Sexism in advertising: Nikon edition
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sexism in advertising: Nikon edition.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13478
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sexism in advertising: Nikon edition.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13478
Now I associate Nikon with back pain.
I don't think that's what they originally intended.
Funny enough... I've associated Nikon with back pain since lugging my F5 around Europe...
I feel a new "Killing us Softly: The New Millennium" coming on. Seriously? Bigger boobs? And look at the body language. The woman with the smaller boobs looks jealous (or ashamed) while the woman with the bigger boobs has a sense of superiority. Why yes! As a woman I often feel superior to my flat-chested friends.
/snark
Yeah, it's really astounding how far some advertisers will stretch connections to include T&A in their work. I mean, honestly, can you imagine the brainstorming session?
"Hmm... let's see, more pixels... higher resolution... bigger titties! Whee! We'll make millions!"
*facepalm*
LMFAO. Awesome.
Yes, please! Let's have another installment of Killing Us Softly. We are long overdue!
Ugh, really? This is ridiculous.
Where did this come from? "2 Millions de pixels"? What is that, Dutch?
Was this actually run, or is this another ad done on spec? In any case, I don't think this is the kind of add you would see in a main-stream US market. Where was it run? In a small magazine in Holland? A major one in Germany? In a bus stop? I think before just plopping an offensive add on the site, and saying "ohh look at this offensive add" *some* context would be good, no?
It's French. Given that context, I'm not suprised that it happened.
This reminds me of an ad I saw on about-face.org (great site about body image, everyone should check it out).
http://about-face.org/goo/newten/4/seven.shtml
The other ad isn't American either, but I know I've seen similar commercials here as well.
Does it matter?
I would think so because sexism (how accepted it is, what forms it takes) is cultural so it makes sense to know what's the cultural context of the ad.
So they're saying that the previous version of their camera is bad now? Smooth... Shouldn't they have been comparing to a different brand?
Knowing Nikon's model numbering conventions I'd read this to mean the 2100 and the 3100 are essentially the same camera but the 3100 is more... "impressive" because it captures images at high resolution. Obviously, a silly ad.
I'm always surprised by ads that basically say, "Wait, our product was crap before. NOW you should buy it/replace it with this new one." It never seems like the smoothest tactic.
I think what they're trying to say is that the million more pictures makes your pictures fuller -- just like how the "3 millions de pixels" woman is fuller than the "2 millions de pixels".
It's actually trying to get people to buy the 3 million pixel camera because the woman on the right is fuller and healthier looking.
You're kidding, right? The woman on the right doesn't look healthier at all. They look equally healthy because they're the same woman. If anything I'd say the one with the smaller boobs looks more natural.
Not to leap in a defend the ad, I still think it's a pretty rotten tactic...
However, my first impression was that the woman on the right has more body fat on her in general. Like, around the tummy and thighs. You can see less of her clavicle sticking out, etc. Just a thought that maybe Gular was on to something.
Sure, the second woman has a "fuller" frame. But why did they HAVE to use half naked women in the first place? What happened to flowers and puppies?
They're aiming this ad at men - and they assume (probably correctly) that men would rather look at women in lingerie then flowers and puppies.
The position of the hand on the hip makes the woman on the right look wider than the woman on the left. That she's more off frame gives her the illusion of being larger, as well. The larger breasts do contribute. Her chin being up gives an illusion to a longer neck and allows the hair she has done make it look ticker and stronger. The way the light is shopped onto her abdomen makes it look stronger and more six pack. Her position also is turned so you can see more of her torso than the woman on the left which gives the illusion she's also larger.
In reverse all these things make the woman on the left look anorexic.
So you can diagnose mental illness just by looking at someone? Amazing!
Did I miss something, because I thought there was a difference between looking and being something...
Oh, my mistake, this place isn't about transcending appearance based labels; it's about ad hominem! I'll go back to my hovel now. ;-)
You are missing the definition of an ad hominem attack. If I had said or implied that your argument carries no weight because you are a douche monkey, well, that would be an ad hominem atteck b/c it's directed at you. Since what I actually commented on was not you but what you said, it was not ad hominem.
None of which changes the fact that anorexia cannot be diagnosed by sight, so the words "lloks anorexic" are nonsensical.
(FWIW, douche monkeys are diagnosed by reading.)
(That, by the way, was an ad hominem attack.)
So saying that someone "looks anorexic" is transcending appearance-based labels? Huh.
I was just going to say what Pantheon wrote. Women with small breasts are no more or less healthy than women with fuller breasts (unless of course they have an eating disorder in which case they lose fat tissue from every part of their body, including their breasts). It's really annoying that there's this assumption that larger breasts are healthier/more desirable because some women are just more petite all-around and small breasts tend to go along with that smaller frame. To expect a woman to be thin and yet have a huge chest is part of that impossible standard of beauty that feminists work so hard to get rid of, because it's just not naturally attainable for most women.
Pardon me, here, but it's not just about boobs. Thank you for assuming.
If you looked at the way the photoshopped *more* than her breasts, you'd see that the angling and lighting makes her look like she a thicker woman in general and not the gauntly thin she is on the left.
It has very little to do with her boobs and, quite frankly, I don't understand the sarcasm, nor do I appreciate your assumption that "it's all about the titties".
Thank you for assuming my sexism for me. I'm not a perfect feminist, but asking a question for clarification is WAY better than assuming I'm just staring at her breasts.
Oh, come on. She's standing at a slightly different angle but other than that they haven't changed anything other than her boobs. Even if there was some slight bit more thickness around her waist, can you really say the obvious emphasis of the ad isn't on her boobs?
At no point was I being sarcastic, and the breast sizes ARE the only difference (as far as I can see) between the women's bodies in this poster. Their arms and waists look the same.
Bah. That's baloney. She's not "thicker" at all. Perhaps she looks "healthier" because of her more confident facial expression and uplifted face. The viewer is obviously supposed to see and think that this is the exact same woman - which it is - except one has bigger tits. I don't see more or less clavicle or more or less stomach or any such thing. They're identical. The "clever" part is the one part changed, and that's the tits.
See, I think like an advertiser.
I was just thinking, 'I look more like the woman on the left.' In other words, I'm tall, thin, and have small breasts. Unlike the woman on the right who is tall, thin, and has huge breasts.
It's not selling health, it's selling breasts. And healthy? Healthy can *gasp* be skinny, even with visible clavicle. I'm all for loving all body types, but let's please remember that not all skinny women are the enemy.
And I think the left woman has a thicker, "healthier" arm than the woman on the right (even though they are the exact same woman, one just has her breasts photoshopped to be huge.)
The difference is photoshop. The woman on the right only looks "fuller" because she's at a slightly different angle and pose and because the images were edited separately and composited later. Certain minor things that were changed in one weren't changed in the other. I say this as someone who uses photoshop and has experience compositing. If you wanted the idea of a "fuller" woman to "read" (be immediately understandable to the viewer) those subtle differences would NOT be subtle. Her waist would not be exactly the same size, for instance. Furthermore, as far as her clavicle is concerned, there is no actual difference except that the model moved for the second picture. Her muscles were in a slightly different position and caught the light differently.
That she is "fuller" is not the message, because she is different in negligible ways. That she has bigger boobs is the message because it is all that draws the eye.
Trust me. Artists don't screw around and expect people to look at all the little things. ESPECIALLY not in advertising.
I shit you all not, I was just trying to decide whether to buy a Canon or Nikon Digital SLR camera. Decision made! Woo hoo!
Advice: email Nikon and let them know why.
I shit you all not, I was just trying to decide whether to buy a Canon or Nikon Digital SLR camera. Decision made! Woo hoo!
Canons are better anyway ;-). If you're tech-inclined, google CHDK.
I
Do we really need another add making women feel bad about their breasts? Sorry boys, a 32DD can naturally happen but rarely >:(
As 32DD, I didn't know it was rare.
At a 34 DD, same here.
Can't we just say "hey, boob sizes vary, deal with it," and leave it at that?
Rare enough that it makes finding cute bras a hassle, unfortunately (I'm a 30DDD(!), but use 32DD as my more-available sister size, and they're STILL hard to find!).
Would not the new and improved version of Nikon be more expensive? Is that what they are going for here?
-Sophia
... because having larger boobs is more expensive? Because a more expensive camera takes photos of things that are more expensive? What?
Maybe the implication is that buying our new camera will cost you a boatload of money you don't have, just like buying breat implants.
:: sighs ::
What exactly is the target demographic here? Horny heterosexual men? Women who are uncomfortable with their appearance? Whatever the target, it's incredibly sexist.
Why do I get the feeling that this ad was designed by males? Honestly, could anyone imagine Nikon doing a similar ad with men and their, AHEM? I'm so sick of the way women are objectified in advertizing.
Actually, if this ad showed images of a man with a photoshopped crotch instead, I'd find it much more entertaining. As it is, the current idea seems somewhat cliche and half-baked.
"What exactly is the target demographic here? Horny heterosexual men?"
You called it!
As you can see from my previous comments, I obviously think this ad is tacky and offensive to women. I'm curious though, is sexist the right word? If they did the same concept with the size of a man's penis, would it be considered sexist or just objectification in general?
Agreed. Sexism can be objectifying, sure, but in this case what we're seeing is just good old fashioned objectification.
It's sexist because it's part of the larger context, and when faced with a choice (men's parts or women's parts) the ad people chose women's parts. Again.
And again, who are the default consumers for cameras? Men.
These choices are not made in a vacuum.
I switched to Canon in 2003 after 30 years of shooting Nikon.
I was looking for a new point and shoot with at least 28 on the wide end to X. It sure won't be Nikon
It is French. In France, they see things differently.
"Smooth... Shouldn't they have been comparing to a different brand?" Not allowed to do that in France.
Oh gross. You know, oftentimes I don't find ads featured on feministing as too terribly offensive when they simply use women's bodies as a way to sell things - I happen to agree that our bodies are beautiful, and don't mind seeing them in public. But this is making such an obvious statement about how women SHOULD look.. and the shameful way the women on the left is standing... I can't believe a group of mature, professional people would think that this is an appropriate ad.. EVEN IF they're French. Ugh.
It's interesting how the woman on the left doesn't even have small boobs to begin with. So, not only do we shame flat chested women, but even women with average sized breasts too?
cool.
Yes, thank you. I was originally thinking damn, that woman's 'small' breasts are certainly bigger than MINE!
Anyone got an email address for Nikon marketing? I want to tell them where they can stick this ad. And that my new camera won't be a Nikon.
I agree that this ad is distasteful. I also think it is worth noting that the camera (and thus the ad) is over six years old. Before hastily sending angry e-mails we should recognize that this is in no way a CURRENT ad campaign and may NEVER have been in the US.
Again, I think the imagery is gross, but perhaps we should choose which battles are worth fighting.
Wow. It's interesting that in such a public forum it's perceived as terrible to generalize about all women (with which I agree), but so many people find it easy and acceptable to generalize about all people who speak French. We don't even know if this article is from France or Quebec or Senegal.
Why is generalizing some groups permissible? It makes me uncomfortable to see such prejudice.
The ad is definitely out of line, but the ad being in French really gives no background to the situation of who is to blame.
I would love to send this advertising gem into Ms. magazine for their monthly "no comment" section.
And for anyone who would say that Nikon is trying to make the point of having a "fuller" image by having a "fuller" woman, I'm pretty sure you're SUPPOSED to be noticing the bigger breasts. I mean, wasn't that the first thing your eye went to? And think of the "average" consumer - he/she is not going to sit there for 10 minutes analyzing whether or not her arms/thighs/stomach look better. The consumer would likely be flipping through a magazine, see the bigger boobs, look at what it's supposed to be advertising (cameras and sex), and turn the page. That's why this ad is so unfortunate.
Also, I agree with Jake N. - don't "blame" this ad on the French. It is neither fair nor nice. Blame it on Nikon, blame it on global views of femininity, etc, but don't blame it on the French.
It really didn't take me 10 minutes of analysis to see the other differences between the two versions. The bellies kinda stood out at me right away, though I quickly admit it's obviously not the same for everyone (note: I don't have any formal photoshop or photography experience, so I consider my eye untrained).
What did take me 10 minutes however, was noticing the weird chunk taken out the arm of the woman on the right. Fuller, but with smaller arms? Wtf? ;)
This is not my endorsement of the ad. I think it's pretty rank. Just an observation.
I think this should be submitted to Ms. magazine
I saw the headline and thought, How could a camera company have a sexist ad.
Sigh.
Ha ha. Sometimes it's hilarious the random shit that advertisers think they can sell by just throwing a woman's half-naked body in the same frame with the product. Or, perhaps more often, featuring the woman's half-naked body.
Oh, of COURSE the first thing I associate with a good-quality camera is tits! (Well, OK, I get the porn-like suggestiveness.) But it reminds me of the Burger King "Baby Got Back" commercial trying to sell KIDS' MEALS using women's half-naked bodies. What the hell do kids' meals even have to do with half-naked dancing girls? Just, like ... what? How much more total chaos/fragmentation/disconnect could advertisers possibly feed us?
Grrrrr, I love my Nikon (whose name is Mrs. Dalloway). Maybe I should take a photo porotesting this ad...Why the F did Nikon do that??? It's an amazing camera in itself.
As much as I love my Nikon gear, some of their marketing really chaps my hide.
Take, for example, the Ashton Kutcher campaign, in which "picture perfect" women steal his camera, take pictures of themselves with it, and then surreptitiously return it.
Aside from the fact that I find Ashton Kutcher grating, what the hell? Is the camera that awesome that gorgeous women will appear magically to provide you with photographs of themselves (for what apparent use, might I ask?) Or is this a perk particular to being Ashton Kutcher?
I just... sigh.
I liked the campaign where they get D40s out to people and then showed off the best shots. That's a campaign I can get behind.
Nikon, what the duck.
As soon as I saw that ad, it was just face palms left and right. God dammit, Nikon. I'm 100% behind Nikon cameras, I love shooting with them, but I can seriously do without this heinous advertising.
So basically they are putting down their own brand the 2100 model to promote the 3100...because apparently men are automatons that respond to MORE = BIGGER = BETTER + WHOOPEE!! BIG BOOBIES!!! = WANT WANT!!!
I wonder what percentage of men reading whatever magazine this was published in objects to the "stupid brainless male automated bigboogies=buy response"...If it's a magazine like Maxim...probably very few...as in none.
Yeah, and by the way Nikon, I also happen to like smaller breasts...actually all types of shapes and sizes of breasts are perfectly fine and beautiful to me...so STFU with this crap.
Is this ad trying to tell me that the camera on the right is fake and filled with silicone?
Wow. I don't know what's more frustrating, the advertisement itself or seeing people argue about which woman's thighs are thicker. Seriously?
Sidenote: The model looks a lot like Kiera Knightly.
Also, an obvious example of how bodies can be manipulated in advertising to make certain parts bigger and other parts smaller. If the "small chested" girl wasn't in the shot, most people would have no idea that the boobs are fake. I'm not sure it's physically possible to have boobs that large on a girl that size/weight/frame.
Of course its physically possible. Small women can have large breasts just like large women can have small ones. :)
It is. The only impossible thing is finding bras in that size.
I think we're giving them too much credit. Their thought process was "big boobs=better."
Really!? This brings a whole new meaning to the "thin-ideal". Not only is it enough to be tall, thin & good looking (1st image 2 pixel), now-a-days you need the "full package" curves, breasts, ass and all.
-- I wonder how many costumers will be returning this camera after attempting 2 perform MAGIC on themselves!
I know I'm probably wrong, but I don't see what's so bad about this. Bigger boobs are more attractive to men, in general, and most women want to be attractive to men, so bigger boobs are generally considered better. Similarly, they are saying the 3 million pixel is better than the 2 million pixel.
It's hard to visualize 3 million versus 2 million, but when presented in terms of bigger boobs versus smaller boobs, it's easier to get the idea that one is better than the other. Seems like classic advertising to me.
Seems like classic sexism and generalizations. Bigger breasts (bigger than what?) might be more acceptable, but they're not necessarily more attractive to straight men. Most straight men might tell you that they like giant boobs, but women who have them are part of their fantasies, not their real romantic relationships. And while most women want to be attractive to men (because most women are straight), relatively few of them go through drastic and expensive surgery to attract men. This ad, like many sexist ads, don't reflect reality. Their point is to make half the viewers horny and the other half insecure. And you see nothing bad about this?
Not to mention that they could have used plenty of images to show the concept of "better" that don't objectify women.
Not to be too off topic, but speaking of sexist advertising, has anyone seen the new ads for Depends Underwear (I shit you not...uh...hahah...no pun intended) that feature a man and woman describing how they merge into traffic (and make the woman seem like a wimp who can't drive) and then say "Men and Women are different"? They really get under my skin and I was wondering if they bother anyone else who has seen them.
Above comment was not meant to be a reply to anyone
Ok, if there was an ad like this with a puny arm flexing a puny muscle on the left side and a bulk arm flexing a strong muscle on the right side, that would be sexist too, because it makes scrawny men feel insecure?
I understand men are not judged nearly as much by looks as women, but they are still judged by other physical and material traits (height, bulk, money) and I have never seen ads portraying taller, stronger or richer as preferable, being called sexist.
I don't think it's fair- but I am playing devil's advocate to some extent because there is a deeper reason for why our society is structured the way it is. Complaining about ads won't change the underlying dynamics. It only touches the surface.
Part of it is just human nature. This ad is an exaggeration, but most men would prefer a slightly larger than average breast than smaller than average breast. Their fantasy is larger (to an extent) even if in reality it's unrealistic. But ads are supposed to appeal to our (unrealistic) fantasies.
Ok, if there was an ad like this with a puny arm flexing a puny muscle on the left side and a bulk arm flexing a strong muscle on the right side, that would be sexist too, because it makes scrawny men feel insecure?
Yes.
I understand men are not judged nearly as much by looks as women, but they are still judged by other physical and material traits (height, bulk, money) and I have never seen ads portraying taller, stronger or richer as preferable, being called sexist.
Then you're not looking hard enough. There are proportionately fewer complaints against those types of ads because there are fewer of those types of ads, but such complaints do exist.
I don't think it's fair- but I am playing devil's advocate to some extent because there is a deeper reason for why our society is structured the way it is. Complaining about ads won't change the underlying dynamics. It only touches the surface.
And this site covers a lot more ground than just complaining about ads.
Part of it is just human nature. This ad is an exaggeration, but most men would prefer a slightly larger than average breast than smaller than average breast. Their fantasy is larger (to an extent) even if in reality it's unrealistic. But ads are supposed to appeal to our (unrealistic) fantasies.
I'll suspend disbelief for a moment and for the sake of making a simple point, operate under the assumption that what you say is true and most [straight] men will find this to be a successful ad because it appeals to unrealistic fantasies. So this ad has satisfied and piqued the curiosities of "most" straight men.
Fine. But what about women?
Women will look at that ad and be, at best, indifferent, and at the less accepting end of the spectrum, well, you may have read some other comments here. To say that ads are supposed to appeal to our unrealistic fantasies and imply that this one does is a pretty naive and privilege-filled statement, because seeing our bodies objectified in such a blatant way as this ad does probably does not comprise any of our fantasies as women. Your statement is inclusive essentially of straight men alone.
This ad does NOT make me want to buy a Nikon camera. It makes me insecure about my breast size. Perhaps Nikon gained enough male customers because of this ad to balance out the alienation of their female customers after the running of this ad, but I'm guessing they didn't. This ad, like so many others of its ilk, isn't selling any product other than women's bodies, and for that reason I don't think it would even be that memorable to their target demographic.
"What was that ad we saw today that had that chick with huge boobs?"
"Which one?"
Wow, I really don't have the patience or the time to even begin to respond to the flawed logic and points being missed in this comment. However, I am sure that you just gave us a very good idea of what the advertising industry was thinking. Try to dig a little deeper. You can do it.
Wow...the president of marketing was feeling horny today. I don't think the add was concieved with much thought behind it. Just the idea of big boobs = big resolution. There is an infinite array of different things they could have used to illustrate the difference between 2MPixel, and 3MPixel. Why boobs? I honestly think it was because there were only men at that meeting, and they were feeling a little randy.
Well I can say women most certainly can look like that as that's pretty much exactly what my step sister looks like. Big boobs, small frame, blonde hair, pretty face. She also is really uncomfortable with the wealth of downy blonde hair on her face, has short legs, is tiny so I can beat her playfighting one-handed and sadly hung up about sex (something she personally laments). I'm pretty happy being bigger with smaller boobs. *shrug*
As for arguing about who looks bigger/smaller overall... they are THE SAME. Nothing but the breasts has been changed. It's pathetic, and yeah it's fucking annoying.
And just because Europeans are usually more relaxed about sexualised images in advertising (which I love) doesn't mean they have more sexist advertising/it's not surprising they would. Come on.
Oh and the idea that all men like bigger breasts is ridiculous. Men are humans, and as such have many and varied tastes. Just like all women don't like "bad boys" or hugely buff men.
What I find interesting is that by using the same woman twice the advertisers are in fact admitting that the whole thing is a photoshopped, constructed setup. I thought they were supposed to keep a lid on this "secret"?
If it was two different women the ad wouldn't make sense. The point is that the same shot looks "better" with the new camera.
We have had the same ad in France, I made a fake ad on my blog with it (I replaced the breast growth by a beard ;o) it was in Jan. 2007 if you want to see it, it's on this page on my blog ;o) http://femininlemporte.canalblog.com/archives/2007/01/p10-0.html
Loves it.
nice, thanks for the link. I will be checking out your blog more often, as I'm always looking for ways to keep up with my French in ways that are interesting and relevant to my life. Merci!
WOW!!! Seriously!!!! Who was the person that thought this made sense!!! I mean seriously, don't they have someone to check for these things! Its one thing to have controversial advertising, but this is just bad!! Sucks!
Alex - Professional Cutie
www.mioamoredesign.com
I find myself strangely concerned with my lack of digital camera. Boosh.
Since I've been watching Mad Men, I've come to look at sexism in advertising differently. At some point, Don Draper's going to have to contend with feminist critique of his work, and I believe He believes that all of this? Entire subcultures of people devoted to applying a critical eye to marketing?
Fresh Blood.
I can't help but think that our collective displeasure with the intent and effect of this marketing is factored in. This is why I consider marketing the most evil science of the 20th century.
It would still be a story if it was a cut dude in underoos with a photoshopped package? But the story would be about the rarity of that kind of marketing. I think many would rationalize it if not outright laud.
I often don't see "the big deal" in these advertisment-thingies... but okay, this one is so blatantly obvious wrong. It's not even good advertisment. There's no excuse. It's not even subtle, funny or ambiguous. It's just plain stupid and wrong.
The version of the woman on the left is supposed to have small boobs? Ha! Guess mine are completely non-existent then.
This advertisement sucks all around.
this isnt the first time nikon have used sexist advertising-hell their older advert with the two half naked girls on the bed was worse!
"Naaaa na na booby"
I am intrigued about comments suggesting the second girl is far healthier as to me other than the breasts they look almost the same. It reminds me of comments you often hear men make claiming the women they like to look at (in porn/lads mags) are far healthier than the women pictured in women's magazines.
When questioned on this they will normally show two pictures of incredibly thin women, one with big breasts, one without. They will then argue that the women with big breasts is obviously nowhere near as thin. I wonder if this could be tested by photoshop and questions on how healthy/full (in areas other than the breasts) the figures of thin women with big/small breasts are. I find it odd that at least some men are blinded so much by breasts they don't seem to see the rest of the woman.
I don't mean to argue that either figure is unhealthy but that it is odd perception of the figure changing so much with the breasts