I’m a dad with two teenage daughters. I worry about their safety, I worry about their equal standing in the world, and I worry about how others approach them. I want them to live in a world where they are judged on the merit of their work, the choices they make in life, and their respect of the needs and values of others. Basic dad stuff.
That said, I find myself struggling somewhat with the outrage and handwringing about HyperShop’s over-the-top effort to attract attention from attendees at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show. I have genuine mixed feelings about Hyper’s choice to center their display on four nearly naked models. Honestly, I don’t share the indignation reverberating through the social web. I am not sure why.
Some of you will rush to the judgment that I don’t see the problem because I am a 50+ white guy who has enjoyed a position of privilege throughout his life. I can’t deny those facts. But hear me out before you rush to judgment. You may still disagree, and that is fine. I welcome the conversation and an opportunity to change my perspective.
We are a species who make judgments about success or failure, strength or weakness, and consumed or consumer based on appearance. Perhaps it is distant echoes of Darwinism, a remnant of survival of the fittest and seeking a partner most likely to carry the gene pool forward into the next generation. I really don’t know. But I do know that we make choices in life based on attraction. We all do.
In marketing terms these choices are often represented in the shorthand of objectification. Symbols and images, not just of women, provoke a predictable response in an intended audience. As a filmmaker and storyteller I have a clear idea how a particular image, framing, lighting, music choice, or character will be read by my audience. I understand how culturally and contextually an audience absorbs a symbol. It usually provokes emotional engagement and an association with something. That association can be with a person, or that association can be with a thing. It is the core of effective advertising, storytelling and brand awareness.
I don’t think of myself as a misogynist. Perhaps because of my apparent indifference you may. I work to eliminate violence against all people, men and women alike. The challenge comes in how we define denigration of others. Is Boticelli a misogynist for painting “The Birth of Venus” or can that be construed as a celebration of the human form? Is Hyper’s display a celebration of the human form? To someone perhaps it is. My mom taught me you can’t argue taste, but what is objectification and what is taste? That line is constantly shifting as our cultural values change.
Granted, comparing Boticelli to four “booth babes” is rather absurd. But I want to frame the idea that we all pass judgment and form perceptions around sexuality differently. What you find prurient others may find appropriate. Which is right? How do we build that scaffolding in a way that defines the line between taste and fact? How do we protect the weak and disenfranchised without a climate of intolerance that dooms the effort to failure?
Objectification of women, particularly in the media, is offensive and often a smokescreen for deeper fears about power, control and sexuality. If you do your homework as a marketer you don’t have to take the shortcut of leveraging a titillating tagline or provocative image to sell your product. Or at least you work to hide it well. Sexuality (and the resultant objectification) is manifest as a primal drive in the human species, and if you are trying to sell something you leverage what works. It isn’t news that sex sells.
Perhaps Hyper has a clear understanding of their target audience, the folks most likely to purchase large quantities of their products and put it stores. The booth was not aimed at consumers directly, but those who buy for consumers. And it was not aimed at the tech sector either and the struggle to engage women in significant numbers to a traditionally male dominated career. Perhaps Hyper knows their demographics and they were narrow-casting their message to the folks who represent their revenue stream, not really caring about the reaction of others. Or perhaps Hyper’s marketing staff is made up of freshly-minted frat boys who have no clue what they have done is patently offensive to a significant percentage of show attendees. I don’t know because they have not weighed in on the conversation. (Hyper responded to the controversy in a January 14 blog post thanking the community for comments about their booth, both positive and negative. They stand by their creative vision for the display and have chosen to redirect the conversation to a larger conversation about online advocacy and accountability.)
You could be cynical and say Hyper’s effort was brilliant. Rather than discussing self-parking cars and web enabled televisions and high powered tablets we are discussing Hyper, a company whose presence to most attendees would otherwise be lost in the clutter of CES.
Additionally, the company website is a direct reflection of what was in the booth. The video on the landing page is far more provocative than what we saw on the floor in Las Vegas. It is clear their message is intentional and the female body is part of that strategy. Their branding is consistent, and ultimately the wisdom of the crowd and Hyper’s resultant cash flow will determine the campaign’s success or failure.
Personally I loathe “Booth Babes” at trade shows. Mashable’s Chris Taylor describes them accurately as, “Women chosen for their looks paid to hang around a company’s booth and attract the mostly male, mostly older attendees.” They don’t add value for me and I am always uncomfortable around them. They are ornamentation that gets in the way of me doing my job. They rarely know anything about the product and can’t direct me to someone who can help. I would love for them to go away. Not because I find the overt sexuality offensive, but because they become one more obstacle to get past on a crowded show floor.
The four women dressed in body paint and little else were supposed to be living sculptures. They were expected to look straight ahead with bored expressions, and were not supposed to interact with attendees. I think my lack of outrage stems from the moment captured in the photo of me in the booth. If you look closely, the woman behind me is sticking out her tongue. To me her expression says, “yah, I know this is absurd, can you believe this is my job?” It also says to me this is a woman who has power in the situation. Who sees it all as a bit of a joke. Who is not just passively standing there. Who probably thinks I am a dork.
I think when it is all said and done, I don’t care that Hyper chose to attract attention this way. It is sophomoric and predicated on getting the eyes and attention of their largely male client base. While it is crass and absurd I think it was that way by design. The theatricality of it all was certainly why I took the photo and immediately sent to my wife with a, “can you believe this?” message attached.
Hyper’s tactic is not a marketing ploy I would participate in, but perhaps I already have. Just by advancing this conversation and mentioning them by name they have one more brick of publicity in building their marketing foundation. Maybe we’ve all been played.
© 2013 StoryGuide | Drew Keller
I found your post fascinating Drew. Let me tell you my reaction when I first saw the images in your blog. Keep in mind it’s coming from a single male occasionally lacking in female companionship. Wow. At last someone is using woman of a more typical body size in the attempt to attract attention. Enough with the stick figure look already. BTW…If you happen to know any of the participants phone numbers please pass it my way.
“I think when it is all said and done, I don’t care that Hyper chose to attract attention this way.”
As a woman, I do. It perpetuates the objectification of women whether it attracted you or not, whether it’s just to attract the (other) males, or it’s a marketing play. It still uses women almost naked to sell a product / idea / image.
Would you truly be OK if one, or both, of your daughters or your wife was on the dias, painted in stripes across nipples only because ‘it’s a job’ ?
You state, “I work to eliminate violence against all people, men and women alike.” I beg to differ based on this blog alone.
Colleen thanks for your thoughtful response. I don’t entirely disagree with your assertions. I included the notion that I am a father who has daughters for just the reason you state. If they made that choice thoughtfully I would support their participation. I fear you have missed my main point. All advertising and marketing involves some form of objectification, not just of women. We use totems to illicit an expected response. It does not make it right, but sexuality is part of the current equation of successful marketing. Separating sexuality in the near term is unlikely because it sells stuff. No amount of arm waving or ranting is going to change that. As cultural tastes and values change perhaps that effectiveness will wane. You are right to not support any organization, company or person whose behavior you find objectionable. Particularly with your cash and your attention. At its core, what will shape the behavior of marketers is not selling stuff. My fear is when voices are raised, and mandates are threatened, the obstreperous clamor will force those in power to dig in. Bottom line, I worry creative enterprises will be vetted by the taste police. That what is “good” and what is “respectful for all” will be mandated rather than shaped by a community at large. The best part of the Hyper display is it brings to the front a difficult issue that needs to be explored. It is messy, but it is also healthy to question our values as a culture, and ultimately as a civilization. No easy answers.
I continue to appreciate your thoughtful responses. I understand where you are going with your ideas and I think it is historically accurate (though I disagree with comparing this some form of “totems”, which isn’t the same to me as the muddled predilections of commercial culture). I do draw a line at your broad concept of objectification. We live in a society that has a long history of objectifying specific groups of people in malicious and harmful manners. Recognition of that fact, especially the continuity of it in our contemporary setting, requires me to consider your concept dishonest. Nothing compares to the sexualization and objectification (neither of these are the same as sexuality which is best considered an interaction between actual humans, not their representations) of women in advertising we have experienced in modern times (though definitely not new). There are many angles to take in critiquing this display (at least they had diversity in body types and ethnicity) but equivocating on the objectification of the female body doesn’t seem to be one.
I also do not consider your final statements to be true. I cannot credit their display for bringing to “the front a difficult issue” as they continuously refuse to remotely engage the dialog. That doesn’t seem to be even remotely be their goal, if so they would be happy to invest energy into that process. I do credit organizations like MissRepresentation and authors like yourself for that positive outcome. I would just ask that you reconsider framing HyperMac as the benefactor of that and recognize that framing social advocates as “taste police”, which is just to close to the write-off known as being politically correct. I would challenge you to read more of MissRepresentations work and contributions before assuming this is even close to being about political correctness. As I have experienced the organization, it is in it for the long haul and about the social and individual harm these representations of females truly has.
Thank you for pointing out the difference between sex and sexuality
I think that the hypersensitivity towards throwing around ‘misogyny’ and ‘objectification of women’ is getting a bit jaded by now. I’m not saying that there isn’t a potential problem, but I think the knee-jerk reactions need to stop and be thought of more deeply.
Let me ask you this: If the same booth had been there with males wearing a speedo painted in a similar fashion, would you cry that they are objectifying men? Would that thought even cross your mind? I highly doubt it. You would probably think of it as merely some kind of take on art, even if you don’t necessarily care for it.
So now that it is a woman instead, it’s objectifying? I think that’s pulling a gender card here. Those women were wearing just about the same as what most women wear to the beach. If anything, they were ‘wearing’ more, as the body paint definitely hides their body contours more than as if they were completely nude.
If these women were acting in some kind of provocative manner and being flirty/seductive then I would agree with you on the whole bit. However, they were standing completely still much like a statue. So I suppose any statue of nearly naked women is objectifying them in an unreasonable matter too? Well, what about the statues of Greek men, typically with their dongs out?
Here’s the thing, no one forced these participants to do so. So women themselves are perpetuating the problem of objectifying themselves. Yet, all I hear are women yelling at the males for witnessing it and making commentary.
Women definitely perpetuate sexism and objectification of other women/themselves. No disagreement there. I don’t hear most people in the #notbuyingit advocacy blaming men in this case but challenging a company (genderless) to change or reconsider its marketing decisions.
As for the “what if”…..its not the situation and not relevant. And did you really say “gender card”? Its not a card but a lens to evaluate and critique culture. And gender is a major issue in our society.
As well…..its always going to be different (per your beach comment) to evaluate the actions of one individual versus the marketing/advertising (i.e. what is known broadly as representation) actions of a company. A personal action doesn’t represent the majority but these marketing gimmicks do try to tap into a broader appeal through imagery, symbolism and representation and therefor can be analyzed in that manner. Critiquing how it influences others and possibly misrepresents women in this case is valid. In summary I find your comparison flawed.
I also challenge you to re-evaluate your summary of our commentary as “knee-jerk” as that doesn’t remotely resemble the ongoing, persistent and well-thoughtout actions I have witnessed during the length of the #notbuyingit effort. This is just one in a long line of companies we have challenged to rethink their strategies. But they all fit a pattern of, what we consider, objectification, misrepresentation and sexualization of women in our society.
Just a few thoughts.
I did not realize there was a gender card. Is that the one you use when I make only 67% as much as a man in my identical position, with the exact same qualifications? Is that the one I use when I get judged told to “try to look a bit more professional” when I don’t wear makeup to work? Is that the one I use when everyday when I walk home I get verbal “Catcalls,” some of which are very threatening- telling me what they’d do to me very graphically, and then attempting to touch me, but I am left with no choice but to keep walking, because i cannot drive (disability). How often do these things happen to you? I am totally cognizant that rape, domestic violence and assault happens to everyone- men and women- but you should know that the rate of these thing happening to women is much much higher (1 in 4 women will file a rape report in her lifetime- that’s just reported). We had a bunch of old white dudes trying to vote on what women could do with their own bodies this last year- not a woman in the room.
So yes, if there is a gender card, I’d really like to use it. Maybe women are just tired of waiting for the world to catch up.
The women were blank BODIES. That is the problem. Women are not decor. There wasn’t even sexuality involved- just the idea of sex. Their parts should not be used to sell your junk. Learn how to advertise. And yes, using the Thunder From Down Under to sell your stuff is just as bad- still sexist.
If it were my wife, then I would be very happy. Other men can look at her, but she comes home to me.
I think you are missing the point.
…So why not include men?
“Some of you will rush to the judgment that I don’t see the problem because I am a 50+ white guy who has enjoyed a position of privilege throughout his life.”
Yup. And reading this didn’t change my mind. Using women’s bodies to sell things unrelated to women’s bodies is the problem. It is a real problem that contributes to the difficulties women face attempting to achieve parity on many levels in our culture. The “voices raised” are the saying exactly what you propose: if you object to this marketing don’t buy their stuff. That is what the #notbuyingit movement is all about. That is how the clamor arose and we can only hope it makes advertisers think twice next time about the objectification of women’s bodies to sell product. I hope you will listen to the voices raised for your daughters’ sake.
I find you- as a 50 year old dude with daughters, to be totally missing the point. What is this company selling? Flesh? Computers?
You talk as if you know what the woman behind you is thinking- all because she sticks out her tongue. Perhaps she was not happy with being photographed, job or no job.
Basically- why are women sold for their parts? This is not an art show, so don’t try and sell it like it is. I am curious how you would explain this job to a group of young females, your daughter’s friends perhaps? Now how about a young man? Why are there not these living “statues” of both sexes included? WTF does this have to do with Hyper products? And has it occurred to ANYONE that men, specifically middle aged men such as yourself, are not offended by women being parceled out body part by body part to sell whatever new tech toy (or whatever toy, product, hair cream, new car, insurance, basically anything, so we are less valued, and underpaid- less that 3/4 the salary!)- but WOMEN are pissed- maybe not all women, but the ones who notice that society’s actions are linked to society’s mentality- like the one you-yourself, have- which is numbed, and blase to what is happening around you.
I’m glad you have your pictures as a memento.
Drew,
I think you’ve over-intellectualized this a bit. Ultimately what this all boils down to is that HyperMac contributed to an environment of inequality through their “display” and use of booth babes. The tech fields have been tough for women to break into, because they are so male dominated. You said, “Objectification of women, particularly in the media, is offensive and often a smokescreen for deeper fears about power, control and sexuality.” I think you made a good point and I agree with you, but I would more simply call that oppression. My question for you is, do you think it’s ok to assert your power and control through use of objectification? Do you think it’s ok to oppress women, by limiting their opportunities for success? I for do not and I hope for your daughters’ sake you agree.
First, i would say that Drew Keller deserves some applause for attempting to discuss the issue in a nuanced and thoughtful manner. Not everyone should be expected to change their views because of online advocacy; we should hope to catalyze a national conversation, which we have helped to do. We need more people like at least talking about the issue rather than deflecting it in the manner HyperMac has done. That said, I also think HyperMac ignores the strong points made against their company in the article, especially terms like “sophomoric” or “crass and absurd”. Those are definitely not compliments or terms used to define a thoughtful marketing strategy. I also believe the author failed to account for the fact that social critique is often at odds, intentionally, with the emphasis of profits over ethics and social justice. Many of us are exhausted by the continuing flow of “crassness” accepted in the name of profit. Companies can have strong economic success and social compassion; the two are not mutually exclusive. Yet, companies like HyperMac constantly exclude social responsibility at the expense of civility and ethics. As long as they do then there will be those of us here to bring broader awareness to the issues and just maybe catalyze a different commercial zeitgeist in the future. And that all begins (but shouldn’t end) with increasing the audience for the dialog.
The bottom line here, for me anyway, is the power of the female form. To say that it is wrong to display it for advertising purposes is a bit confusing. Why is it okay to use an attractive female in clasic works of art but not in any other media? Not sure if sexuality should be swept under the rug or considered to be in poor taste as you suggest.
Art has context. I agree with you- the female form is powerful- but art has context. These were blank- no context. Classic nudes have something you can sit and discuss, it resonates- that’s why it has lived up to the test of time. They are bible stories, or a tale of mythology, o a lover, or….etc. But here… just parts, to bring in customers. Typical marketing move for a business wtih a heavily male customer base. They could’ve done a smart campaign with out isolating. Look at the Ipod campaign.
The female form has power. That is something we can all agree on. Perhaps the most powerful force in existence…. anyone tried that Match.com website btw?
But that “power” isn’t inherent to the female body but relevant to the male’s who attempt to consume it. That is the problem. Why do we as a society have to constantly value a woman’s body over anything else she may be able to contribute?
I appreciate the respect and thoughtfulness everyone has shown here as we explore an issue we all believe is an important reflection of who we are as a community and as a culture. When there is passion there is the temptation to resort to polemics and insults. Thankfully, to date there are no trolls, just well-reasoned arguments that advance the conversation. That makes everyone’s point of view accessible. You have given me the opportunity to consider the issue from alternative and highly personal points of view. Many I have previously considered, some I have not.
Some of you have made assumptions about my relationship with my children. My two daughters are members of an open, dynamic, loving and respectful family. We talk about topics like this over dinner every night and I hear points of view that at times mirror many of the comments here, and at times are more coincidental to mine. I make every effort not mandate what they should think or how they should feel on any topic. They are young women who are fully capable of forming their own opinions. And do. Consequently we will continue to talk about this topic and many others. I can only hope each of you has parents who work to give you the intellectual freedom and respect to form your own opinion. While not always successful, I do my best.
I knew expressing my feelings, and the thinking behind them, would not sit well with some. I took the risk of sharing them as a way to own my personal responsibility. With this responsibility comes an obligation to change and evolve when something feels askew. I still stand by what I wrote, but that viewpoint is evolving.
I also chose to write my post in an effort to frame a respectful conversation on the topic and diffuse some of the slings and arrows I was seeing on the web from all sides. Again, I cannot fully express my gratitude over the respectfulness of the comments to date. Thanks to all for taking the time to engage.
Support. I cringed when I read people make assumptions about your relationships with your daughters. I feel privileged to have been mentored and encouraged to analyze ideas and concepts instead of resorting to ad hominem style fallacies. Our ideas will always be imperfect representations of who we truly are as people.
I respectfully disagree with some of your points but also agree that having a civil discussion is a major accomplishment for any issue. Best of luck and hope you remain introspective and flexible in your worldview.
It is so easy to get over analytical when dealing with human sexuality. The best course of action is understanding and acceptance. It’s not going away anytime soon…I sincerely hope not that is
.
I understand your frustration and need to explain your relationship with your daughters (papa bear), but please realize, when you open an article with your relationship with them, and then segway into an analysis of booth babes- you are going to get some commentary.
You weave a story of your experience, which opens with you as a father. I cannot not think of you as a dad as I read. And I have to admit (being honest) I am a bit horrified. your article lead my thoughts flow from one subject to another- young women, booth babes… all I see is women being used, yet again, for their parts, seen as decorative pieces- and that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRODUCT. Yes, I do want to know what you would tell your daughters about how these computer parts relate to women’s parts, and why it is okay to put them together in this context? Is a monetary return reason enough? Because in your article, it seems the answer was a resounding yes, and I for one, cannot accept that.
My thoughts are that a product should sell itself. Naked women- without a direct relation to the product, is just lazy marketing. If we all came together and refused it, it would go away. Sex (not sexuality- that is owned, and these women are blank, a canvas- you know nothing about them. This is not Cabaret) sells. If it did not, we wouldn’t push it in everyone’s face.
The face of computer tech will change- the youth, young women, are pushing for degrees and jobs. I mentor disadvantaged young women (8-14), and they are tech wizards, and many have dreams of working for Apple, or jobs in Communications and webdesign. One of our projects is to pull ads and other things- like necessary “women” branded specialty products that offend them, as young women. This came up. You’d be surprised. Give it 25 years, and my hope is perhaps this outdated mentality will change.
I don’t think any of us are arguing against “understanding and acceptance” of human sexuality. Quite the contrary, critiquing and analyzing these media campaigns I think leads to healthier and freer sexuality between individuals. But there is a caveat, that being a difference between sexuality (which I understand to be the expression and behavior of individuals interacting with each other) versus objectification/sexualization (the projection or representation of sexuality principally for the gain of something other than individuals participating). Our society seems to conflate the two, at least in its rationalization of commercial culture. I would state that the sexualization, overwhelming of the female body by the male gaze, is ultimately a parasite of the genuine sexuality between consenting adults. It warps mutual respect, most often in the name of profit or power. I can’t support that.