The way the advertising industry portrays men has drawn increasing scrutiny in both the trade press and the mainstream media. Defenders of the status quo -- in which men are depicted as irresponsible fathers and lazy, foolish husbands -- are starting to feel outnumbered. It's an understandable feeling.
In 2005, Bob Jeffery, chairman of JWT, said his agency had committed itself to developing "smart, positive portrayals of the modern man." Meanwhile, anti-male ads have been criticized by, among others: Marian Salzman, chief marketing officer of Porter Novelli; Mark Tungate, author of "Branded Male: Marketing to Men"; syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, whose weekly columns appear in 300 newspapers; TV host Bill Maher; CBS News anchor Charles Osgood; nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host Laura Schlessinger; syndicated columnist Jacey Eckhart; Chicago Tribune columnist Ross Werland; law professor/author and blogger Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit; Christine B. Whelan, author of "Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women"; and major-market-talk-show hosts Al Rantel, Mike McConnell, Ron Smith and Joe Elliott.
The evidence is clear: "Man as idiot" isn't going over very well these days.
Defenders of the advertising status quo generally put forth the following arguments: Males are "privileged" and "it's men's turn," so it's OK to portray them this way, and that men simply don't care how they're portrayed. Both of these arguments are highly questionable.
Young males certainly aren't privileged. The vast majority of learning-disabled students are boys, and boys are four times as likely as girls to receive diagnoses of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Girls get better grades than boys and are much more likely than boys to graduate high school and enter college. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, women earn 60% of all bachelor's degrees and 60% of all master's degrees.
That adult men are "privileged" over women is also questionable. Yes, men do make up the majority of CEOs, politicians and powerbrokers. They also make up the majority of the homeless, the imprisoned, suicide victims and those who die young.
How fathers are portrayed matters. Fatherlessness is one of the greatest threats our children face. Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. recently said: "Twenty-eight percent of American kids ... are growing up in fatherless homes, heir to all the struggle and dysfunction that condition portends. ... Who can deny those [are] appalling numbers[?]"
Among the many ills of fatherlessness are much higher rates of teen drug abuse, crime, pregnancy and school dropouts.
While the advertising industry's negative depiction of fathers certainly isn't the cause of fatherlessness, it is part of the problem. In a TV culture like ours, the fact that the only fathers one can see on TV are buffoonish (at best) does influence young people's perceptions of fathers.
For young men, it makes it less likely they'll aspire to be fathers, see their own value as fathers or, as Mr. Pitts explains, want to do the "hard but crucial work of being Dad." For young women, it means they'll be more likely to be misled into thinking that their children's fathers aren't important, that divorce or separation from them is no big deal, or that they should, as is the increasing trend, simply dispense with dad altogether and have children on their own.
Is it true that men really don't care how they're portrayed? Evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
According to Leo Burnett Worldwide's 2005 "Man Study," four out of five men believe media portrayals of men are inaccurate. The study found that men care more about the way they are viewed than was generally believed.
When Kate Santich of the Orlando Sentinel did a feature on "men-as-idiots" advertising in 2004, she says she was "astounded" at the amount of mail she received, almost all of it critical of the way men are portrayed in ads. In a Washington Times article in January, advertising-industry journalist Todd Wasserman described getting a similar reaction to a recent article he wrote on anti-male ads.
This sentiment was reflected in the popularity of the highly publicized campaigns we've launched against advertising that is hostile to males. Several thousand protesters participated in both our 2004 campaign against Verizon's anti-father ad "Homework" and our 2007 campaign against Arnold Worldwide.
Our campaigns have drawn widespread support from women, who generally do not like to see their sons, husbands and fathers put down. As Rose Cameron, senior VP-planning director and "man expert" at Leo Burnett, says: "One of the great markers [society] looks to about the intelligence of a woman is her choice of husband. So if advertisers position men as idiots in the husband scenario, then you're commenting on her smarts. Women have told us, 'If you want to get on my good side, you do not show my husband as the idiot.'"
We have three suggestions for the advertising industry:
- Create more ads that are father-positive. Some recent examples include AT&T's touching father-daughter ad "Monkey"; First Choice Holidays' "Slow-Motion Hugs"; and Ford's father-son ad "We Know."
- As we consider whether it's wise to make men the butt of every joke, we should also consider the joke itself. Many see the 1960s as the golden age of advertising. Those who crafted the ads of that era created work of superb quality, seldom if ever resorting to the contempt, shame and aggressive ridicule of today's ads.
- When an ad does need to poke fun at somebody, stop automatically defaulting to men as fools.
Is bashing men a good way to sell products? The ad world has learned, for the most part, to respect womanhood. Given the rising level of media, ad-industry and public disgust toward anti-male ads, it's clear that good, respectful humor is a much healthier approach to advertising.
Glenn Sacks and Richard Smaglick, Advertising Age. April 14, 2008
Copyright © 1992-2008 Crain Communications. All rights reserved.