Brandweek Discusses 'Dad as Idiot' Advertising, Says 'It’s Hard to Argue that Guys Like Sacks Don’t Have a Point'
November 14th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: We've done several protests against ads which portray men and fathers as clowns--see Campaign Against Anti-Father Verizon Commercial, Campaign Against Anti-Male Advertising, Campaign Against Detroit News ‘Get Her a Gift or She’ll Give You a Black Eye’ Ad and Portable On Demand Storage Decides to Remove Anti-Male Ad in Face of Protests. To learn more about the problems with the way men are portrayed in advertising, click here.
Brandweek editor Todd Wasserman discusses the problem of 'Dad as Idiot' advertising in his recent column The Surviving Dads Of Ads (Brandweek Magazine, 11/12/07). Wasserman interviewed me for the piece a couple weeks ago, and he seemed to understand and sympathize with our point. His column has some interesting quotes from advertising experts about the evolution of the TV dad.
Brandweek Magazine is a weekly marketing trade publication, one of the largest in the advertising world. If readers would like to write a Letter to the Editor and express their views about this problem within the advertising industry, go to feedback@brandweek.com. To email Wasserman , click here
The Surviving Dads Of Ads
By Todd Wasserman
Brandweek Magazine, 11/12/07
There are many advertisements that tick Glenn Sacks off these days. Take the one from Kohler that shows a man trying to stop up his toilet so he’ll have an excuse to summon the hottie (female) plumber whose van is parked across the street.
Then, there’s the Pizza Hut ad that features a father “cooking” for his kids—by ordering out.
But Sacks’ beef has little to do with the creative quality of these spots. Instead, he comes at it from the angle that our sibling publication Adweek has characterized as “bizarre.” Those commercials, Sacks says, are “anti-father.”
Sacks, who’s a columnist, radio commentator and blogger, got Adweek’s attention in February when he led an effort to try to keep the firm of Arnold, Boston, from maintaining the Volvo account during a review. Sacks took issue with Arnold ads for Fidelity Investments that showed a dad jumping up and down like a twit after beating his daughter in ping pong. (Arnold kept the Volvo account; Sacks deems the new Volvo ads inoffensive.)
Sacks’ complaint admittedly seems weird at first, and also a little suspect—akin to making a case for WASP’s rights or a public plea to refrain from discriminating against Austrians. After all, aren’t fathers all-powerful in this society? Can’t they take a little ribbing?
It turns out, though, that Sacks isn’t the only one making this case. Mark Penn’s book Microtrends, a survey of emerging demographic and psychographic groups, includes a chapter on “Neglected Dads.” Penn charts the course of McDonald’s, which figured out early on that marketing directly to kids could increase the bottom line (not to mention those kids’ bottoms). But sometime in the mid 1990s, “moms started paying more attention to what their children ate.” That led to initiatives like 2004’s “McMom,” which includes an online newsletter with tips on parenting.
Yet at a recent company retreat, Penn pointed out to McDonald’s execs that since the 1970s, fathers have been spending more time with their kids. In fact, in 1997, dads living at home spent 65% as much time in the company of their progeny during the week as their mothers did, and 87% as much time on the weekends, per a University of Michigan study.
Penn continues: “This is serious father-child interaction time, say the researchers—which means meals. But where is the McDad initiative? Who’s targeting the volunteer coaches who need a place to take the kids after Saturday’s practice?”
Penn goes on to demand Daddy-and-me books and back-to-school clothing ads targeted at fathers.
If marketers take Penn up on his offer, they’ll be reversing years of not just neglect, but scorn—at least if you agree with cultural analyst and NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller. Miller’s theory is that since the 1950s advertisers have been scheming to subvert fathers’ power. Recall that fathers in the ’50s were children during the Depression. Wooing dad—often tight with the cash—was not the way to go. So, most advertisers (except for makers of big-ticket items like cars) not only ignored fathers, they elevated mothers and children above their heads with ads showing who was really pulling the family purse strings. Over time, programmers picked up on the switch as well: Stolid figures like Ward Cleaver morphed into the Bill Cosby of the ’80s who often came off as an overgrown man-child next to the witty-and-wise maternal oligarch, Phylicia Rashad.
The trend, if anything, has gotten worse. Comedy flicks like Knocked Up or any screen fare featuring Will Ferrell typically feature wise, understanding women falling for men who act like 12-year-olds. Sure, it’s funny, but it’s also hard to argue that guys like Sacks don’t have a point. “I understand they want to make funny commercials,” he said. “But why does the man always have to be the idiot?”
Sacks isn’t totally discouraged though. He was buoyed by a recent ad for the 2008 Ford Taurus that likened the automakers to the spot’s upstanding father shown buying the car for the same child that we see him teaching (in flashbacks) how to ride a bike. And Sacks also sees progress in a Disney kiddie show where, for once, the father isn’t made out to be a clueless idiot or nonpresence.
See, Sacks and other fathers like me aren’t asking for much. We’re so desperate for positive media role models that we’ll even give a shout out to Hannah Montana.
"));
19 queries. 0.379 seconds.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
...these ads persist because men are the safe target. There's no one in our corner. Making men out to be idiots in these commercials is about as courageous as wrestling a teddy bear...
November 14th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
The ads are a good thing to focus on. It's harder to lambaste the sitcoms because, although they're much more egregious in their dad-bashing, the problem is that the doofus dad is inevitably the headline character and one of the major writers. It's hard to call Ray Romano a man-hater for writing a comedy show that he considered near-autobiographical.
But in ads, there is no such excuse. Companies are directly exploiting a negative stereotype for profit. That's pretty vile.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
..i understand why somebody like Tim Allen came off as a moron but it was his show; his wife was the straight man to his comic character. In eulogizing Sonny, Cher noted the jokes on their show had her making him into a buffoon. But he was the one who wrote the jokes, she said. The funny star usually comes off as a bit of a moron; Lucille Ball did on her show and she is the #1 sitcom star ever.
But in commercials, which continually portray men played by anonymous actors as idiots, there is n excuse...
November 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
It’s always very hard to argue with the truth, but it doesn’t stop a lot of people from trying.
You can usually spot who the people are with an agenda.
It’s usually the people claiming to have all the “credibility”.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Congratulations, Glenn! Getting the write-up means the work is hitting home, often enough to count. And thanks for being in our corner, moving the debate so men and fathers are taken into account. Brandweek is one step closer to the NYT & WSJ.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Kevin Merck
Everybody has an "Agenda". Glenn has one, the gays have one, the feminists have one, etc. People who don't have agendas aren't involved in the debate.
The thing is that in some cases, the agenda is just "I want equality for me and my peeps" - which you can hardly fault them for. And in other cases, it's more "I want stuff for me and my peeps, that may or may not be fair to everyone else".
November 14th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Foo,
I think you are an "adversarialist". Which means you think people congregate and demand stuff for only their own kind, and counter to others. They are all political movements with a political agenda. Wrong! This idea has been propagated by feminist, socialist and communists and it is not true. This is precisely the "silent" history and "patriarchy" (evil conspiracy) as taught by feminists has evolved.
If you mean that Glenn's desire to bring attention to men's issues and rights (usually the ones severely trampled on) is an agenda.. nothing escapes this broad scope of agenda.
I have an "Agenda" to eat soon cause its past lunch time!
Sure the desire needs some political action, cause things have been politicized by feminists. That does not however deserve the connotation of "Agenda".
The other item is "I want stuff for my peeps.." - do you think basic human rights and constitutional rights are something that citizens need to demand as "stuff" (stuff- with a connotation of goodies)? These rights should have been protected already, but they are not. Yet again, equating justice to "stuff", how do you justify that?
November 14th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I'm seriously impressed with this article. Particularly this line: "Recall that fathers in the ’50s were children during the Depression. Wooing dad—often tight with the cash—was not the way to go." When all is said and done it IS about the cash dollars. The real power of promoting movements like shared parenting is figuring out how to control the distribution of our dollars in the future.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
To echo Foo, everyone has an agenda, and everyone has a bias. It's interesting to consider the class of people that claim they don't. Journalists go to college with the rest of us, drink the same beer, attend the same games, but somehow they come out of J-School with some magic "objectivity" power that makes them able to write neutral, unbiased, objective, well balanced articles. Judges and Supreme Court Justices, after an entire career as attorneys defending most vociferously one side of a dispute and claiming all sorts of evils of the other side, are somehow magically transformed into objective, unbiased observers and judges. Sadly, I don't find that to reflect my real world experience.
And then to echo Andy S, ... HOME RUN!
November 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Pankaj, I think there's a difference between having an agenda and a bias, and then being intellectually dishonest. I think it's very fair and obvious to think that Glenn has an agenda and bias but also to make it clear that Glenn is very upfront about this and intellectually honest. That is why he can acknowledge that feminists have been correct about many things, and cite their studies, and why he doesn't need/bother/desire to smear people that disagree with him.
And then one can use that to examine how so many modern feminists act, which is the reverse, where smears and lies are apparently seen as courageous acts of speaking truth to power.
If you haven't, read Richard Feynman's essay on Cargo Cult Science, described here.
Lengthy excerpt, but read the whole thing. Read his books too, especially "Surely you're Joking Mr. Feynman" where he discusses all sorts of things including political correctness.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Near as I can tell, much of Modern Mainstream Feminism operates at the Cargo Cult Science level....
November 14th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Actually, I think Jerry has a point there. The assumption of objectivity must be questioned and bias brought to light. For the "media", TV and the like, to maintain thier viewership they don't need to be factually correct, they need to mirror the "slant" of the audience. What I don't understand is why people focus entirely on NYT/WSJ/NBC type stuff. I mean, 90+% of the news items you hear about come through either Reuters or some other agency...and thier reputation DOES dictate thier worth.
Wouldn't it make sense to start calling Reuters et al out on thier dishonesty and sloppy journalism?
November 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Foo Says:
November 14th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
[“The thing is that in some cases, the agenda is just "I want equality for me and my peeps" - which you can hardly fault them for. And in other cases, it's more "I want stuff for me and my peeps, that may or may not be fair to everyone else".”]
In my opinion, the people in the latter part of your comment have an agenda, not the former. The former are interested in justice, and in my opinion, that doesn’t constitute an agenda, they merely want justice.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
In that case, we're just arguing semantics, the definition of "agenda".
November 14th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
We'd just like to see some consistency. If men need to "lighten up and take a joke," then all groups should be equally fair game. OR...if portraying women as dolts who can't run a lawn mower or do math is considered offensive, fine. Then don't portray men as dolts who can't raise children, make breakfast, or do the wash without mixing whites and solids and ruining all the clothes.
November 15th, 2007 at 4:16 am
pjk: Great point! In sitcoms, the star is the comedian and expected to be a bit daft: That does not apply to commercials. In commercials we should expect and overall balance in the number of idiotic males and females: We do not see this and THAT is a problem.
jerry: YES! Feynman, all those years ago, had it right! Feynman's a bit of a hero of mine.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:48 am
I have sent a letter in to one of those people who are treating men so bad. I asked them to simply take a step back and think how they would feel if it were their son, their Dad, their brother, or even their grandson's? I am a mother, a wife , a sister, and a grandmother. I have seen this from all different angles. Men are not being treated right in the media, and I am so glad that you are standing up and saying enough is enough. I wish you and all men the very best!!!