What Should I Think? | the Sainsburys Christmas Advert

 ©Sainsburys

I have read article after article in which the advert is rebuked, I have had conversations with people who have said it's disgusting and reductive, it has received 727 complaints to the ASA. Some people love the way it made them feel, and have said that the branding was irrelevant.

It's important to tell you now that I don't have a concrete opinion on the ad, I don't think I have to. I just have ideas:

I was at my Nan's. It was a Saturday and I think X Factor was on. The advert was introduced with a special announcement just to let you know it was a bit longer and more special than other adverts. Everyone went quiet. Then I watched it and I thought:
'Isn't it nice that we are all the same. Isn't it nice that those German guys like football and girls, like English guys do. Isn't it sad that normal, nice people have to fight over land squabbles on behalf of those infinitely more rich and powerful than themselves (and still do)' 
And then it was the end, and I realised it was an advert for Sainsburys.

And your first reaction - as a semi-intelligent university-goer with the most elementary understanding of cold stony capitalism (and a declined job application for said supermarket) - is to CRY AND ADMONISH the reduction of such war-time urban mythology to achieve corporate profit through the harnessing and exploitation of our core values: our assumption under all the information fed to us, that we are all one as a species, that friendship and love and football (and chocolate?) is the same in every language, that we are fundamentally the same mass of atoms and cells and nerves under our uniforms and despite our imaginary borders.

And it did make me feel exploited, logically...

But it's nice to see things that way for a change, it's very unusual for us. We're told by news and society that people are different, that we all have special needs and customs and traditions and to respect them (or fear them) but we are very rarely told of the similarities, and that people are mostly normal with the same core interests, and that we're mostly good. I think that's part of the uproar, because people felt something very real and then it was snatched from them by a corp vying for their turkey-and-cracker money.

Most of all, I was confused

Because it was supposed to be political, not commercial. It was nice that they could share chocolate; but they were going to have to be shooting at each other tomorrow, against their nature and wishes. Isn't it uncomfortable to think there could be a war-time myth about the increasing number of soldiers in Iraq (hundreds more by next month), and that could be used to sell super-Atkins-freeze-dried-future-chocolate in another century? 

The advert was supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy and spiritually connected to my species in a way that could be utilised and transferred on to the Sainsburys brand - which is a common advertising technique - but it left me a bit sad. It left me feeling like war at Christmas is always going to be an occurrence, that young poor people fighting battles for established rich governmental bodies will always be part of our culture and consciousness.

War should not be viewed through some skewed, soft-focus lense: if it happened one hundred years ago or yesterday. It should not be used as a vessel in advertising to demonstrate how easily we are interconnected, although it is nice and refreshing to feel that way, for a change.

what do you think? tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER
oxoxoxo

New Perspective on the *Controversial* Alexander Wang Ads

I stumbled upon these ads after reading Jamie Feldman's article on Huffington Post Style with the title Alexander Wang's New Denim Ads Are More Offensive and Tired than 'Provocative'  
[Find the article here]

I see it a little differently.

Firstly, the two images in the article seem really drastically different to each other. The first of almost fully naked woman (AD 1) is pretty mainstream. I've seen an image of a toned naked blonde woman in dark moody lighting in high fashion ads before - I'm pretty immune by now - and no doubt will be seeing them for a long time yet. This one, I can agree, is pretty tired.

AD 1

BUT

The second is one I can get behind (AD 2).Wheras the first one is a passive lady possibly half asleep lounging on a chair for us all to look at, the second is one of active sexuality. This distinction is key. 

AD 2

In AD 2, the moist thighs and wandering hand are deliberately 'provocative', in a pretty unique way for this type of advertising. It connects us with a feeling most of us have experienced when a piece of clothing just makes you feel really, really, sexy. Or just empowered. It is an image of self-love and self-indulgence, and isn't that just what we want from a luxury fashion brand? 

There is a very valid argument made in the Huffington Post about the problems with commodifying naked women's bodies to sell all and any product, and this fits the first closely. The woman's body is there for our gaze, and the product is almost invalid. The female body and all its connotations are there for us to connect to the Alexander Wang brand. 
The second, however, is very obviously an advert for trousers. The jeans are the central focus, and the model is there as a participant to represent the physicality and connection to the clothing.

The contrast is of old and new ways of playing out female sexuality in advertising space, and the reason they are side by side in one campaign is unusual to me. Maybe it is just safer to retread the old ground and cover all bases. 

Whatever the case, although to some normal people and to some Helen Lovejoys it might be uncomfortable to some to see sex portrayed so overtly, an active female participant is the kind of sexuality I would rather see in public spaces, and the one which will probably sell more jeans. 

tell me what you think in the comments, or 
tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER 
xoxoxo