UPDATE: Target ads, television news, and why I should get a life
A vast majority of the comments to my two posts on the Target ad came as a reaction to the WCCO-TV story aired last night. Seems the majority of TV-watching commenters do not see anything offensive about the image.
Many, however, were offended by the fact that I chose to talk about it when WCCO contacted me.
If you don’t want to weed through the comments I approved (I did not post about 20 comments because they violated my Comment Policy), I can summarize them by saying:
I need to get a life. I have too much time on my hands. My mind is sick/in the gutter and I need psychological help. I’m a prude. I need a man. I am insecure and must control others. I’m a dumbass Republican. I wish I had a penis. I’m a typical overreactive female. I wore too much makeup and obviously had my hair done. I should consider wearing makeup and doing my hair. My children are probably also degenerates and should be shipped off to social services. Bullseye, the Target mascot, should piss on me. I am a disgrace to all freedom.
And I should move to North Korea.
I also received an additional fifty emails through the PEM site.
Boy, a lot of people really like Target.
While I am saddened that the conversation moved from being about the ad and Target’s response to Amy Jussel’s inquiry about it, to being about my worth as a person, there were some good discussions elsewhere and some people even agreed with me:
– Shakesville has the comments (and audience) I was hoping to have here.
– MnSpeak has a great discussion about bloggers and mainstream media.
– Minnesota Monitor covers the story and actually makes some progress with Target: Target to reconsider no-blogs communications policy after billboard flap
– And The Deets? Lets just say I don’t know if I could have made it through today without The Deets.
In retrospect, probably not an interview I should have done. You never know how a story will turn out. Next time, I’ll take a chance on an interview more in line with PEM’s mission.
P.S. Comments on the two Target posts are now closed. I got the message.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
And LIsa, I feel badly that people attacked you, frankly, I feel somewhat responsible.
I called you. You didn’t seek out publicity. You put a message on a blog that I thought raised an interesting issue. So I did a story on it. I figured people would debate the issue, not go after the person.
Anyway, I’m glad you’re not 100% sour on doing media interviews.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
FWIW, I think you’re right on. Any time we stand up for something we believe in we’re going to experience a backlash. When things become personal, it’s unfortunate, but you have to remember that those people who resort to personal attacks are usually not well versed in the issue.
You go girl. That ad WAS offensive. In my opinion, the fact that men didn’t think it was offensive was a no-brainer. Let’s ask them again after they have a daughter of their own and are trying to raise her with certain morals. It’s sad to me that the young women laughed at it and said it wasn’t offensive. That tells me they haven’t yet discovered the respect they deserve.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Keep fighting the good fight! I am glad there are people like you who point out the not-so-subtle imagery that pervades this culture. The proof will be in time: I wager that in 15-20 years, we will look back on ads like the Target one and say, “oh my! how did we ever tolerate that?” in the same way we would say that about this. You are just too far ahead of your time!
January 16th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
In the “get a life” competition, I have to think that those taking the time to send such ass-backward, sexist, freaking bizarre email, well… I’d put my fifty cents on the fruitcakes with all the pent up rage.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I would have hoped that your interview would have sparked more of an intellectual debate. I think the research that you have done and the links that you have presented are well researched. I am very impressed with the way you have handled the personal onslaught! Keep your head held high. Even if the interview brought light to one person, it was well worth it.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Honest to God, I can not, in any way, shape, or form, figure out HOW this ad is offensive. “Hint of a camel toe?!” “Ready for bondage?!” Give me a break!! She’s dressed in winter clothing, not a bra and panties or a corset and wrist cuffs! There is nothing sexual about that ad. The woman is literally covered from head to toe. Lighten up. Go outside and make a snow angel.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
FYI: It’s not just “men” and “young women” who are still baffled as to the offensiveness of this image. That might be an easy stereotype for you to believe, but this angry, middle-aged, staunch feminist thinks this whole flap is completely ludicrous. I applaud what you all think you’re TRYING to do here….but I’m sorry, I think you’re actually training yourselves into seeing sexual content everywhere, always on your guard. You need to take a big step back on this one.
And also - this has nothing to do with love for Target. Those of us who respectfully disagree with you simply disagree. It’s not a matter of picking sides, family vs. corporation. That’s a lousy and unfair way to stereotype those of us who simply think you are tilting at windmills.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:12 am
It IS totally about your love or lack of love for Target. There is no stereotyping. Target has been consistant in their policies over the years, their subliminal advertising campaigns, their choices made in liasons and patronage, their special funding, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing simplistic about their advertising. This is nothing new for them.
Everyone has favorites in their shopping arenas, preference shown to one store over another….why? Because of their advertising policies, prices, attractions, inventory, specials…. My choice is NOT to patronize Target because of their lack of scruples and morality in their comapny policy choices. Feel free to go onward in your defense. I will continue to make my own shopping choices based upon my own personal preferences. I choose not to shop in Target because of their obvious poor company preferences!
January 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
In respsonse to Amber’s lament over this not being an intellecutual debate, take a look at Shakesville or at Feministing. Both have a very productive dicussion. Amanda’s bafflement over the offensiveness of the ad is also pretty common. So, Amanda and anyone else who doesn’t really see the offense, take a look at the discussions going on on these sites. Both have pretty good insights into why criticism of the ad’s not “competely ludicrous.”
January 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am
To me, the most fascinating part of this is the story of Target and bloggers. It turns out that Robert Scoble met with some Target PR and marketing people a couple of years ago, and spent some time telling them how influential blogs can me. Apparently the message didn’t penetrate Target.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I think the main issue I have with the interview was your smug attitude that everyone should be offended by this ad. I don’t think that was from editing. You didn’t come off as a compassionate and caring person, which I am sure you are. I was just irritated with how you presented your issue.
I don’t love Target, but Target has been using their bulleye trademark for advertisement for a long time. It goes perfectly in line with their winter theme.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Jason, Chili, MBGITH, Mom, Amber and Anne: Thanks for your kind words and support!
Amanda: I don’t think just because you don’t see anything offensive about the ad that I’m ludicrous. Isn’t it possible that we just see things differently?
And, you are right about the Target comment I made, and I guess it wasn’t directed at the people who were respectfully disagreeing, it was directed at the comments like this one: “As a matter of fact i will go out and buy things I do not need just because it may offend you…I am going shopping at target tommorrow and the next day. Just to ” offend” YOU.”
Ontario Emperor: You’re kidding. Is that true?
Better Communicator: Boy, smug is the last thing I want to be, but I’m not surprised I came off that way. It was the first time I’ve ever done anything like that. My real issue, however, wasn’t presented at all — how sexist images affect how young girls see themselves and how it affects their growth and development. You may argue that it’s not a sexist image — which is fine — but just because you don’t think it is doesn’t mean that there aren’t others who do. Same goes for the Target logo. Not everyone automatically associates the bullseye with Target Corporation. I understand the importance of branding, but not everyone’s brain is geared that way. Am I still sounding smug? I do have to work on that.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I would term your method of presentation as self-assured, confident and at ease with your observations. I drew satisfaction is viewing your interview as thinking “this woman believes in what she is saying…there is no hesitation in her mind…” The term “smug” is pure definition. I, personally, did contact Target after this interview to question them as to their actual intent with this ad. I expressed tp them, my dismay in my perception of the ad. Their reply consisted of the following terminology….” I’m sorry to hear you’re disappointed with our billboard ad, but I hope you’ll accept our apologies.” What does that tell me? That Target is issuing apologies for an ad that many, many are accepting as the norm. Jumping on the bandwagon is a more correct terminology for Target promoters. I would be glad to forward the entire Target letter, along with signature, position, etc., if interested.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am
It is clear to me that morality in this country is nonexistent…we are so desensitized that we cannot even see the subliminal messages anymore. I think people forget the time and research that is put into the advertising business, they have found that sex sells and have been using it for so long that a picture like this does not offend us. If this picture had been on a small ad in the middle of a flyer I would have dismissed it as human error but to place it in Time Square, which tells me that much time and effort was placed on the ad. Ad agencies do not just snap a photo and through it out there for the public, they analyze every little detail. I would be very surprised if the people who put this ad together never once gave the sex appeal of it a single thought. I am very thankful that there are people out there that can think for themselves and are willing to stand up with morals that this country has forgotten. And to say that because she is fully dressed and not half naked means it is not sexual is completely ignorant.
So thank you Lisa Ray for standing up for your morals in. What is right is not always popular. And what is popular is not always right.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Noticed today that Target’s annual earning statements have dropped substantially. If you, Lisa, or you, Brandi, had anything to do with it, I applaud you both!