Seth Stevenson, Slate’s new ad critic, recently wrote a column criticizing Apple’s new iPod ads (and the old DeBeers diamond ads) because they seemed to suggest that the product was better than the consumer.
Mr. Stevenson describes the ads as being:
[T]he songs (from groups like Jet and Black Eyed Peas) are extremely well-chosen. Just indie enough so that not everybody knows them; just mainstream enough so that almost everybody likes them. But as good as the music is, the visual concept is even better. It’s incredibly simple: never more than three distinct colors on the screen at any one time, and black and white are two of them. What makes it so bold are those vast swaths of neon monochrome.
This simplicity highlights the dance moves, but also – and more importantly – it highlights the iPod. The key to it all is the silhouettes. What a brilliant way to showcase a product. Almost everything that might distract us – not just background scenery, but even the actors’ faces and clothes – has been eliminated. All we’re left to focus on is that iconic gizmo. What’s more, the dark black silhouettes of the dancers perfectly offset the iPod’s gleaming white cord, earbuds, and body.
I realized where I’d seen this trick before. It’s the mid-1990s campaign for DeBeers diamonds – the one where the people are shadows, but the jewelry is real. In them, a shadow-man would slip a diamond ring over a shadow-finger, or clasp a pendant necklace around a ghostly throat. These ads used to be on television all the time. You may recall the stirring string music of their soundtrack, or the still-running tagline: “A Diamond Is Forever.”
He then goes on to describe his reaction to the ads:
My distaste for these ads stems in part from the fact that, with both the iPod and the diamonds, the marketing gives me a sneaking sense that the product thinks it’s better than me. More attractive, far more timeless, and frankly more interesting, too. I feel I’m being told that, without this particular merchandise, I will have no tangible presence in the world. And that hurts.
At the risk of criticizing the professional critic, I think he misses part of the brilliance of using silhouettes instead of people and so misses how the ads aren’t insulting at all. To understand what Mr. Stevenson missed, we turn to that great tome of art theory: Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics.
In the second chapter, Mr. McCloud discusses the way that humans have a tendency to see themselves and their features in objects that bear no resemblance to humans (cars, light sockets, etc.) and that humans also tend to project themselves onto simplified human forms (in the books case, cartoons). The more realistically a cartoon character is rendered, the harder it is to empathize with that character because as more features are added to that character it automatically has fewer features in common with the reader. A face that is composed of a circle, two dots, and a line for the mouth is more easily identified with than one that has all of those features plus long hair. (I would scan in the pages in question, but am not sure of the legality of such a move. If someone can tell me whether or not that falls under fair use, I’ll gladly post scans of the pages.)
This is what the silhouette ads play on. By taking the consumer, the wearer of the diamond and the user of the iPod, and rendering that person as a shadow they, the advertisers, are inviting the viewer to project his or her self onto the shadows. When the woman grooving to the iPod, or the man giving a diamond to his love, is featureless it’s easier for a person to picture herself or himself as the one grooving or giving.
So really, the spots are no more insulting than the usual advertising fare. Imagine yourself with our product; wouldn’t you be happier, then?
Update (03/17): Just to be clear on this: I think that only Apple’s ads are entirely without offense in this case. As some others have pointed out in the comments, the DeBeers diamond ads are misogynistic in their view that women’s affection can be earned by buying them expensive baubles.
I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear..
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: Fair Use. I have no idea what that means in any particular situation, though. I just use something and wait for the cease and desist. Then I stop.
The obvious response is, “Why are you so concerned about an iPod when the same technique has been used to objectify and devalue women over and over and over and over and over again in ads since the dawn of ads?” In the diamond commercials, I’m more offended by the implication that women can be bought by expensive transparent rocks than by Stevenson’s interpretation.
As far as the “projecting oneself into a simplified form” idea is concerned, yes yes yes, and I’d like to point out that it doesn’t only apply to visual imagery. For example, it’s easier for a reader to inject herself and her experiences into a poem when it contains primarily large, vague words like “sky,” “body,” and “run” than when it contains detailed, explicit ones like “thunderhead,” “elbow,” and “careen.” At least, that’s the theory behind the paper I handed in yesterday…
Actually, Jean Kilbourne’s book “Can’t Buy My Love” (formerly titled “Deadly Persuasion”, and which I consider a must-read in the media literacy catetory) shows how an overriding theme is advertising is to portray people and relationships as being transitory and disposable, while at the same time portraying the product as “reliable”, “always there”, “eternal”, emotionally gratifying, etc., thus planting the seed that our most important and constant relationships are with products. Looking at it from that perspective, I tend to agree with Stevensen’s analysis and reaction. On a very visceral level, I like the I-pod ads. They’re simple, catchy and showcase their product. But I do agree that they carry a deeper message that the product is more important than the people, and very intentionally so.
Oh, and what Hestia said too.
I think Hestia’s point that there are more offensive things in most ads, and *especially* diamond ads, should go further: by having silhouettes of people, Apple conveniently avoids lots of the stupid race/gender/sexuality/body size stuff that pisses me off about most ads. it’s just an indistinct person who’s happy about the iPod. in fact, I think the ad’s focus on what you do and how you feel with the iPod, rather than what kind of person you are because you own it, kicks ass. Apple’s selling function as much as status.
I haven’t seen the diamond ads in question, but I guarantee they’d piss me off. I’ve never seen a diamond ad that didn’t make me want to slug someone.
i hate to be nitpicky (disclaimer: i agree with 99.9% of Hestia’s and Laurel’s comments, above), but i disagree with Laurel’s assertion that “by having silhouettes of people, Apple conveniently avoids lots of the stupid race/gender/sexuality/body size stuff that pisses me off about most ads.” on the body size point, for example, i’d argue that most of the individuals we might identify as women were of a particular body type–that is, tall-ish and thin-ish. plus, there seem to be more body-part shots of women than men (again, i’m making some assumptions here about which silhouettes are male and which are female)–especially butt shots. at least in the two ads i’ve seen.
i’d also say that, if not particularly offensive, the ads are at least gendered in some ways. perhaps this has more to do with my socialization than any conscious attempt on the part of Apple to promote stereotypes about gender, but i definitely distinguish between the female and the male silhouettes. how? types of clothing, hair, evey types of dancing.
how important is all of this? i’m not entirely sure. i do know that, after seeing the first ad, i commented to my partner that i thought it was uncool that only certain body types were represented, especially of women. so, it still pissed me off. and despite Apple’s efforts (again, conscious or not) to avoid these issues, i think they’re still written into the content of the ad.
but they were freakin’ catchy. gaa!
Clare, something similar had actually occurred to me, which is why I revised “all” to “lots” in my description of the stupid stuff they avoided. when I say Apple avoided lots of the body size stuff, I mean mostly that they weren’t presenting a clear and utterly unrealistic image of what women’s bodies should look like. I don’t think it’s as bad as most more distinct depictions, though I agree that it’s not perfect.
I hadn’t noticed the thing about women’s body parts – I’ll have to think about it later, since I don’t have time to do so right now.
PDP says “the ads aren’t insulting at all.” But Seth Stevenson, by his own testimony, felt insulted. I think that “insulting” like “confusing” is one of those descriptions that lies entirely in the mind of the beholder. If someone feels insulted by something, it’s insulting. All that PDP can do is opine that it wasn’t INTENDED to be insulting, and even that can’t be proven from the evidence at hand.
There’s a lot of great art theory in “Understanding Comics” but even on first reading, I didn’t think much of the idea that readers are more likely to identify with characters that are more vaguely and generally drawn. If that were the case, then so much for the idea of ever identifying with a character in a live-action movie.
I don’t think it’s a matter of absolutes. Between Girl With Glasses and Girl With Glasses Who Drinks Coffee, I can see myself more easily in the former Girl, mostly because I don’t drink coffee, and while Girl With Glasses might drink coffee, because the movie is never explicit about it I can imagine she doesn’t.
The more qualifiers you add to her character, the fewer people can identify with her. Sure, movies need a lot of qualifiers–but we know a lot less about the characters in “Lost in Translation” than we do about the characters in “American Splendor.”
The other thing is that there’s a difference between the purposes of ads and movies. We expect movie characters to be different than we are. I can identify more easily with Coffee Girl in a movie than in a commercial trying to sell me that coffee. Which is to say, movies (and cartoons) are meant to be entertaining; ads are meant to make you buy stuff. So ads have less leeway when it comes to convincing their audience of something.
Pingback: UK Mini ipod
Funny how nobody in this discussion divulged whether or not they own an iPod. Certainly, Seth Stevenson does not represent the target marget that Apple is after…which would explain his detachment from their product appeal. His latest hob snobbery towards Apple can be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2616&ncid=2616&e=22&u=/macworld/20060512/tc_macworld/appleads20060512_0
Funny how he identifies with the PC guy. I guess even funnier is that’s how I identify him.