« What does Facebook have up its sleeve? | Main | This World Series, you’ll actually get a taco »
This financial ad: cautionary or just sexist?
It’s rare for any ad, much less an investment ad, to spark a moral conundrum. But this spot by Mercator Insurance truly left me with some conflicting emotions. At first, it just seems like a humorous concept that brings guerrilla styling to a TV spot. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the payoff. (Hurry up and watch it before reading on.) On the surface, it would look like the ad is empowering women. But in the end, isn’t it a pretty sexist message? “Stop depending on your husband, because he’s going to leave you for someone prettier and younger.” It preys on women’s insecurities while also admonishing them for being financially ignorant. How is that any better than the far-less-subtle ads that are traditionally deemed sexist? If you’re still on the fence, check out this damning evidence. Via Ads of the World. —Posted by David Griner |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
in their defense, they also had this one where the man sucks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8xyeroLIgs
Posted by: Neesh | Oct 24, 2007 3:18:36 PM
Yeah, I watched that guy-is-gross ad, and my biggest problem with it was that I didn't understand the connection to the product. What does home insurance have to do with moving out? But (not good) relationships do seem to be a recurring theme.
Posted by: DavidGriner | Oct 24, 2007 3:42:43 PM
all in all these are complete crap. Question: what do these stories have to do w/ an insurance company? Answer: almost nothing.
Posted by: scott | Oct 24, 2007 5:27:33 PM
"Stop depending on your husband, because he’s going to leave you for someone prettier and younger.” It preys on women’s insecurities while also admonishing them for being financially ignorant."
---I disagree. A lot of women are in that situation, Suze Orman has even admonished women for being bad with money. It's important that women have a backup plan in case of a divorce.
Posted by: Bobby | Oct 25, 2007 11:10:13 AM
My take-away from that ad wasn't that "you should plan for yourself because your husband is going to leave you for someone prettier and younger." It was "you should plan for yourself because men are, for the most part, drooling imbeciles."
Sexist, yes. But not for the reason you took away.
Posted by: Cheryl | Oct 25, 2007 11:54:27 AM
Help me, Ann Landers, Ned Flanders, etc.. I am recently diivorced. My husband cheated me in the settlement. He is happily employed and drinks whiskey before noon. I am an investment idiot, but am able to live on 12,000 a year if you don't count the money I give as gifts to weddings, friends and the people who "love" me.
Who wants to worry about investments. Lawyers, real estate agents, the whole lot of them have such deep poverty in their souls, I rather just go to the woods and live. Except for the drunkards there playing games with rifles and stuff.
As for insurance. No home to own. Life insurance--not necessary for me.
life savings of will lasts longer if I don't pay the health insurance premium. Without it I will die a dignified death and not one where they drug you to create more sufferings and prolong an unnecessary life.
My greatgrandfather lived to be 90 something on the farm without health insurance. My grandparents all moved to the city and died in their sixties.
Posted by: nancy | Oct 25, 2007 12:13:39 PM
i can walk through New York City and still turn one or two heads like that.
I don't need or want to turn into a whore, though, ( grey hair not blond, anyway) because then I would need the health insurance.
Posted by: nancy (part ii) | Oct 25, 2007 12:36:10 PM
It might come off as sexist. Their is some truth to it.. It is pretty damning. And it's quite risky for a financial institution. But it gets the point across, most marriages don't work out, thats a statistical fact. So you should not be dependent. That's the truth.. And then it raises controversy... that means the ad is pushing boundaries.. is it good for the brand I dont think so. But it does get your attention to this brand if you have never heard of them...
To those that think its disgusting.. I think that this ad should go for both men and women. Frankly the same thing happens to women checking out an attractive guy. I think the only stereo type that sickens me is the stereo type that men some how are inherently in control to begin with. I think the last closing copy point could change though and fix that.. and I think that they should run an ad for a man walking catching the eye of your wife.
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 26, 2007 2:37:54 PM
I just saw that it does run for both. I still think that the copy point is sexist in the closing of the one above. But I think theirs truth to it and therefor I'd give it a 4/5
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 26, 2007 2:42:12 PM
actually the one with wall hanging of the painting is just incredibly sexist. 3/5 :)
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 26, 2007 2:43:34 PM
This ad is at least as sexist against men as it is women. It is suggestive that men are incapable of controlling their animalistic sexual instincts, and that for that reason, they are unreliable. In fact, the message seems to me to be pretty clearly going against the stereotype that women need to rely on men for financial dependence.
Posted by: edbwms | Oct 29, 2007 9:27:01 PM
