New Study: Men Aren't Happy about How They're Portrayed in Ads
June 13th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"Buying into corporate America’s depiction of men, and dads in particular, one would be pretty sure they’re mostly lazy, dense dimwits with whom only Homer Simpson could bond.
"Clearly, at least as portrayed in many TV ads, most dads wouldn’t be loved, or even liked, by their wives or kids –– except when they want a withdrawal from his wallet.
"But some marketers are starting to see the light. Take Kansas City-based Hallmark Cards Inc., which after talking to real people has expanded its selection of Father’s Day cards depicting dads in more loving and appreciated ways.
"One new card shows a dad bending over, tying his son’s shoe while he leans on dad for support. 'A man is loved not for how tall he stands, but for how often he bends to help, comfort, and teach'...
“'In the past, Father’s Day was sort of ‘they play golf and take out the trash’ — this is just an attempt really to recognize what they do and being affectionate without making fun of them,' said Hallmark spokeswoman Deidre Parkes.
"Glenn Sacks, a sometimes controversial commentator focused on men’s issues, applauds Hallmark for its efforts, and says others, including AT&T, Pampers and Cheerios, have also made strides in their depiction of men.
"Sacks has mounted a number of crusades, including one against a Verizon commercial in which a wife berates her husband to quit bothering their daughter, who’s doing homework, telling him to 'go wash the dog.'
"Sacks said he thinks men have become the butt of marketing jokes because it’s a cheap, easy way out for companies and their ad agencies.
“'Marketers have found it’s a lot easier to portray men as foolish,' Sacks said.
"If marketers depicted women as brainless bimbos, he said, there would be hell to pay."
Business reporter Jennifer Mann did a nice piece today on the way men are depicted in advertising--No more bumbling Homer: Marketers are reframing dad ads (Kansas City Star, 6/13/08). She reports on an interesting new study which supports what we've been saying all along--men and fathers do care how they're portrayed on TV. Mann writes:
Ad agency Sullivan Higdon & Sink this week released the results of a survey asking more than 300 fathers how they’re depicted in the media.
Titled, “Note to marketers: Dad is disappointed in you,” 75 percent of men couldn’t think of even one commercial that spoke to them with any relevance. Also, more than half said the way dads are portrayed in media and pop culture is out of touch with reality.
John January, Sullivan’s director of brand voice and the father of three young children, said he personally finds media depictions of men “beyond frustrating.”
He sorts the offensive ads into several categories: ones that depict men as oversexed morons with more money than brains; ones where nobody cares about dad until he shows up with something they want; and ones in which men are so utterly inept, they can’t even go out and buy cat food.
“Men are telling us that being a good dad is important to them, and this notion of a detached guy separate from the family and who is either ignored or reviled, that’s not a message that’s going to resonate with the dads we talked to,” January said.
According to the survey, 63 percent spend more time with their kids than their fathers did, but they also feel pressure from a financial and work perspective.
“Their own dads weren’t expected to go to every soccer game, every recital, but these guys are expected to, and they expect it of themselves,” January said. “These guys aren’t saps — they want to see their real lives reflected by (advertisers).”
One of the points I made to Mann is that commercials which portray fathers being humiliated in front of their children are the ones which really anger men. That was the point of our Campaign Against Anti-Father Verizon Commercial, and I was actually surprised at the fury we set off with that campaign. Mann wrote:
"In the [recent home improvement retailer] ad, the couple complete a home improvement project, and the husband is relieved it’s over — until the wife, arms crossed and eyes rolling, tells him to think again. By the end of the TV spot, the couple’s young daughter is mimicking mom.
“Those are the ones that really get people worked up,” Sacks said.
But Sacks said he thinks that as a society, we’ve reached the tipping point.
In recent months, he said, he and others involved in organizations such as www.fathersandhusbands.org, which says it promotes positive images of men in the media, have made progress with some large advertising agencies that he declined to name.
“I’ve been a little surprised at the candor in some of these meetings. One said they do these things because they tend to work,” Sacks said.
“So what’s the solution? They were a little less forthcoming about the solution.
“If you look at some of the ads from the golden age of advertising, the ads are more thoughtful, creative and intelligent. But it takes time and talent to develop those.”
The organization www.fathersandhusbands.org is run by Richard Smaglick, who does excellent work on the problems with men in advertising. In April, he and I co-authored a column on the subject for Advertising Age--see Attention Ad Execs: Media Criticism of Anti-Male Ads Is Mounting (4/14/08).
To write a Letter to the Editor about anti-male advertising and Mann's piece No more bumbling Homer: Marketers are reframing dad ads (Kansas City Star, 6/13/08), write to letters@kcstar.com.
To comment directly on the piece, click here.
To send Jennifer Mann a thank you note, click on jmann@kcstar.com.
"));
19 queries. 0.373 seconds.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
It seems odd that so much progress has been made in minor issues like this, since even I've been reading this site. Yet big issues like child custody, jail times and war have seen no change at all. Especially child custody, with the majority of people in favour of shared parenting I can't see how this happened.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I've noticed fewer of these anti-male ads lately.... Why should men have to put up with these negative portrayals? Because ad agencies lack the intellectual capacity to be creative and instead default to the "man as idiot" template?
June 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
callum Says:
June 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
It seems odd that so much progress has been made in minor issues like this, since even I've been reading this site. Yet big issues like child custody, jail times and war have seen no change at all. Especially child custody, with the majority of people in favour of shared parenting I can't see how this happened.
I believe this issue, this mass cultivation of contempt for men is part of what makes it so much easier to screw men in divorce court.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Here is a great list of offensive ads via askmen.com
http://www.askmen.com/toys/top_10_300/327_top_10_list.html
Some insightful comments that echo many of the commenters here have brought up in the past. Glad to see someone else taking a stand.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Baby steps.
Good work all.
Wish I could have done more.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
What study(s) show that the anti-father/anti-male ads "work", as the ad executive said? Do they have any concrete evidence of that, or is it just that the companies are selling enough of their products to be content ,and are too lazy to try and change or improve their approach? Or, maybe their marketing research people are dumbos?
June 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
That Lowe's ad definitely was awful.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Research seems to suggest that American women control 75% - 80% of household discretionary spending.
So why would advertisers create ads that insult or alienate their primary target consumer?
It is much easier to appeal to her superiority by denigrating men and by implication, praising her long-suffering sacrifices for living with such primitive, stupid creatures.
She is ENTITLED to shop, because clearly her dimbulb husband is not up to fulfilling her needs.
Virtually all advertisements pitched at women have one core theme -- "You deserve it!" (A larger diamond, a newer car, a fancier party dress, a bigger house, a more feminine bath soap, softer sheets, brighter hair, fuller lips, a sleeker figure, and ... a better husband.)
Advertisers may tone down their misandry, but it will still be linked to pitching products to women.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Glenn, It's a couple of days early but THANK YOU for the Father's Day present you have given us all here by making our voices heard in this article and other places. Changing the media culture to cut down on the warrantless contempt of men gets us all closer to a position of neutrality rather than having to prove our worthiness every day.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
callum, I think the answer to your question is that the gender feminists who set up those government institutions deliberately set them up to be as unresponsive and resistant to reform as possible. It's not an accident; it was the intent all along.
Norman L, I've seen some reserach that says that that approach does in fact resonate with a certain percentage of the audience. That segment is mostly female, but there are some men too. Sad to say, it scores very high with single career women in urban areas. However, as far as their marketing research people being dumbos -- don't count that possibility out. There is a dearth of creative talent on Madison Avenue and in Hollywood these days; it's the same for movies and TV. I'm pretty sure one reason the dumb male keeps coming back again and again is that it's a simple formula that anyone can execute; even if it's not a huge seller, the cost (in money or in social repercussions) of production is low. No creative genius needed. (Incidentally, if you ask around as to where all of the creative people went, a lot of Hollywood insiders, if they're being honest, will tell you that they aren't doing movies or TV anymore -- they're doing video games.)
June 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I like progress. If things keep looking up I may actually want to take a chance on having kids one day.
Now if only feminists would realize that marketing agencies are not part of this mystical patriarchy and are just plain greedy like the corporate big suits they are. They don't pick their targets based on who they want to offend they pick their targets based on who they think will give the least resistance (therefore allowing them to get rich off of the customer base's hatred for that target group).
During the days of slavery it was Africans and people of African decent.
Around that beginning of television it was women.
Today its men.
June 13th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
roy,
Is there any research showing that he majority of women would rather see men depicted in that way? And if there is, wouldn't wouldn't you say that could be partly due to the depictions being forced upon is for so long in the first place?
June 13th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Cousin Dave,
Above, you make statements indicating that the negative ads "reasonate" with "a certain percentage of the audience", "a certain segment", and "single women in urban areas". I would be interested in knowing what percentage of women buyers these segment(s) comprise altogether? Also, what does it mean for an ad to "reasonate" with someone? Just because someone is willing to go along with something, doesn't mean they find it highly attractive; the few companies out there that are both ethical and non-lazy, could certainly come up with some types of ads that were more attractive, couldn't they?
June 13th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
roy,
let me restate my comment in english:
Is there any research showing that the majority of women would rather see men depicted in that way? And if there is, wouldn't you say that could be partly due to the depictions being forced upon us for so long in the first place, thus creating and encouraging stereotypes?
June 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Norman,
I don't think there is any question that advertising uses stereotypes to persuade, and that those stereotypes reflect changing social currents.
Case in point, way back in the "Father Knows Best" era, men were portrayed positively - hard-working, loving, wise, caring, authoritative benefactors rather than oppressive bumbling jerks.
So it's clear that advertisers both manipulate and respond to cultural norms.
What happened between 1954 and today regarding depictions of men?Well, feminism is a no brainer. But the complete transformation of the nuclear family from a one-earner economic unit to one where two full-time working parents can barely stay afloat is probably more significant. (As is the frightening statistic that 40% of kids are born into fatherless homes today.)
I'm not sure that your "forced upon us" idea plays out 100% with regard to advertising, because if ad strategies don't result in product sales, they are replaced by the next manipulative experiment.
It's my understanding that in North Korea there is only one TV station dedicated to celebrating the "Dear Leader's" genius and love for his starving people.
Here in the home of the brave, we have hundreds of channels celebrating one version of the American Dream, based on celebrating overconsumption.
One might suggest that citizens of both countries are unfree.
As to the issue of "what women want" -- Dr. Freud said shortly before he died that he had spent his entire life seeking the answer to that question, and had failed miserably. ( I took his example to heart and long ago stopped caring about what women want, since it is not my problem...)
June 13th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Roy,
Chris rock already has answered that question -
What women want?
EVERYTHING!
Apparently Freud was not that smart!
Jokes aside they want what they think they can get - EXACTLY LIKE MEN DO!
June 13th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
roy,
I agree that ads often play to stereotypes (as well as contribute to those stereotypes). I'm just wondering if there's any specific recent research showing that the large majority of women enjoy seeing men depicted in a negative fashion in ads; and that that will make them more likely to buy a given product.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Wow. People don't like being humiliated and degraded. And, they don't like when their children see their roles portrayed as inconsequential if not damaging. Amazing. Who'd thunk it?
June 14th, 2008 at 6:58 am
'A man is loved not for how tall he stands, but for how often he bends to help, comfort, and teach'.
Mixed feelings about this one. OT1H, it's a welcome break from the usual direct father bashing. OTOH, there's someone out there again trying to define "real man", thus pronging us towards being what _they_ want us to be, rather than letting us be ourselves. Subtler form notwithstatnding, the assumption that men are 'not OK' as they are is still there. Compare Mother's Day cards, with all the flowers, gift packages, unconditionally loving shiny red hearts, and no "we'll love you if" hint-hints squeezed between the lines.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Norman,
I could not locate any full-text research documents on your question about whether women like seeing men depicted negatively in advertisements. (I'm sure there must be some in industry and academic journals that have restricted web access.)
But perhaps the issue is not what women like on an individual basis; rather it is about the pervasiveness of misandry -
"In the book Spreading Misandry writers Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young make the observation that "like misogyny, misandry can be found in almost every genre of popular culture - books, television shows, movies, greeting cards, comic strips, ads or commercials, and so on...
"The misandric artifacts and productions of popular culture promote a particular world view. It is not a complex one. On the contrary, it is very simplistic. Symbolically encoded ... is what we call 'the conspiracy theory of history'.
"One specific group of people is identified as the threatening source of all suffering and another as the promising source of all healing. There is nothing new about this theory; only the names have changed.
"At various times over the past century, nations, classes and ethnicities have replaced religions as the representatives, or incarnations of good and evil. Today that is true of the two sexes as well."
Now that it's politically incorrect to blame black people, the Irish or gypsies for the world's problems, assigning fault to men has become the wallpaper of modern life, with any number of TV shows, movies, books, comedians and commentators happily pronouncing men as stupid, vile, insensitive, greedy, destructive, self-obsessed "lesser" beings compared to women." (excerpt from "theage.com.au.")
The key to the observation here is the idea of concepts and beliefs becoming like "wallpaper."
Today, the anti-male codes of misandry are "natural," assumed and accepted as "the way things are."
You don't get up every morning and question that oxygen exists, even though it's invisible, you take it for granted.
After forty years of feminism in America, (reinforced through advertising and pop culture and schooling, etc.), misandry is so ordinary as to be largely under the radar of perception. We don't teach about misandry and it is so marginalized a concept that the word is not in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary or in MS Word's spellchecker.
It does seem curious that women are very vocal about describing what they want and/or like when it comes to their own needs; however, they have been strangely silent (except when expressing contempt) about men's needs.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I believe anyone who thinks women don't like the negative portrayal of men have no friends that watch "Maury" or "Oprah".
For the rest of the world, Schadenfreude rules.
June 14th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I hope the trend continues.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Indeed...Happy Dad's Day to all!
Of all the work done here, I do appreciate the crackdown on "Dad as Idiot" advertising.
Anyhow, just got this in an email from a bud, from Christina Page at Reality Check.
Today, as a result of not having to shoulder all the economic demands of the family, and by having smaller families, men have been allowed to become more involved fathers — better fathers — than ever before. And they seem to like being fathers. Eighty-five percent of dads say they get more joy out of fatherhood than their own fathers did....
... the majority of men say they desire an equal marriage (77 percent). And they appear to mean it. Mothers spend thirty six minutes less on chores on workdays and an hour less on non-workdays, than they did 25 years ago. Dads spend thirty minutes more each day helping their wives raise their children than they did twenty-five years ago.
Fathers increased involvement starts at the very beginning of their children's lives: 90 percent of dads are present in the delivery room (compared to 10% in 1970).
"Men are doing more changing, feeding and burping than they were 30 years ago," states James Levine, who heads the Manhattan-based Fatherhood Project at the Families and Work Institute.
"At parent teacher meetings," says Levine, "you're still going to see more women than men, but the number of men is increasing. We're seeing this across all income, racial, ethnic and geographic groups. It's a very broad based social phenomenon."
Dads today are more affectionate with their children: 60 percent hug their school age kids every day, and 79% tell their children they love them several times a week. "This is welcome news because it benefits the child," says Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, a professor of child studies at Syracuse University who has researched cross-cultural fathering for more than two decades. "Children whose fathers are involved with them show better education achievement, fewer problems in school, and they're better off socially."
All this seems to have created a revolution in how men see themselves. Seventy percent of dads today feel they would be just as effective staying home and raising children as their wives. The Gallup organization found that one in four men would actually like to stay home and take care of the house and family. Spike TV, the TV network for men, surveyed 1,300 men and found that the number considering staying home is even higher; the poll found that 56 percent of men would consider becoming stay-at-home dads. As the Spike TV pollsters explain, "This is the first generation of men to feel the full effect of women entering the workforce. As women have become partners in the workplace, men are now adjusting to a more equal status at home." And record numbers of men are choosing to stay home too. Today statistics show that roughly 2.5 million dads nationwide stay home to be their children's primary caretaker. ...
...has been the rise of the real family man and the making of the more devoted father. It is to the point where the vast majority of men today, 72 percent, say they would sacrifice pay and job opportunities for more time with their families. ...
...Spike TV found that most men would choose attending their kids' sporting event over an important work obligation. The Spike TV pollsters explain, "There's been a paradigm shift. Men want involvement with kids. Even with infants, they get up at night. It was NEVER like this before. They're taking parenting seriously. New responsibilities with kids and in homes are enriching men's lives. They're excited by it and proud."
So much for the myth of bumbling Dad. And as disappointed as I am with Michigan's latest failure...the changes are inevitable.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Annie,
re: the last paragraph of the email from your friend, above, I'm not sure it's a "new paragdigm" for men to want more involvement with their kids. That has always been true. But thanks largely to mechanization and automation making manual work tasks easier, as well as the rise of the information and technology ages which has created millions of less physically demanding jobs, the fathers now have the time and the energy to do so.
There is no doubt that the feminists will co-opt the phenomenon of increased father involvement, and make it appear as if women are somehow responsible for this change for the better.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Factory,
do you know of any evidence proving that women in the audiences of those shows, are representative of women in general?
So far, all you guys have given me is vague question-avoiding statements and mystical half-anecdotes.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
roy,
I totally agree - misandry has always been the main issue. It represents the point of convergence, as well as the underlying source, of all the various phenomena discussed by MRA's.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Now Norman...
mechanization and automation making manual work tasks easier, as well as the rise of the information and technology ages which has created millions of less physically demanding jobs, the fathers now have the time and the energy to do so.
I s'pose. I'll just close the stores, eliminate my financial contribution to the household...and see how it all works out.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:22 am
TV set has an OFF button, use it, if men by the million switch off and leave it off, problem solved, wala!
Better off reading, spend time at the book shop, or at the local library, play sport
work for a charity, life is much too short for the mindless prattle and corporate brainwashing of what is on the box.
As I have said before on this blog the mainstream media must die due to lack of interest.There is no other solution.Large corporation's are so powerful, but if we boycott their products they will fall of the face of the earth, via the quiet revolution!
June 15th, 2008 at 3:19 am
sigh..
There exists nothing good which is not at least partly due to women. And there exists nothing else which does not adversely affect women in some way.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:32 am
You seem to have enough time available to make continuous entries on this blog site. (Using the technology created by those who oppress you - you know, the same class of people who invented air conditioners, refrigerators, light bulbs, cars and sewing machines, etc. In fact your oppressors denied you the right to invent these things yourselves, otherwise you would have done so, of course)
One day perhaps, women will realize they are not at the center of the universe. Until then, we adults (men) must cater to their whining.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Just an aside --
As the mainstream broadcast and print media continue to decline, the Internet will be increasingly coerced into becoming less free, more commercial, and a tool for corporatism.
Twenty years from now, will Glenn Sacks be merely a "brand," a subsidiary of a Time-Warner 'net conglomerate?
As the men's movement becomes more prominent, that also means it will be targeted as a potential profit-channel to be absorbed into a transformed "mainstream media" based on narrowcasted digital market segments.
My own assumption is that subscriber-based 'Net sites will have to emerge to provide an alternative and a resistance (a firewall) to combat the so-called "free market" of co-optation and consolidation.
Most importantly, I just don't want to ever see Glenn Sack's handsome mug on a box of Cheerios with his URL listed under "ingredients." ;-)
June 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
With the way TV shows run so many ads back to back (I lose count after five or six) I can see why advertisers write ads to get your attention and the violent ads do. When will they get it through their thick skull that nobody makes money by having their ads watched, they make their money selling their product! I watch such ads and do my business with some else and I'm sure many of you do. To most of you I'm just preaching to the choir but maybe someone on Madison Ave. is reading. Most of you are writing good or at least decent ads, the others can shape up or loose business.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Annie and Norman: I know it's late to the party, and it's only indirectly relevant, but here's a link to a study in Australia that looked at negative portrayals of men in media:
http://library.uws.edu.au/adt-NUWS/uploads/approved/adt-NUWS20060210.135125/public/06Chapter5.pdf
The evidence is pretty strong in this study that men are overwhelmingly portrayed in a negative light in the mass media, at least in Australia where the study was conducted. What it doesn't go into directly is who is the audience for these negative portrayals. I haven't yet managed to come up with anything with Google -- I only have so much time during lunch. The problem with trying to find some audience research numbers is that most of the good data is proprietary and so probaby won't be found with a search engine. What I cited before was what I recalled from a newspaper article about five years ago. I'll keep looking.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Easy Norman...I'm the least oppressed person I know, due large to the men in my life making the choices they did.
Our situation is a trifle unusual...but simply...the BH shot out of grad school like torpedo, securing excellent employment that kept him from home nearly six months out of the year...for years. WE never saw it coming and because of the circumstances, our original plans to develop the property in pursuit of my dreams were put on hold. My work was confined to managing the leased acreage, selling the hay, working parttime and general farm-mom duties for roughly a decade. (The BH has also spent the last 20 years commuting 90 minutes each way to preserve both the family heritage...I brought a "dowry" of land and clapboard house to the marriage...and to raise our children with the values we hold dear. Losts to be said for starting married life mortgage free.) But something had to give. By the time #2 son hit double digits...BH hardly knew his boys and I was overready to get a move on with plans for the family business...and, yes... the marriage was in some trouble.
Ultimately, BH made a lateral move, effectively taking himself off the faster track as my financial contribution to the household increased year by year. By the time #3 son started 7th grade, we had Dad around to do what fathers and sons do...and fine traditions were established...deer camp, morel camp, longbow tournaments, church softball league, and the awesome annual Black Diamond skiing trip, and of course...GOLF.
So yes, by insisting that I should shoulder more of the financial load, and pursue my own career interests, the BH moved from overworked Dad to engaged Dad.
I do have more time on my hands these days...emptynested, with a BH who picks up after himself, and the Lazy Gardener Greenhouse 300 yards out my back door, and the town shop well staffed...in my case, it is not technology that frees me up; it is age and nepotism.
Again, Happy Dad's Day the morning after. Crown Royal and Golf to you and yours.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
So Hallmark is now producing more father-friendly cards for Fathers' Day? What about the rest of the year? And when are they planning to apologize to men for their long-running line of viciously male-bashing "Shoebox" cards? This is a start, but they'll get no business from me until I see some genuine contrition for their past sins.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:25 am
@Annie
Bit late, I know, but; wow, well done to you and the BH! Sounds like you've both worked hard and done well, hope you're both reaping the rewards!
June 19th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Beshemoth...it got dicey for awhile...the grandparents left me the land with the assumprtion that I was the grandchild who would do something with it, in traditional terms. Insisting on fulfilling my own dreams, and living up to the gift caused some serious issues... but these days, it is all a wash, and we are comfortable.
I
June 20th, 2008 at 5:24 am
@Annie
Hi, yeah, totally appreciate the dicey bit. Reading that back, I hope the appreciation of how hard you guys worked was what was evident! Hee, "you've done well" was meant to indicate that, not "wow, sounds like you was lucky".
Most people's hard work looks like good fortune to those who only see its harvest (or similar caffienated drivel...) Glad your family's paid off.
Have a good weekend, y'all/
October 25th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I just watched the Lowes ad of them humilatied yet another dad in front of his son! Pisses me off. The dad it telling the son how he made a great deal on a fridge as they are hauling it away and the son reads the same deal offer on the back door of the Lowes truck and the son says "yeah, way to go dad"
Making dad look like an idiot. But in the back ground is the cars, the house, the food, the medical insurance, the dental insurance, the boat, the furniture, clothes, etc, etc that the ol DUMB DAD provides for his family!