I was pleased that my criticism of a recent Churchill Downs advertisement generated so much discussion over at Paulick Report, but I was displeased that most of that discussion focused on the sensitivity of my criticism rather than the ineffectiveness of the ad itself.
Paulick Report has since come out with a story saying that the "ad received female stamp of approval", but I fail to see how that makes the ad any more effective. Put another way, I don't care if Gloria Steinem herself thought the ad was a good idea because it wasn't; it missed the mark regardless of the demographic to which it was trying to appeal.
Racing is a participatory sport and only succeeds when people participate generally by spending money, so sending the message that a woman's only use at the track is as eye candy for a male is counter intuitive to what any entity in racing should be trying to do: getting people to bet and/or wanting to own horses.
As I said initially--and Ray was kind enough to point out as well--I am not against sex appeal in ads. A group of gorgeous women high-fiving each other after an exciting finish or cashing tickets would have been a lot more effective than showing two women being peered at through binoculars.
Some likened the Churchill ad to the Maryland Jockey Club's "Get Your Preak On" campaign for this year's InfieldFest at the Preakness Stakes, but if anything, that comparison only illustrates how poor and base the Churchill advertisement is.
The Get Your Preak On campaign was "edgy" whereas the Churchill ad relied on trite stereotypes about gender roles at the racetrack. The Get Your Preak On campaign involved all demographics engaging in an activity together and having fun. The Churchill ad put women in a passive role whose happiness was based on attention from a male rather than the core product of racing itself.
Some suggested that the Churchill ad appeals to males, but I disagree with that too. The ad doesn't appeal to me at all, and if I have any thin skin about the ad (as Ray and some of his commenters suggested) then that has as much to do with how the guy is portrayed in the ad as it does the women.
Some said that guys are more likely to go to the races if there are beautiful women there, and it would be hard to argue against that being part of the attraction at places like Del Mar and Keeneland. But for guys it's not enough to have women to look at through binoculars. Just as racing is a participation sport so is flirting. People don't go to places with cute co-eds to look at them, they go to interact with them.
Racing is one of the most interactive activities in the world, yet this ad puts both the man and women in passive roles.
John Mayer wrote that "girls become lovers who turn into mothers." Similarly, fans become bettors who turn into degenerates so be kind to your suffragettes too. OK, that's kind of glib, but hopefully you get the point. Or maybe you don't if you thought that Churchill ad was at all effective.
At least "Get Your Preak On" got people talking about the Preakness--as I mentioned on PR, Churchill's ad isn't even getting us talking about Churchill. It's getting us talking about sexism.
ReplyDeleteThe part that makes me madder than the portrayal of women is the fact that someone actually got paid for this idea. In what universe did the ad creators think this would evoke any other reaction among their female audience members??
Honestly, does it portray women negatively or men? What is wrong with looking nice? Leering through binoculars isn't nice. If anything the ad portrays men as pigs. It's all how you look at it.
ReplyDeleteI think it is great. It will bring men and the female hotties to the track, if they bet once they are in, the ad is a success. Bravo for Ray for not falling for the political correctness crap.
ReplyDeleteAnon3:
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the ad is that it won't bring men or "female hotties" to the track. It's not a compelling ad. It gives people no reason to attend the races and is not provocative in any way.
Not to go all James Kilpatrick, but the proper word is inveterate not degenerate. You want them to see themselves as comfirmed in the habit of gambling and not as someone whose morals have sunk. If they truly believe that gambling is immoral and still do it, they don't "turn into" degenerates, they were already there. In fact, aiming to convert those who believe that betting on horses is a degenerate activity would not be a target rich environment so to speak and would actually be a bit twisted, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteDude, we're two weeks away from the Breeders' Cup. Ever think of writing a blog about a few of the races? This topic would be ok in December, but it's world championships time. Try telling us about a few of the horses, something that actually matters to racing fans. Geez...
ReplyDeleteIt takes guts to address this issue head on now. It's happening now. There are way too many articles on Breeder's Cup possibilities (most will be forgotten in 2 weeks) but this issue is an opportunity for horse racing as a community and industry to take a stance.
ReplyDeleteSeeing another tired collage of stereotypes about both women and the racetrack isn't going to get the job done. It's a new century. Somebody hasn't noticed.
Ya fiyad!