Femvertising: Fantastic or Fantastical?

WRITTEN BY: ADITYA JAIN

EDITED BY: rashmitha muniandi

Synopsis:

What does advertising have to do with feminism? Can societal fight and human rights go hand in hand with commercialism? Are brands today turning feminist with changing times or is it merely a mirage to fool consumer perspectives and jump on a bandwagon of trends? Read on.

A few days ago, Victoria’s Secret, the American lingerie giant, announced that it is doing away with its “Angels” and replacing them with women who have shone in their achievements and not body proportions. These women include Megan Rapinoe, Priyanka Chopra Jonas and Valentina Sampaio among others. This is an unprecedented step for an organisation that has perpetuated unrealistic, flashy and ridiculous beauty standards for decades and made a fortune out of it.

While this is on the horizon, they have an organisational restructuring in place to have a board of directors with all seats except one occupied by women. These new “ambassadors”, among other things, will also be featured in advertisements for the brand. Whether this turns out to be a gimmick or an honest attempt at making things right is something that is yet to be seen and heard as the community responds to the change.

This was a long time coming. There have been indications where we see a lot of content specifically taking on certain ideas. Let us take a small journey into this work of art that is femvertising – appealing to feminist ideals to sell products. Before we start, we should be aware that at the core of it, whether it is a femvert or not, ads are made to sell products. Period. It is a capitalistic venture and will continue to be so.

This is where several things happen. Some advertisements blatantly ignore core feminist values in their search for a topical impact while others project only a hollow picture with no eventual follow-through on the cause itself. A lot of these ads are not inclusive in themselves – across gender, sexuality, class, caste, race and much more. Granted that one thing cannot be everything, but there is a difference between being focused on your message and being tone-deaf (case in point being the Kendall Jenner-Pepsi collaboration where police brutality was seemingly solved by offering the cop a can of Pepsi).

Let us look at one of these alleged “femverts” here:

Youtube_Oriflame

Choosing this ad, published on Women’s Day 2017, to share my point here has a purpose – this plays on a lot of sensitivities but forgets what feminism is about. By traditional standards, it might seem like a progressive ad (even though I cringed at every moment). The woman here is catering to the needs of her entire household, a child and a business and doesn’t seem to have any help from her husband or other members.

It gets better when her husband doesn’t even remember it’s their anniversary and she continues to justify it. As a cherry on the top, he needs help with simple tasks (which in and of itself is not an issue, but within the context and projection of this piece, it definitely is).

The worst part is seen at the end when the woman is branded as a “Superwoman” and the campaign asks us to thank the “Super Women” in our lives. These pedestals are a problem. The idea is to be considered an equally flawed, complex human and not someone with superhuman abilities. One also has to note that Oriflame is a cosmetics company that sells products that make the skin “glow” (read “whiten”) which throws a lot of shade at the overall brand message at a basic level.

Let us look at another one with a slightly more intersectional approach:

Youtube_Vicks

This one shows us the story of a girl who is talking about her mom, who adopted her after her biological mother succumbed to a disease. Her memories speak of love, motherhood and care. The Vicks brand plug is right towards the end, with a simple slow narrative. It is revealed that her mother is none other than Gauri Sawant, a trans activist who has adopted a kid in real life after the child’s mother (who was a sex worker) passed away because of AIDS.

While parenthood is not something that is a necessity by any stretch, it is a refreshing breath in this one because of the social stigma that is attached to the community. One of the other moving things about this piece is that you never question the spirit of parenthood and realise that it has everything to do with your inclination as a human and not your gender.

Another important thing this ad does is to bring a real-life person from the community into the forefront and remind us that this is not just about a fictional story but the reality of our being.

Here’s a third spin on the narrative which should gain more traction as a concept:

Youtube_Gilette

This video by Gillette (a brand of safety razors and other grooming products) shows an important part of the story – focusing on the accountability of those who are in a position of privilege. The ones who are a part of the problem. Me, us. The ad shows men being silent viewers or perpetrators of injustice, revealing where we lack the courage for civility and humanity and how we fail to do the right thing. It shows us what we are building towards, how crucial it is to show kids that “boys will be boys” is a cliche that is best left behind. As Terry Crews says in the video, “Men need to hold other men accountable.”

What does it have to do with the product itself? I honestly don’t know. Another point to be raised here again is that a lot of companies falter on the eventual steps that should be taken for the cause it deems to support.

In 2019, Gilette committed to distributing $1 million per year for the next 3 years to programs designed to “help men of all ages achieve their personal best.” If we ignore the vague nature of the promise, it seems like it is ticking all the boxes, right? Well, P&G, the parent company, registered an annual revenue of $74.870B for the year ending March 2021. $1 million is 0.001% of that number. 1 out of a 1000. Is something still better than nothing?

We buy products every day. From the smallest matchstick to the largest television set, we are consumers in one way or another. An important aspect to this consumerism is advertising. As times change, so does the appeal of traditional advertising. The 1990s called and the jokes and tropes don’t work anymore (except that they do, ask your neighbourhood uncle who is laughing at that wife-is-the-enemy joke for the hundredth time today).

All in all, it is worth reiterating that ads are created to make money for the company. It’s not charity, not philanthropy. If the trends don’t suit business perspectives, they won’t even be considered. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that it reaches a lot of viewers and creates an impression. Does its capitalistic nature render it devoid of any social value though? Just some food for thought as I wash down my pizza with a can of Pepsi.

Femvertising: Fantastic or Fantastical?

WRITTEN BY: ADITYA JAIN

EDITED BY: rashmitha muniandi

Synopsis:

Further Readings Recommended:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

WRITTEN BY: ADITYA JAIN

EDITED BY: rashmitha muniandi

Synopsis:

Further Readings Recommended:

Share this:

Related

Leave a comment Cancel reply