A Classy Response from Ad Age Editor in Wake of Harsh Column
February 19th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: A couple weeks ago, I criticized Pepsi for its Super Bowl ad 'Magnetic Attraction.' In the commercial, Justin Timberlake gets beat up and is in severe pain.
In general our protests have been against ads which depict men and particularly fathers as lazy, dumb, or irresponsible. The Pepsi ad was an attempt at slapstick humor and not as offensive, but I thought it was still over the line. I suggested that readers who agreed with me contact Pepsi and BBDO, the agency which created the ad.
Yesterday, Jonah Bloom, an editor and columnist at Advertising Age, one of the leading advertising trade publications, fired back at men's and fathers' activists over our 2007 protest against the advertising agency Arnold Worldwide, the Pepsi issue, and others. In When It Comes to Whining About Ads, Father Knows Best (2/18/08), Bloom depicts advertising guru Richard Smaglick of www.fathersandhusbands.org, who has worked with me on these issues and campaigns, as "unhinged" and an "extremist." To read my response to Bloom, see my morning blog post Ad Industry Hits Back at Fatherhood Activists.
Smaglick and Bloom had a long talk this morning, and afterwards Bloom sent us a response to my critique of his column. While I don't think Bloom is going to be signing up with us anytime soon, I thought he showed some class both during the conversation and in the letter.
In response, I wrote, "I'm impressed with your response and your willingness to rethink the issue. If you don't mind, I think it would be nice if I could post [the relevant section] so my readers can see it."
Bloom gave me approval. He wrote:
"Nice dissection of my column. I would say you are wasted in finding fault in slapstick commercials - but I've just promised Richard I'm going to try to take the issue more seriously and at least try to see how they might be contributing to socio-economic issues such as fatherlessness and inter-partner violence against men. I find the whole concept a stretch, but I really am going to try looking at it from a different point of view.
"I suspect many of us spend too much time with people who reinforce our narrow points of view, and I'm sure I'm no different--I'll try to put myself in your shoes. In return I asked Richard to consider whether just maybe there's a nugget of truth in my point of view that your approach--NOT the issues you say you want to tackle--is misguided and not the best use of your time."
"));
19 queries. 0.513 seconds.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Wow, are you sure it was the same person who wrote the article? He's changed his tune, big time, and to his credit sounds genuine. And after all that bluster, he may have a point about how to best spend one's time on educating others about men's issues. That commercial in particular was not the most blatant example of anti-male bias we've seen recently.
Congratulations to Glenn and Richard Smaglick for taking the high road - an example to us all.
This disagreement was resolved by real "gentlemen", a term which too often we leave to the ladies to define (often in terms that serve THEIR interests, not ours).
February 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
While I commend his efforts at being fair-minded and civil, I still intend to blister Mr. Bloom's ears with my letter to the editor. My impression is that the underlying tone of his comments suggests that he still thinks we're all just a bunch of whiners that need to shut the hell up. He's trying to save face.
But, unfortunately for him, there's one more "whiner" coming his way. I do give him points for trying though, as I said.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
It is gratifying to see that "flame wars" can be avoided by some old-fashioned civility.
I suspect a possible trip to the woodshed may have had something to do with Mr. Bloom's contriteness, but heck ... everybody once in a while writes something they wish they might have considered more closely before clicking on "submit comment."
Except for you Glenn.
And I give all that credit to your lovely wife! ;-)
February 19th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
It is amazing what can happen with just a LITTLE bit of perspective. However grudging his tone, I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt. After all, we need to find reasons for hope wherever we can in this blasted gender landscape.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
"I suspect many of us spend too much time with people who reinforce our narrow points of view,"
How true. He was enjoying his quiet, comfy and insulated cubby-hole of a perfect world until we came along and spoiled his idyll. Welcome to the real world. His comments were a breath of fresh air. I won't be sending him flowers or anything freaky like that, but at least he showed a willingness to see things from a different perspective.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
See Stephen, I told you you're always able to put a smile on my face, but I reckon you thought I was just patronising you, correct?
February 19th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I found the guy likable in reading both his column lampooning us and in his other 'Snide'ism column.
On the other hand, that is his job to be likable.
While I agree that just about everything deserves to be made fun of, it is just no good being the only fair target of derisive humor.
Mebbie the ad guys could take a good humorous stab at divorcees blowing Dad's income on expensive affairs with loser guys. It is a well known pattern, and it is ultimately demeaning and destructive to the divorcees as well, even if they are incapable of responsible introspection, before, during or after the fact.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Mr. Bloom said: " I find the whole concept a stretch, but I really am going to try looking at it from a different point of view."
Please do so and disabuse yourself of the cultural indoctrination you have received styled as 'education'.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Mr. Bloom,
Thank you for taking the time to talk to Mr. Smaglick and trying to understand our point of view, regarding the relentless father/male bashing all of us witness on television, radio and other media.
I am a 55 year old, white man and still recall the cartoons, sitcoms, commercials, movies and advertisements depicting black people as clumsy buffoons, who were too stupid to deserve anything other than pity and loathing from whites. Most of all, they were always depicted as lazy. The males were usually skinny, with oversized feet, who only had talent as musicians or dancers. The women were usually fat and were either loud or mumbled when they talked. These were indeed hilarious and created by talented people. But, they were so destrictive to a class of people, who were trying to get the same basic rights which whites took for granted, and so pervasive that legislation had to be enacted to control them. Is it any wonder that such turmoil occured in this country as blacks attempted to gain civil rights?
As a boy, I recall many adults referring to blacks as lazy, stupid and not deserving of they rights given to them by legislation. I am convinced that their being barraged by negative images of blacks was the main reason reason for their bigotry, not to mention the effect it had on blacks. I knew they weren't lazy, because my father, in the course of his business, dealt with a few black farmers around the small town in which we lived and related to his children how hard they worked. As negative images of blacks in the media were replaced with positive ones, I was and still am convinced that this was a powerful force in assisting the efforts to gain for them civil rights and equality.
I'm not advocating legislation to control negative ads about males. I am aware, however of how much effect that persistant images of us as fathers and husbands, who cannot do or say anything right, have on the psyche of an individual and our nation as a whole. When our wives leave us, they are congratulated by their friends while others ask us men what we did wrong. When facing false allegations of abuse of our children and our previous wives, we are immediately assumed guilty. When trying to point out the inequities and unfairness of the systems that exist to resolve these situations, we are continually told that we deserve what we get, even though we and our children spend nights in sorrow, because we miss each other so much and know something is wrong outside of ourselves. I know these situations because I have lived them, even though I was a decent father and husband with minor human flaws and weaknesses.
In the environment in which we live today, I really believe advertisements may be the most powerful medium for shaping our opinions of ourselves and others. You may not want this power thrust on you, and it may not be fair, but it exists, nevertheless. To begin constantly ridiculing females, or any other group for that matter, is not what we are seeking. We want the enormous power that your industry possesses to show balance when depicting any group; not necessarily a 50-50 balance, but something more fair than what was shown of blacks in the 50's, and what is now being shown as boys, men, fathers and husbands. I believe it really has had a strong effect on our families, our ability to be productive, our happiness and the general well being of our nation.
Thank you again for taking the time to listen to our side and trying to see the environment, in which we live, from our point of view. I hope it results in some changes to benefit everyone.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Classy? To me he just sounds like a young upstart who was chewed out by a person higher up and is now trying to soft-pedal his previous statement s a little.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Hi Davina. Actually I watched television for the first time and it left me feeling a little light headed. It also reminded me of why I stopped watching in the first place.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I watched television for the first time in 4 months. I was meaning to say. Typo alert.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
It seems Mr. Bloom needs to be assured the Father's rights and Men's rights activist are at all interested in or encouraging ridiculing females or blacks.
And if he really believes in the "justifiable approach to accomplish worthy goals" criteria he applies to the actions of the "whiners", I wonder why the anti-male advertisement "approach" to sell products cannot be criticized?
When talking about media mediocrity I agree with him. The media is mediocre in caliber, unfortunately any advertisements depicting violence against people and projecting it to be somehow funny is the bottom part of spectrum. Maybe he should be the change he wants in the world.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
oops! I forgot the "NOT" in the first statement. Apologizes
February 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Why should he be commended for calling people extremists and then admitting that he may have made a mistake?
I’m not buying it.
I think he owes an apology for the slanderous remarks, and I think a word from Pepsi would be appropriate, seeing as how it was an obvious attempt on their part to let the dogs out.
Kevin Merck
February 19th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Unrelated, but the father-basher Barrack is on TV again. He sounds like the father-basher Bill Clinton, and the father-basher Ronald Reagan whom apparently never wondered if there was more to their father's absence than their mother's probable PAS explanation.
Disfunctional presidents and presidential candidates due to disfunctional childhoods in the 'Land of Fatherlessness' ... America.
Mike
February 19th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Given that nearly all of the facts on which this opinion piece was based were in error, I'm with Kevin.
A retraction and an apology are in order.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Anyway, what the hell do we care if people call us whiners? Tough, buddy. Get used to it. The fact that you don't agree is frankly your problem. This movement is here to stay so either join us, or if you don't care whether your son is being constantly told he's flawed because he's male, join the radical gender feminists.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Stephen Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Hi Davina. Actually I watched television for the first time and it left me feeling a little light headed. It also reminded me of why I stopped watching in the first place.
--------
Hi Stephen.
eh?
I really do mean it, Stephen.
"I won't be sending him flowers or anything freaky like that...."
That one really did make me smile. Honest! :)
And I'm being completely sincere here.
C'mon, Stephen, you mean to tell me you can't take a compliment?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Just to chime in with Kevin Merck, I now await a statement from Pepsi. The concert of defiance between Pepsi, BBDO, and Mr. Bloom's initial article is still suspicious to me. Heartfelt thanks to Mr. Smaglick for fostering an environment of dialogue.
To that end, until I hear a statement from Pepsi- the small gym where I volunteer in the morning teaching the senior's fitness program has agreed to post the list of Pepsi products to boycott (a thanks to Kevin again I believe for providing that list), and will be removing Gatorade from its refreshment offerings at my insistence. Simply, depicting gratuitous testicle mashing is simply unacceptable to me. In my work at the UN starting next week there will be great efforts expended to further the cause to end female genital mutilation during the annual Committee on the Status of Women. A deplorable and very real issue, and in Mr. Bloom's prioritizing mindset, indeed more pressing. In totality however, working to respect both genders and their genitalia can be done concurrently, and in the west, that respect is incongruent.
I do value and understand the perspective of the talented posters here who do not view this as a significant example. And I take from them the importance of remembering the value of humor and its many manifestations. Yet, I cannot overcome the gut feeling that the Pepsi ad is somehow reflective of the greater problem. It represents an inconsistency and is an example of how we devalue boys/men/fathers and masculinity in our culture. I feel an obligation to young boys watching the super bowl to take a stand when a commercial equates their value to the notion that it is humorous to see a woman sipping a straw causing a gross amount of physical pain incurred on a male subject- including repeated depictions of "genital mutilation". So while I agree that continuous harping may give the impression of spinning wheels and detract from more serious real life areas that host inequality, it does not take much effort to boycott products from those companies that portray men objectionably from my life, and communicate to those who ask why I make that choice.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am
To Thomas : Very well said. I too remember those commercials. Also the ones depicting woman as just house keepers. Unable to make any basic decisions. But I don't remember them showing woman being beat-up by men.
________________
Mr. Bloom, I am a grandmother of 10. When these commercials come on, showing a woman beating a man (Shaw's Commercial) and the girls start to laugh. It makes me sick. They are conditioned to believe men are not worth anything. I did ask my niece, if it would be just as funny, if that was a woman on the ground, being kicked by a man? She turned very serious and said "NO" .
I can only assume you have not seen the damage you are doing to children. Do you have children? Why don't you sit with children and watch these commercials? Then have a discussion with them, ask them what they think of men when they see these commercials. These are NOT slapstick commercials, they are NOT even funny.
These commercials are getting worse every year. This is why we are fighting.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:53 am
A portion of Thomas O'Shea's excellent letter:
To begin constantly ridiculing females, or any other group for that matter, is not what we are seeking. We want the enormous power that your industry possesses to show balance when depicting any group; not necessarily a 50-50 balance, but something more fair than what was shown of blacks in the 50's, and what is now being shown as boys, men, fathers and husbands.
This section brings a few questions to mind.
1. When television and advertising was targetting blacks they stood up for themselves (complete with whites saying that they didn't deserve fair treatment) and now an ad with racial overtones against blacks can get you in serious hot water. When television and advertising was females they stood up for themselves (complete with men saying they didn't deserve fair treatment and accusing them of "not having a sense of humor") and now an ad with gender overtones against women can get you in serious hot water. After all of that why it that males are a safe target for television and advertising and any male that argues against it is deemed a whiner?
2. Why is that advertisers and tv writers insist on singling out one walk of life and making them the constant butt of jokes as if it is okay to make fun of them but be damned if anyone else if made fun of. Frankly this is why I really like comedians like Lisa Lampanelli. She doesn't target one walk of life and make fun of them relentlessly she pretty much insults everyone under the sun, including herself.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:34 am
How many children does a woman have to have sex with before the government throws her in jail?
A: Five children
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=50204
Yes, she's a teacher.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Wanderer:
Thanks for that very thoughtful commentary.
I think you raise a number of excellent points and shed light on perhaps the most important aspect of this issue. It’s not merely a gender issue for the most part; it’s more an issue of being human, and not wanting to see your fellow human being denigrated in the childish way Pepsi has chosen to advertise its product.
It’s nice to hear from someone who really has the “best interests of children” in mind, and doesn’t just pay lip service to it. No “good citizen” wants their children being influenced by this type of mindless hypocrisy.
---“it does not take much effort to boycott products from those companies that portray men objectionably from my life, and communicate to those who ask why I make that choice.”
I think Pepsi is making a huge mistake if they underestimate the power you have by simply exercising that choice.
Take care.
Kevin Merck
February 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Oh no Davina, I wasn't turning down a compliment. Thank you for it. I seemed to concentrate on television because I hadn't seen it for so long. It was strange staring into a box and having it fill my head up with things. I couldn't sit still for long because I longed to be more involved in the process. I've recovered now and I see where you're coming from. I'm glad you like my posts. And I like yours too.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Linda W, thank you for the post about your granddaughters that can laugh at men while taking violence against women oh so seriously. Joining blogs like this has caused me to recall times in the past when I was the subject of discrimination or dismissal simply because I was a man. I recall a couple of women who seriously didn't see men as fellow human beings. If you're not on your toes they can make you feel awfully degraded. That's my problem with these male-bashing commercials. They help desensitize people into becoming more and more amoral. For instance, they think it's perfectly acceptable to bash men because it's within their rights and it's simply the thing to do.
I believe it started with women slapping men. I could never understand that. Every time a woman slapped a man on t.v. or in the movies the man never retaliated. I first saw this in the 1960s and I came to believe that slapping a man for any reason was perfectly acceptable and to be expected. However, reality sure didn't think so. I recall quite a few incidents where women exercised their "right" to abuse men and boy did they pay dearly. I recall when my brother was 12 years old and a seven year old girl hauled off and hit him with a plank of wood upside the head. She must have thought that she could get away with it because she was much smaller than him, 5 years younger and female. Well that wasn't much of a defense. He punched her in the gut so hard that she lost her breath. Everyone took my brother's side and no one to the little girl's side. Not even her own family.
I believe commercials like this teach women that they can abuse any man of any size and get off by playing the female card. Play at your own risk.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I still think it's commendable for him to rethink it, and anyone who states they will try to look at the issue from a different perspective should be given the benefit of a doubt. For me, Mr. Bloom's qualifiers in are evidence that he is honest and earnest. And he may have a point about the strategy. The issues are real. What are the best ways to tackle them? Even if there are 100 horrible advertisements, a top ten list might make a bigger splash to get more folks like Mr Bloom to re-think things. However, kudos to Glenn, Mr Smaglick and all those who wrote, because men in general and fathers in particular are now on their radar as more than patsies.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Linda W., beautifully put. The double standard of violence is so blatant, and yet if you ask people if they think a man striking a woman the same way would be funny, they often don't even understand the point you're trying to make, as if to say, "Oh, no, that would be terrible. Violence is wrong! But what does that have to do with that funny commercial with that lady beating that guy to a pulp?" They don't even see it; that's how blind they are.
Question: did you correct your niece when she laughed at one thing but was indignant about the other? Because it's up to us to fix this.
Stephen, I'm glad people took your brother's side. Too often, it's only the bigger, stronger person who finally retaliates who gets in trouble, and people take the side of the smaller, weaker person who initiated the physical abuse.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
To Thomas O'Shea:
What you said was well thought out and great. I couldn't have said it better myself. I rarely watch television anymore for a variety of reasons, one of them being all the stereotypes of the dumb, worthless male characters that they show.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Question: did you correct your niece when she laughed at one thing but was indignant about the other? Because it's up to us to fix this.
___________________________
We certainly did have a great conversation. She does understand the fact that it is not acceptable or funny for any human being to beat another.
BUT, that doesn't stop the influence that is being thrown at the kids, on a daily bases. Letting the morons that do these commercials know it is not going to be tolerated anymore, and hitting them in their pockets, is the only way they will stop.
AS far as I am concerned. I could care less if the likes of Mr. Bloom understand, so much as I care that they stop. Because they are in fact men. And this will come to slap them in the face eventually. Only when it becomes personal they will understand.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
How Karmic -MSN has a headline article on "Why Pepsi stock is fizzing".
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/WhyPepsiCoStockIsABuyNow.aspx?GT1=10923
Great letter Linda W!!!
February 20th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
My 10 year old son has been moved from the top flight schools in my area to the bankrupt gambler mom's schools in the run down section of the mountains. In his first two weeks at school, he has been attacked twice by girls.
I had to teach him to treat girls like any other aggressors and keep your eyes on them, raise your fists to protect your face, give them clear warning, and fight fair. He had this tendency to turn his back on them.
Never turn your back on a violent person, male or female.
On the other hand, once he turns 18, I will have to retrain him because of the ridiculous DV laws that allow women to attack men with near impunity, and do not so much as allow men to block the blows. Then my son will have to learn to run like hell and take movies.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Linda:
Great comments!
This is for you.
Just say no to Pepsi,
While having a Coke and a smile,
Let the Pepsi moguls reckon,
Who they need to revile.
It’s our duty as citizens,
To take care of our own,
To watch out for our children,
Until they are grown.
Advertising is fine,
In responsible fashion,
It should not offend people,
Regardless of passion.
If we want to be happy,
Live free and be fair,
We need to be careful,
What we put on the air.
Kevin Merck
February 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
To Kevin, I like it.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
The last Pepsi I will ever drink passed my lips several hours ago. Having read Bloom's snotty comment about protest of the Pepsi commercial, I will drink Coke from now on. Coke is really refreshing to a pallette that tastes misandry every day and Coke takes away the bitterness in a way that Pepsi just won't.
And really, anyone who watches the Superbowl for the commercials has got to be daffy anyway. What a waste of time!!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 am
I think it's REALLy important to consider just what has happened here. The Editor of a creative industry rag has said he would (grudgingly) look into our perspective. People in these positions have an enormous amount of influential power in the industry their magazine serves. Sure, a good portion of the readers will smirk and call it bullshit, but there will be a few that actually WILL "look into it", and see a HUGE pent up market.
I would suggest AdWeek do a point-counterpoint type approach, task one writer with a "pro men" position, another trying to debunk the claims, or even prove a different bias. If nothing else the article will touch on an issue that bears consideration in the advertising industry, if even strictly for a "first to the concept" type campaign.
I trust him at his word, that he will look into it. I hope he even turns it into a feature.
As for "buying into it" and suchlike, I have to remind people that while we feel our position is right and justice is on our side.....so does everyone else. He may consider, and reject, our arguments. He may admit some effects, and suggest modification to his peers (or remain silent on the issue). Or he may simply conclude that we are in fact, a bunch of whiners.
It's the careful consideration I desire, the outcome is up to the individual.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 am
Dittohd Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Classy? To me he just sounds like a young upstart who was chewed out by a person higher up and is now trying to soft-pedal his previous statement s a little.
-------------------
Agreed. If that's class....
April 19th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
[...] with Smaglick and I, and showed an open mind on the issue. (I commended him for this in my post A Classy Response from Ad Age Editor in Wake of Harsh Column). In the wake of that controversy, Richard and I worked with CMO Strategy Editor Jennifer Rooney [...]