Recent news in advertising has centered on regulating stereotyping in advertising. I have two sons. Advertising stereotypes concerns me, especially when they perpetuate ideals detrimental to society’s growth.
A post in Adweek took on Carl’s Junior advertising as a prime example. Cartoonishly sexist with its bikini-clad models jamming enormous hamburgers into their mouths, the Carl’s Junior brand has long been “Exhibit A” for advertising’s negative use of stereotypes. It’s effort to reform and focus on food is applauded.
But there is a case for stereotypes.
For creatives, the stereotype is the launching point for a message that must be delivered quicker than a synapses can snap. For example, thanks to a decades-long diet of Homer Simpson and Peter Griffen, we’re all well aware that suburban Dads are a dopey, selfish slovenly lot with soft guts and an unending appetite for beer.
That single stereotype has given birth to a billion television commercials, ranging from beer and cable TV packages to deodorant and potato chips. And we’ll keep on perpetuating this stereotype. Why? Consumers seem to like it.
In fact, there are many stereotypes to which consumers gravitate: Sensible Mom, Hip Minority, Wisecracking Teen, Nosey Neighbor, Funky Grandma, Precocious Kid, Fun Loving Girlfriends, Savvy Millennial, Grouchy Father-In-Law. Why won’t they go away?
Two reasons: consumers eat them up and ad agencies find it cost effective to spoon it ‘em out. After all, the majority of advertising isn’t meant to nudge society forward. It’s designed to connect with consumers in very broad ways. To stray from stereotypes is to take a risk. Considering the cost of a 30-second TV spot, most clients are willing to exchange a stab at the avant gard for a proven commodity.
Stereotypes aren’t going way, but they can evolve. Dopey Dad can acquire a few IQ points. Father-In-Laws can lighten up and Precocious Kids can speak more like real kids. But don’t count on too many Carl’s Junior transformations. Somebody has got to sell the burgers.