![]() ![]() So it's a smart ad campaign-you remembered it.īut, in reality, most of the time they ARE the ones choosing. These slogans are basically referencing a stereotype. ![]() Whether it's entirely real-world accurate is irrelevant. We're all familiar with the idea that mothers are nurturing and protective and monitor the food they give their young to make sure it's safe and healthy, that this is somehow their role. So really, from a feminist perspective you could argue that this ad is limiting to women-weighing them down with this stereotype. Even though I'm not a mother, I understand that what they're telling me is positive and when I shop I might say, hey, well, as we all know, choosy moms choose jif, so, what would MY mother do? Or if I don't have a mother, what would sitcom wife from the 50s do? it's aware of the trope, and is using it. Pepper variety that is marketed exclusively towards men, with the main hook of the campaign being that it's "not for women." Completely arbitrary, they're just trying to tap into a certain section of the market who is otherwise only rare courted by soft drink companies. Is it actually sexist? If anything, it's a commentary on the way diet drinks almost exclusively target women (who commonly harbor seriously negative body images(probably because they are targeted in ads featuring perfect models) and think diet drinks help). So, in summation (sorry, this one was rambly), targeting a specific subset of the market for a product is not sexist. I think I remember it being used when I was a kid, in the 70s. Maybe it's time to let the company know it's an outdated slogan. Perhaps their marketing department could be persuaded that it's time to update for a more modern society, to "choosy people" instead of "choosy moms." With the huge number of two-household, two-single-parent families out there, it's probably more common for both parents to shop simply because they're shopping for two pantries. Once, the primary grocery shopper for the home in western society was generally the mom. Today, due to high divorce rates, and two-job households, that isn't necessarily the case. Many families are divided into two homes, each with a single parent, responsible all of the time, but with the child present part-time in both homes. With both parents separately preparing meals for the same child, it would make sense for both parents to be household primary shoppers. Why not market to everyone? Why not update your well-known, long-used but outdated slogan from choosy MOMS choose Jif to choosy PEOPLE choose Jif? Further, kids often eat at the homes of grandparents and other family, and babysitters. I can even see the potential for ads centered around a new slogan, such as something with which divorced families might identify, in which it's demonstrated using a combination of short scenes and voice-overs that two parents compromise with each other on small things (what day the child can be at a grandparent's house, hairstyle, ear piercing, etc.) but one thing neither of them would compromise on is the quality of their kid's food. ![]() And the next scene could show them both purchasing or serving your product. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |