A Blond Sells Better?

dior-left

Don’t you often see this style of advertisement?

Look at the posture of the model.

  • a white blond woman
  • relaxed lying position
  • spatially spreaded blond hair
  • mouth opened slightly

What does it provoke you when you see the ad? (Somewhat inviting?)

Does it work the same way if she is not blond or nonwhite? Why/Why not?

Advertisements

22 Responses to “A Blond Sells Better?”

  1. bigdickdaddy Says:

    No, it doesn’t work in the same fashion. If you advertise a diverse woman in that position she many times is pictured and thought of as being a tramp. Ask most Black woman about there hair and be prepared to get a slap because obviously its way different. As far as the mouth being slightly open i won’t even go there. Thank you, great point your making with very little words. Another Display Of Whitey in Action…

  2. sailorattitude Says:

    I think that it really depends on who you are asking and what type of modeling they are doing. In high fashion, which I am assuming is the type of modeling you are trying to portray or question here, the company does tend to use tall slim models because that is what the buyer pictures the clothes in. The people who buy these clothes will or can have them altered however they want. In other brands, short and more familiar sized people are pictured to feature their products like surf brands. I do not feel that I have anything in common with the model pictured or that I would ever buy the dress that she is wearing, which I assume is what she is selling, but I don’t have a problem with her selling it.

  3. wolffie503 Says:

    I see advertisements like this all the time, usually in women’s magazines such as vogue. My first initial thought when I saw this was that she looks like a ghost. Modeling tends to go to the extremes, why would you want to have thin boring hair, Why not have crazy hair thats everywhere? why would you want a tmodel whose tan, when you can go to the extreme and get a model who is almost pale as a ghost? why would you get a model who is like a lot of women and has shape and curves when you can get one that is extremely thin? The advertisement doesn’t bother me but I mean you definately have to fit a certain mold in order to be a fashion or high up model.

  4. >>bigdickdaddy:
    >”As far as the mouth being slightly open i won’t even go there.”
    we should venture into that realm! i think it’s part of important methods that ad company uses to seduce us. sexually connotative posture provokes the audience some kind of raw emotionality, isn’t it? It’s there strategy.

    >>sailorattitude:
    it’s interesting that you thought it’s an apparel ad. it actually advertising their bag that she’s holding. your comment made me to think that the ad’s whole package (of a blond white, a high-end dress, and the bag) is possibly selling more than just a bag. i guess whole connotational image is very important.

    >>wolffie503:
    i’m a little confused. you have a lot to say about the ad, but it doesn’t bother you?

  5. So does the model have to be white and blond? NO. Heard of Tyra Banks? The whole point of not having an everyday average joe is because that is the whole point of models. They are supposed to show non realistic sort of fantasy images. Even the models in the pictures dont look like that, so much is done with photoshop to change their image.
    The signature mouth open in alot of high fashion photos really makes me think that the model is going to throw up. Which actually isn’t such a far off thought is it?
    Also usually in high fashion pictures the poses are about twisting and moving the body into positions that arent really normal. Usually they hunch and have bad posture so im not sure how that seduces the audience.

  6. thekingofeurope Says:

    so who is this ad being directed at? men through all the sexually suggestive stimuli? yeah, i totally want to fuck this girl because of this ad and by buying this handbag i’ll be able to fuck her?

    btw, i prefer brunettes, so this ad doesn’t really do it for me.

  7. Exactly i totally agree with thekingofeurope, the demographic for this ad isn’t men. the whole point of the ad is the sell a purse to women, also not trying to be racially specific… actually how did race even get into this comment thread anyway?

    What if you took away the Dior and just viewed it as an art piece in itself?…..

  8. soweird666 Says:

    I only agree with wolffie503 on the model looking like a ghost. When I first this ad, I thought that the model looked like she was dead, if only she weren’t holding up the bag. However, I somewhat disagree with wolffie503’s comment on a model “having to fit a certain mold in order to be a fashion or high up model.” There are average and plus size models out. They’re not necessarily a really scrawny and tall woman. Case in point would be models like Tyra Banks, Naomi Campbell, and Heidi Klum. All three have more curves than the average model.

  9. of course you cannot fuck her even if you buy the bag. that’s pointless. don’t be so horny. it’s an advertisement.

    i never limited the argument to heterosexual one, and i don’t think it’s about heterosexual or homosexual. it’s about sexual codes that are embedded in the ad. And, i imagine that a “white blond female” is loaded with stereotypes, which is a meaningful factor to think about advertisements.

  10. thekingofeurope Says:

    sexual codes = hhhhmmmm i don’t know, sex?
    sex = i don’t know, fucking? a basic innate response?
    what are you even arguing then?

  11. this post is to generate a place to think about and analyze the ad. expressing “yeah, i wanna fuck her!” kind of feeling is not thinking. and, “sexual codes” does not equal “sex.” “sexual codes” equals (cultural/ideological) “camouflage.” “sexual” might be eye-catching, but more important is to think about “codes,” in this case.
    OK?

  12. thekingofeurope Says:

    the “i want to fuck her” comment was sarcasm. i was analyzing the ad. i cam to the conclusion that your argument has a glaring hole in it. please explain what you mean by sexual codes, if they are not cues toward bringing out sexual responses/sexual thoughts from the consumer. if they are sexual in nature, naturally i assume they have to do with sex or am i wrong in making that connection?

  13. sarcasm is not constructive, is it? if you are analyzing, express your thoughts in a productive way. if you think my argument is bs, you can explain that in an understandable way. if you are not willing to do it, then, this topic is not for you. please post comments on what you care more about.

    the direction of my argument is not heading toward sex. as i have mentioned before, it is an advertisement. advertisement is to sell products, right? that is why you have to think about how the ad is employing cultural/ideological codes to induce the readers feelings and images, and why such emotion and visions encourage them to buy stuff. the sexual code is one of them, and the racial/ethnic stereotype has a strong connection with it. SO, what i am telling you is to think less about sexual intercourse and think more about the ad’s whole image and the applied codes that are built upon the history of american culture.

  14. astrangerwithcandy Says:

    “sarcasm is not constructive”

    well that’s it for me. *walks away slowly*

  15. thekingofeurope Says:

    here’s something constructive:

    >”As far as the mouth being slightly open i won’t even go there.”
    we should venture into that realm! i think it’s part of important methods that ad company uses to seduce us. sexually connotative posture provokes the audience some kind of raw emotionality, isn’t it? It’s there strategy.

    well, i ventured into that realm and now you’re backing down. your basic argument is that they’re seducing us w/ sex (or dreaded “sexual codes” that have nothing to do w/ sex, apparently), right? i’m asking how do you conclude this when the target audience is not heterosexual males/homosexual women. maybe, it is you who is not being constructive.

  16. The main thing is that this is an add to sell a purse. And the people who put this add together understand what can help sell a product. If is it sexual in nature then thats what works. If it is the ghostly look of the girl then thats what works. Bottom line they know what to do to sell a product. The question is why does it work and are we just doing anything to fight it off?

  17. >>thekingofeurope:
    i wonder if you are really reading my comment… or, was my last comment too hard to comprehend? you ventured into a wrong realm. you seem to think simply about sex. but, what i am stating here has to do with signs and symbols that provoke feelings and images that are tied to sex. (And, this has a lot to do with stereotypes of white blond women.) SO, sexual codes have a lot to do with sex. but, you have to calm yourself here. when you see that ad, you think about sex. yes, that is normal. but, when you do that you are decoding the signs and the symbols that are embedded in the ad. that is why i used sexual “codes.” i am asking you to think the connections of your psychological reaction (sex) and the signs and symbols in the ad (white blond woman, relaxed lying position…etc.). (to do this, you have to think about your culture that you consume everyday.) then, you can further think if the ad works the same way if the model is nonwhite. (will it promote to sell in the same way or somewhat different?) how’s that?

    >i’m asking how do you conclude this when the target audience is not heterosexual males/homosexual women.

    when you look at a man, you know pretty much if girls think he is sexy or not. you can judge that even if you are not attracted to men, right? that pretty much answers your question.

    >>elukefahr:
    thanks for adding up some arguments. I agree with you. “why does it work”?

  18. thekingofeurope Says:

    yes, yskid i am reading your entire comment, but to pick out every little nuance about it would take too long. i’m glad you admitted that sexual codes have something to do w/ sex at their base level. that’s all i really wanted. but, i have thought about your argument and i respectfully reject your idea that either race or sex has anything to do with the sale of this handbag.

    “when you look at a man, you know pretty much if girls think he is sexy or not. you can judge that even if you are not attracted to men, right?”

    oh come on, now you’re pigeonholing all women to react a certain way toward a certain man. i also reject this idea that all women are supposed to find a certain type of man attractive. that’s actually quite stereotypical, don’t you think?

  19. you are reading all of my comments? you really lost me…

    >i’m glad you admitted that sexual codes have something to do w/ sex at their base level.

    that’s what i am implying from the beginning…

    >i respectfully reject your idea that either race or sex has anything to do with the sale of this handbag.

    then, why did you even comment about this post?

    >“when you look at a man, you know pretty much if girls think he is sexy or not. you can judge that even if you are not attracted to men, right?”

    i am telling you about a general sense that everyone shares. maybe, you can change it to “some girls.” does that sounds better? (but this is not the point you need to think about so hard, though.)

    >that’s actually quite stereotypical, don’t you think?

    yes, i think so. AND, i meant to provoke that because the topic of this post has relations to that. but, i guess you don’t get that either.

    it sounds like you “reject” a kind of thinking you need for this topic. you know, having a some kind of allergic reaction to this… or, being afraid to dive into a deep river call “culture.” you are only swimming at the surface, and not willing to look at what’s underneath you.

  20. elukefahr Says:

    >”when you look at a man, you know pretty much if girls think he is sexy or not. you can judge that even in you are not attracted to men, right.”

    that really is true. and it dont think it is being stereotypical in saying that woman are attracted to a certain kind of guy. im not saying that all women like the same type of guy but how many woman do you know that dont like guys with a little muscle or simply tall dark and handsome? not too many i think so its not about the actual specifics about a guy but the overall general characteristics that girls like.

  21. thekingofeurope Says:

    >i’m glad you admitted that sexual codes have something to do w/ sex at their base level.

    that’s what i am implying from the beginning…

    “and, “sexual codes” does not equal “sex.””

    you’re contradicting yourself.

    “then, why did you even comment about this post?”

    to generate discussion, provide another perspective, and earn credit for this class. would you rather i just praised you for your outstanding find of obvious sexist/racist propaganda?

    and i reject your interpretation of the ad, that’s not to say there isn’t a lot of subliminal messages in this ad. it means that the particular ones you pointed out, i don’t believe have connections to the target demographic. my original post was asking who exactly this ad was supposed to be for. what are these sexual codes and what are they supposed to be bringing out (specifically, not just some strong emotional response)? how are they tied to the viewer and how will that affect them enough to buy this handbag?

    now if you’re still implying sex is being used to sell this handbag, i have to reject that notion because she looks more like a dead fish than an object of sexual desire.

  22. >>elukefahr:
    thanks for commenting. that kind of general response/feeling was what i meant to imply.

    >>>thekingofeurope:
    no, i’m not conradicting myself. “sexual codes have something to do w/ sex at their base level”? –YES. but, “sexual codes = sex”? –NO. there are levels of analysis, and you need to be able to make such distinctions. sexual codes and “sex” are relational but not the same thing. they are not interchangeable.

    you don’t agree with my argument, and that’s fine. but you are not providing another perspective. you used sarcasm to make fun of my post, and i think “yeah, i totally want to fuck this girl” is a pretty bad sexism. or, because it’s sarcasm, it’s ok to bluntly say it, and it’s not you saying it? well, “btw, i prefer brunettes, so this ad doesn’t really do it for me.”: that’s sexism, too.

    >what are these sexual codes and what are they supposed to be bringing out (specifically, not just some strong emotional response)? how are they tied to the viewer and how will that affect them enough to buy this handbag?

    when did you comment that? you are now appropriating my comments to right yourself. be honest about yourself, ok? you can ask if you don’t understand. you are accusing me, but your comment itself is contradicting yours. at first, you mentioned you want to fuck her, then next she’s not attractive because you like brunettes. then you just mentioned, “she looks more like a dead fish than an object of sexual desire.” one time you see sexual connotations and next time you don’t see them. (and that last one’s another sexism.)

    and, this is an analysis. it’s not centered on what YOU think. we don’t care if you think “she looks more like a dead fish.” it is about how a cultural product works in American culture, and how the people who lilve in generally feel and react to such product (in this case an ad). you have to open up your mind and see the possibilities of the power/influence of the ad in depth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: