Sunday, June 2, 2013

Girls Just Wanna Wear Perfume, I Guess


This week, we were told to mention ideas that were talked about in the film we watched, "Miss Interpretations." It was all about how media can be demeaning towards women, and when I heard I had to write about such ideas, I turned to a copy of Harper's Bazaar to look for ads. In fashion magazines I have seen, the majority of ads are simply pictures of scantily-clad women.

When I saw this ad, a few questions popped into my mind. First, where did her clothes go? What happened to them? And second, why is she wet? And then it clicked - she just got out of the shower! And then the ad still didn't make sense to me. After struggling with understanding the ad, I turned to everyone's favorite part of skimming magazines, which is of course ad analysis. 

This ad still manages to use ad techniques and appeals while still maintaining a simple layout. The ad appeals to the need for autonomy and attention. Need for attention is a very common appeal used in fragrance ads, because it's difficult to sell a smell using a print ad. Because the ad just features a picture of a woman and a picture of the bottle, our attention is obviously supposed to be drawn to the woman and her sexiness. Along these lines, the ad is also selling a "breed apart" feel. You'll be special if you use this "Cashmere Mist."

The ad also uses "transfer/association." If you use this perfume, you can look desirable and constantly damp, just like the pretty model. The other part of the ad that I thought was important was the diction. The name of the product sounds very high-end and mysterious. "Cashmere" is known as a high-quality fabric, and "mist" can generally be associated with some mystique or mystery. Mist is also the form that perfume comes out in, so I suppose I can understand the thought that went into naming the product. However, at the bottom, the ad reads, "A fragrance to seduce the senses." I am assuming that the ad is encouraging women to buy the perfume in order to seduce men. As was mentioned in "Miss Interpretations," a major issue in the media is the objectification of women, and I think that this ad sends that message. Here is a women who is in a very vulnerable pose, and it's advertising to women that if you can seduce a man, you're good to go. The ad just didn't sit right with me. Now, the movie made a very close connection with media and a lack of women in politics. From my interpretation, at least, "Miss Interpretations" said that seeing images like this make women feel bad about themselves and cause them to doubt whether they could handle positions of power. I do not totally see how this connection was made, so I wouldn't go as far as to say that this perfume ad is ruining girl's political future, but I don't think it's the most appropriate thing to put in  magazines.  

3 comments:

  1. I thought that the whole purpose of the movie was not to blame the lack of women in powerful positions on the media but to draw our attention to the harmful effects of media on how women see themselves and how that can lead to less women in power. This ad does relates pretty well to a couple of the topics they were talking about in the documentary. As you pointed out, it is targeted towards women and promises that they can seduce men if they buy this perfume. This ad promotes the idea that a women's only purpose is to attract men and in this way belittles women as humans.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fragrance ads in general accomplish the same thing: objectifying women as sex objects. The concepts of fragrance ads are always a little strange as well, because why would a perfume make you look wet and sexy? That doesn't make any sense. Beauty products often strive to make us realize our imperfections, and as a result, we want to buy the product to feel more beautiful. Why should we listen to these ads? Media has power over us and sadly enough, we often give in to it. Maybe its time we put our foot down and say no to the messages media tries to send us. If only it were so simple.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh no! I just realized I had been referring to the film by the wrong name. It was "Miss Representation" and not "Miss Interpretation" as I had been referring to it. I'm sorry for my (embarrassing) mistake.

    ReplyDelete