What is the message Hoffman York is trying to get Churchill Downs to convey with this ad?
My first impression is that Churchill feels as if women are not active participants in the event but rather there for men's entertainment, and I thought the binoculars added a particular level of creepiness to it.
Teresa Genaro, a Thoroughbred Times correspondent who runs Brooklyn Backstretch, agreed. This is the message the above ad conveyed to her:
"Women are not active at the track; they are passive—there to be observed, hit on, part of the scenery—not active participants in the gambling or the life of the track—[As if to say], 'Come look at us;' that's what we want. 'We'll pose for you.'
"Oh yeah, let's make it really creepy: spy on us with binoculars, so that we don't even really know that you're looking."
I am NOT against using sex appeal in advertising, but the presentation here seems to be completely incongruous with Churchill Downs Inc. President Bob Evans' push to make women attracted to a day at the races rather than an attraction at the races.
A presentation with a group of well-dressed—yes, even sexy—women getting excited watching a race, holding tickets, etc. would have had a much more positive effect on me. I want to be a part of that. I want to go to the track and interact with the best Louisville has to offer.
Making me think of peeping toms and swingers playing the field made the ad fall flat.
Unfortunately, on a bad day that's just truth in advertising. Also unfortunately there are probably girls who would view this as a "chance to see and be seen", if they imagine the holder of the binoculars is a young man. The worst part about all of this is that it doesn't result in anyone going to the races, for the races. Geez. If I wanted all those weird/creepy vibes I'd hang out at a bar.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Teresa on this one. Still, I wonder if we should take it as some sort of almost-positive that women were depicted at all?
ReplyDeleteTeresa's quote holds just as true for television broadcasts of daily races as for this particular ad. The focus on women at the racetrack is on what they are (or aren't) wearing. Of course, the racetrack was traditionally a fashion show for women - hence the silly hat contests - I mean, the stylish and beautiful hats that they wear to big races - yeah -
ReplyDeleteEven worse than the original ad is the disgusting embrace of it over on the Paulick Report, where Paulick tells Ed and Teresa to "get a room," says he "wouldn't kick [Teresa] out of my binocular lens" and tells a "feminine" Ed to "man up." If this self-employed loser had a job he'd be fired. At the very least he owes his colleagues an apology for his sexism and homophobia.
ReplyDeleteToday was NY Showcase Day. Enough about our opinions; this was the opportunity to ask the female fans at Belmont Park how they felt about the Churchill Downs ad.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn’t my day – I’ll explain – so getting involved with the surveying, fortunately, also distracted me from temptation. As a gag, $2 was bet to win on every horse in the 5th race. Return: $8.50. If it had been my day, the inspiration would have been $2 to PLACE (Joe Aquilino’s Majestic Raffy finished 2nd at 131-1 & paid $95.50).
*****
Survey #1: I didn’t happen to notice the Teamster logo on her sweatshirt & she broke my nose.
With her binoculars.
Survey #2: She liked the ad & then borrowed $20 from me for the upcoming 3rd race.
(“Honest,” she’s going to pay me back on Tuesday.)
Survey #3: An attractive candidate was avoided at the last second when I recognized her as an old girlfriend from college (it had ended badly).
Survey #4: A female teller’s response was civil, yet discernibly cool. The ticket she sold me was a winner in Race 3 - until I noticed on the way to cashing it that she had sold me a bet for tonight’s 8th race at Woodbine (harness).
Musta been an honest mistake.
Survey #5: Wanting to continue to upgrade the survey with women blessed with successful careers, I asked Gil’s wife. I think her response was colored by the time years ago when I needled Gil that he shared his Polk Journalism Award with a notorious previous honoree whose dispatches were later exposed as fairy tales.
(Her irritation is understandable. Walter Duranty had received a Pulitzer Prize.)
Survey #6: Continuing with the successful-achiever angle, I asked another female teller if she’d like a trip to Europe (I was getting bored with the original gambit).
We sail a week from tomorrow (how to tell the missus?).
Survey #7: Still somewhat bored, I smashed the interviewing glass ceiling & asked a young man who was getting on the elevator at the paddock level. His oddly effeminate response:
“I'm having a sex change on Wednesday. Can you ask me that again on Friday?”
Survey #8: I did look for that unforgettable lady, a Belmont paddock regular, last seen in a state of sublime semi-consciousness at a bar in Saratoga on August 2nd.
She wasn’t in today.
Survey #9: Resulted not in the asking of a question.
Rather, on the way out the door after the 7th race, it was immensely satisfying to be able to shake the hand of a great retired jockey, Richard Migliore – thanking him for “everything” - & to see his gratified smile, in return.
(It is simply murder to see racing’s most articulate spokesman sitting on the media sidelines at the same time that far lesser-talented people have been hired, instead.)
Survey #10: Not wanting to skew the results by asking only ladies at the race track, when we got into Manhattan, I stopped by the CBS theatre on Broadway & asked the obviously eligible members (this excluded only two employees hired by Mr. David Letterman since 1991) what they thought.
They unanimously responded with heartfelt endorsements & avidly expressed the desire to pose for any subsequent editions of the ad campaign.
(When I showed them the Australian ad, they showered me with affection & a life-time free pass to the show, entrance, back-stage door.)
Louisville, the ball is in your court.
Don Reed