Motherhood, French Vogue Style

Not much time to post, but mosey over to Jezebel for a great post (with more pics and hilariously thoughtful comments) on a fashion photoshoot from this month's French Vogue. Let's just say it ain't something you'd see on American stands.

Slate's XX Factor's reaction here.

Go, Susan, Go!

Ok, I haven't seen this flick yet, and I'll admit I wanted to see it before even reading any reviews. But Slate's review today pretty much cemented my excitement. DreamWork's Monsters vs. Aliens looks like a tremendous amount of fun. Why did the Slate article catch my eye over the NYT?

An excerpt from the first paragraph:

"Not to let any unnecessary ideology creep into a review of a fun animated movie, but let's get this out of the way up front: Monsters vs. Aliens (DreamWorks Animation) is a film for children with a female lead. She is not the love interest, or the helpmate, or the mom. Nor is she a princess, or princesslike. She does not marry a prince or a prince-manqué. She does not marry at all. She tries to get married, but she is struck by a meteor on her wedding day (typical!), which transforms her into an unmarriageable, world-saving, 49-foot-11-inch superfreak and—thank you, O bountiful movie gods—a Strong Female Protagonist. (Or, as my more skeptical viewing companion put it, "a strong female protagonist who just happens to be ultra-skinny with big boobs and a pneumatic butt, and who sometimes wears a catsuit." Touché.)"

So, not only are there animated monsters and aliens, but a strong female lead! I'm ready to buy some popcorn. (I suppose it's worth noting that Princess Fiona in the Shrek movies is equally capable of kicking butt, though, she also has the sparkly "princess" title attached.)

Teachable moment? Or learning by example?

So, let me get this straight. Evidently, texting in front of your boyfriend is an offense so rude it deserves a beating, complete with black eye? (By now, I'm assuming you know that the singer Rihanna was recently assaulted by her boyfriend, hiphop artist Chris Brown.)

It's all horrible, but what I find most shocking is the public's reaction. Depending on what entertainment blogs you're reading, young female fans are coming to Brown's defense, theorizing that Rihanna provoked him, and deserved what she got. The Boston Globe's site published the results of an informal survey of teens about the incident: nearly half said Rihanna was at fault. WTF?

"Health counselors are specifically concerned with teenagers' views of the controversy. Of the teens questioned, more than half said both Brown, 19, and Rihanna, 21, were equally responsible for the assault. More than half said the media were treating Brown unfairly, and 46 percent said Rihanna was responsible for the incident."

Let's look at this another way: if you were texting in an important budget meeting, and your boss pummels you, is that ok? If you're listening to your music on the train, and it's a little too loud, is it ok for a stranger to beat the shit out of you?

If we did a survey on either of those above scenarios, I don't think we'd get the same numbers the Globe did. Neither of those situations are acceptable, and neither is domestic abuse. The only difference is the relationship, and that doesn't give an abuser free reign. Just because he's dating you, doesn't give him any right to lay a hand on you. Sure, if you're doing something rude, he can get angry, but never so much that he can't control himself or his actions.

In what universe is this type of behavior acceptable? What leads teens, as well as some adults, to think it's appropriate? Sure, texting some friends while you're with your honey can be rude, but it doesn't deserve a hospital visit for stitches. Some counselors are trying to use this very public example as a teachable moment, but instead, it seems teens are taking their cues from the stars.

Slate's XX Factor has some in-depth thoughts on the whole debacle here. Funny how the incident happened in February, which is Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month (Rihanna might be in her twenties, but Brown is nineteen).

An Axe Campaign I Like?

Believe it or not, I really dig the new Axe campaign that's been airing for the last week or so. Rather than the tired and offensive depictions of women fawning over guys who use the soap/gels, unable to control themselves, these new spots are, pardon the pun, spot-on.

Sure, gals are still involved, but in a way I find more genuine than past efforts. Body spray and shower products serve two needs: hygiene, and, yeah, attracting the opposite sex. It's never been my problem that Axe caters to this second need. It's been *how* they do it. Rather than portraying women as mindless sexual beings upon catching the scent of Axe, the commercials have identified a realistic teen image issue: young men tend to use way too much product. And girls don't dig it. So — use Axe, fix your hair, attract the ladies. Too much gel? You and your over-gelled spikes are gonna be lonely.

My biggest beef with the campaign? Overexposure. It seems every other commercial on Comedy Central is a "News Brief" for "the hair crisis" our country's young men are facing. Potentially good campaign feature? A sort of "hot or not" semi-interactive tool on the campaign's site, where guys can upload pics of their 'do, and supposedly, Axe's team of 100 women will vote.

Triple Chocolate Love

It's been awhile, I know. I've been out in the wilderness, foraging. Ok, perhaps that's not true since I live in Brooklyn, but I saw a commercial tonight that couldn't be ignored.

The product itself looks delicious as hell: Triple Chocolate M&Ms, a combination of dark, milk, and white chocolate. If these photos are to be believed, then woaaaah, I might have to revert back to my bad habit of ice cream and M&Ms for dinner.

Despite the wondrous idea of a layered chocolate confection, I have a slight beef with the commercials. Sexualized talking chocolate is just weird. Yeah, they're poking fun at the genre, but I'm a tad freaked out nonetheless. Maybe I'm just prude.



Or maybe these really should turn us on... if you've had 'em, report back!

Oscars, cont.

So I began thinking about the commercials we've seen tonight so far, and how this is the second most expensive ad-buy of the year. If the Superbowl is all about beer, guys, and talking animals, then the Oscars are about the women.

American Express, Mastercard, Dove, L'Oreal, Cadillac, and Venus have been the big advertisers of the night. Cadillac has even aired a spot talking about cupholders, specifically talking about sexism in car sales to women.

Interesting crop of ads, and interesting to note how different it is from the football crowd.

PS: Last note: Away from Her, one of the night's nominated films, was written and directed by Sarah Polley. She's only 29. Sigh. I'm one laaaazy-ass filmmaker.

The Woman I Want to Become

So I'm watching the Oscars (only having seen two of the films: Michael Clayton and Ratatouille), and there was an incredible American Express commercial on just now. It wasn't flashy- just a celebrity voiceover and a glimpse into her life. I was rummaging in the fridge looking for a snack when it came on.

The first sentence grabbed me though: "I didn't know what I wanted to do, but I knew the woman I wanted to become."

Those words etched themselves into my mind, and my head poked out of the fridge, to see Diane von Furstenberg. "Fashion was absolutely an accident in my life. As a result of that, I was becoming independent and I was becoming more and more the woman I wanted to be."

As soon as I find a video, I'll post it. Strong message, very confident. The Oscars are becoming the second biggest ad buy next to the Superbowl, but so far, only this one stood out. (The user-created Dove ads were a tad lackluster I thought.)

Hillary Endorses Obama.

I bet that grabbed your attention, didn't it?

Axe does it again... Disclosure: HRC isn't my candidate of choice right now, and the ad is pretty funny, but it's silly to think a fragrance could influence a woman as knowledgeable and driven as she is. This was created by BBH London, and I'm not sure where it's getting placement. US? Overseas?

Compared to the rest of the Axe ads, I find this one to be more multi-layered thanks to it's use of current political figures. We have the first serious female contender for the highest office in the land, as well as an African-American candidate and of course, they're facing off against one another. Race and gender have both come up during this primary season, and seeing an ad like this further plays into the dynamic. Yeah, it reflects upon HRC's femininity and how she'd supposedly be susceptible to a decent body spray, but it also makes a statement about Obama and his masculinity. He's already drawing rock-star sized crowds, the Axe aura plays into his popularity quite well.

I'm following the Democratic Primary race pretty closely, and I'll admit I was taken in by this ad at first. I was about to run over to the Huffington Post to see what the hell I had missed, then realized ohhhhh.... it's an ad. The fact that it's an ad is what makes it work so well when you get the gag, but if you take it at face value, it could be pretty confusing. Is Axe trying to make a political statement here? I don't think so. Could it be misconstrued as one? Definitely.

She'll pretty much have to.

Ok, it's been awhile.

But I just saw a J.C. Penny's jewelry store commercial that made me wince.

We open on a close up of a jewelry box, clearly branded with the JCP red square. A man's hand reaches into the box, withdrawing a necklace with a diamond(?) heart dangling from it. It swings back and forth hypnotically, as the man says it's everything she wants, isn't it, honey? We cut to another scene- same thing- different hand, different necklace (still in shape of a heart), but same hypnotic swinging, and then cut again to the same sort of scene, followed by a product shot. We don't see any faces, male or female- just the different men's hands.

Parting VO line: "Everyone gets what they want this Valentine's Day."

What the heck does that mean? They can't be saying what I think they are..... right?

WE need a Lifetime of Oxygen?

Ok, sorry for the extremely bad pun as this post's title. I couldn't help it, but my brain is too fried to actually make it any good. Since most of my time at the office is spent working on the original of the three major "women's networks," this Slate article was pretty interesting to me.

Why is my brain fried?
By Christmas break, I'll have watched over ten of Lifetime Movie Network's titles, and will have written promos for said films. And that's just writing. I'm overseeing/coordinating/producing a run of FORTY EIGHT PROMOS. After so many newly single mothers discovering love where they least expected it, independent women discovering strength when they needed it most, and mother/daughters discovering a bond they never knew they had, well, I'm done with discovery. Come Yuletide, I'll be recovering in front of utterly apathetic and thankfully phlegmatic C-SPAN.

Anyho-
As Slate points out, the differences between Oxygen, Lifetime and WE come down to demographics. Sure, it's all about the chicks, but there are many different kinds of women. First on the scene, Lifetime's been around since 1982 and is partially owned by the Walt Disney Company (who knew?). Currently, their original programming includes "Army Wives," "Cheerleader Nation," and "Gay, Straight, or Taken." Re-runs of "Will & Grace," "Desperate Housewives," and "Grey's Anatomy" also have found homes here.

If Lifetime is the old standard bearer and tries to gently appeal to all women, then Oxygen is the young upstart, launched as a network in 2000. (How young and hip? Well, it was originally conceived to be an interactive network with an important website component. And it also showed softcore porn.) It's mostly known thanks to Oprah's early involvement. However, the network was recently sold to NBC Universal. If Lifetime shows "Will & Grace," Oxygen shows "Xena: Warrior Princess." That should say it all (along with their current roster of sleazy bridal/slutty/true-crime/all of the above reality shows).

Lastly, WE: Women's Entertainment has been trying to make a home in the space between Oxygen and Lifetime. Originally it was a supplement to AMC, and showed romance movies without commercial interruption. (I never knew that.) Now it focuses on its hit Bridezillas, in between re-runs of Dharma and Greg. Slate points out their new slate of programming is mostly reality based (cash-cow rehashes of Bridezillas).

Surely there has to be more to women's television than bridal shows, fashion shows, and re-runs of older comedies? What Slate doesn't explore is whether or not there's really room for three of these networks. With such similar programming, one or all of the networks has to find a way to distinguish itself from the others, and hopefully break away from the pack. Looking at the programming offered, it'd be very easy to create a single channel using only the best programming from each: Army Wives, Bridezillas, Bliss (I can't resist!), etc. I don't think all three networks will survive in the long term, definitely not in their current incarnation.

I survived NaBloPoMo.

So, I did it. 30 days, 30 posts. I really didn't think I'd make it, but with multiple friends blogging, I felt I couldn't give up.

Awhile back I had wondered how posting daily would affect readership, visitors, etc. Taking a look at the numbers, it appears the number of visitors increased by about double the amount of a normal month. Nice.

Thanks for visiting, and thanks for a great month. Keep your eyes here for more rants!

Nike "Mask"

Well, this ad is unlike almost all of the other Nike ads I've seen before.



It doesn't show grueling athleticism, it doesn't have sweat, blood, tears, or thrilling victory. Nor does it celebrate the underdog in a typical, glorifying, against-all-odds fashion. Yet, it does features an underdog of sorts, but only after a healthy load of sarcasm and one big depressing reveal.

This seems to be a pretty big change in tone for Nike. It's still celebrating the women's soccer team, but also seems to be shaming the viewer for their lack of knowledge or interest. I agree that no talented sports team should worry more about marketing than their sport, as the ad suggests, but is this sort of advertising more effective than what's been used in the past? And who is the ad appealing to, if the typical apparel consumer doesn't have intimate knowledge of the US Women's Soccer Team? My guess is that we're supposed to care and feel chided since everything else Nike touches has an amount of esteem and importance. They're cashing in on their brand.

Does it work? It caught my eye, for sure. It stands out more in my mind than other recent commercials from Nike or Adidas. Whether it will influence me to buy more, I don't know, but I don't think that's the point. It helps further establish Nike as a leading brand that takes all athletes seriously regardless of their fame or current spotlight. Sure, there's the Nike that has a new NBA shoe out for whatever athlete of the week we're currently worshiping, but this Nike, this semi-jaded and incredulous Nike, is beyond that. It's about pure athleticism.

Camisole Day, every month on the 21st?

WTF? This made me stop and blink...

"In celebration of record sales, Taiwanese lingerie company Audrey Underwear asked its 500 female employees to come to work for a day wearing nothing but their undergarments. Over 90 percent did and the company has now made it a monthly occurrence Work productivity among the company's male employees on those days is expected to drop to zero with productivity of another kind shooting upward all day long." (adrants.com)

Huang Bihui, PR manager of the company, explained: "We introduced eight new camisoles into market and sold more than 20,000 in less than two months so we named the 21st as Camisole Day." (spluch.blogspot)

90% of female employees. That's 450 women, if I trust my math. That makes me think that A) Company loyalty and corporate culture is quite different in Taiwan, and B) Women must not be too self-conscious, or at least, their company loyalty outweighs their reservations.

I'm not sure what to think without knowing more about the company and its employees. On the one hand, it's great that so many women would feel so confident and safe in their workplace to wear so little. On the other hand, what if they didn't feel that way, but felt obligated? And lastly, confident or not, isn't it just objectifying their bodies? The real treat is for the guys, no?

This perfume doesn't smell like roses...

It's late, and I'm still at the office. Whee.

So, as you can expect, this is gonna be a shorter one. Steve Hall over at Adrants wrote a really good post today about tobacco, marketing, and responsibility. Two things I noted in particular about his article: 1) RJ Reynolds will cut all print advertising in 2008. That means no more Joe Camel in newspapers or magazines. 2) Why now? Because they were getting flack about their Camel No. 9 brand, which attracts women smokers through it's likeness to Chanel. It's amazing what they'll do to sell this shit.

Marketing to Women "Don'ts"

Found this on Girlpower's site:

1. Don’t think of women as a “niche” market.
2. Don’t take a product and “dumb it down” or “paint it pink.”
3. Don’t segment women strictly by age.
4. Don’t ignore the time women spend online and influencing their networks.
5. Don’t underestimate the power of the women’s boomer market.

All of these are good notes to follow no matter who you're marketing to, but I think, for me, numbers 1 & 2 stick out the most. Nothing gets my ire like being treated like some sort of exotic species. Related to both 1 & 2, I'd add another thought: If you're appealing to *just* guys or make a commercial that appeals to men through sexism, you might turn off women buyers. While thinking in terms of niches or market segments can be handy, what appeals to some certainly won't appeal to all, and can potentially limit your market.

Ewww.

A literal vagina dentata.




I squirmed all the way through the trailer, and haven't found much other information on the film other than a short review on IMDB describing it as a "gore-comedy" and claiming "If you appreciate cult, camp, or horror with a feminist edge, this is for you!"

Note the lead character's surname. O'Keefe. Hehe.

Until I see this (if I can bring myself to see it, so creepy! Oh yeah: release date is May '08), I'm not really sure what else I can say. Too little to go on. (Though: I bet that OB/GYN scene wouldn't have been the same if it was a female doctor she was seeing-- can only work w/ a dude.)

On a semi-related note, check out Rapex, an anti-rape female condom moving into production
in South Africa. How does it work? Well, it's like a tampon. Insert it in the vagina, and the plastic hollow tube has detachable barbs that lash onto any offending objects entering. The creator, Sonette Ehlers, calls it a "medieval device for a medieval deed." Yikes.

I wish I was a Guerilla Girl.

Wouldn't that be neat? Wearing a mask, running around and attacking the patriarchal art world...

Awesome.

Too bad they're secretive and don't accept recruits. Anyhow- check out this older billboard they sponsored re: the Oscars. Girls after my own heart!

More great female characters

I posted about female role models in children's/YA literature a few days ago, bemoaning the rather short list of good characters I could think of. Visiting with one of my best friends yesterday, we discussed it some and she suggested Meg from the Wrinkle in Time series. Definitely someone who should be on the list! (By the way, I was quite saddened to read about Madeline L'Engle's death this past fall. Slate and Salon had a number of fitting and moving tributes to her.)

Since I'm re-reading the Arrows of the Queen series by Mercedes Lackey, I should also mention that Talia of that series fits the bill. Lackey's tales are almost like a Benetton commercial: people from all walks of life, sexual preferences, income levels, etc. I don't think I noticed it as much when I first read the books in early high school, but now it seems almost too obvious. I mean, I love the books, I love the characters, but she takes such great pains with equality that it's near comical. Ah well. Lackey's work isn't exactly Pulitzer stuff, but it does keep you warm and entranced on a cold winter's night.

C'mon-- there've got to be more strong female characters! Let's hear them!

Amstel Easy Open

At first glance, this looks exactly like the type of ad I would have complained about. If you don't stop to look and just flip your magazine page, the ad's actual message is lost. However, upon looking closer, the ad is trying to compare dated gender roles to dated beer technology. (The twist-off cap vs. the non-twist.) I like it, but then wonder- if the ad showed the twist-off instead, would the woman still be opening the bottle for the guy? I'd like to think no, based on the copy.

Happy Thanksgiving

Before I write the compulsory "What I'm Thankful for" list or whatever else, does anyone remember the retailer Bradlees? I was looking for something topical to write about tonight, besides yams, pie, and turkey, and came across this gem:



Why am I sharing?

A) I thought the commercialization of holidays was only getting really bad recently. This shows I've just been paying more attention recently.
B) Thanksgiving Sales commercials have definitely gotten a lot more sophisticated, often using graphics, effects, etc. Let's compare.
C) The word "door-buster" has been around longer than I thought. I hate that word.

Seeing all of these frenetic ads, warnings about two and a half minute sales, etc, makes me stressed. I just want to enjoy a normal Thanksgiving, or what passes for Normal (ok, maybe not that odd) over here. In that pursuit, laptop's going off.

Till tomorrow-