this very viral campaign was carried out a few months ago, I'd believe it a bit more. Emily never allowed comments on her site, but if Jane's friends are real, it allows a level of interaction and believability that was lacking with Emily. Why join MySpace or Blogger unless you want other people to reach out to you?

Jane's first post dates from Dec. 8th, so it looks like once again, we can follow how this story plays out and make guesses about what show or product it's secretly tied to. So far there are links to a radio station in which she had interviews or something, and a few photos of the billboard bouncing around.

(It really seems that thanks to the Internet, it's getting harder and harder to recycle ideas as fresh.)