Ned: “You mean, like an angel?!”
Lisa: “Well, obviously that’s impossib—”
Moe: “Lisa’s right, it’s an angel!”
For a far more trenchant and insightful version of everything I’m about to say. It’s not the exact same product/commercial, but the major principles are entirely the same.
According to the refuse aggregate that is FB’s trending topics, there’s a new hashtag out called “ImNoAngel”. It’s a major component of clothing line Lane Bryant’s new ad campaign (for those of you who don’t know, the company sells plus-sized clothes for women). Normally content to ignore this kind of crap and pray that the good folks at AdBlock find a way to bring me respite in the near future, I saw it get genuinely shared by at least one of my friends, so it’s been elevated to the realm of “all right, I’ll bitch about this now.” It’s another in the recent trend of using something female empowerment to sell shit to women. HuffPo has the ad and analysis.
My concern is basically this: it’s not empowering; IT’S A FUCKING AD. By a company. Like every company on Earth, they do not give a shit about you or your well being. They would render every model in their ads, as well as you, your mother, and your daughter into pemmican if they thought it would net them a profit. Please don’t ever lose sight of this. This article and this hashtag shouldn’t be given positive credence.
The HuffPo piece starts its 151 word “article”, “Move over Victoria’s Secret. Lane Bryant just won the prize for sexiest campaign of 2015.” Do you get it? Because Victoria’s Secret uses the “angelsTM” in their ad campaigns! Like, do you get it? It’s a reference! Yes, HuffPo, everyone gets it. That is entirely intentional on the part of the advertisers. You may not know where you stand, but you know who you’re against. This strategy is played quite frequently in politics and political commentary where hating a group of people is more important than having your own platform. You may not be able to name anything the Obama did outside of Obamacare, but damned if you’ll vote for those Democrats/Republicans (pick one); they’re ruining this country! Both sides know this; the media know this; they all use it to get your support/money/attention. “Victoria’s Secret enforces unrealistic standards of beauty, and I’m opposed to it!” –this ad’s target demo. And in the current zeitgeist, it’s a pretty plump demo (no pejorative intended). They’re taking your anger and using it to direct you towards a brand.
HuffPo continues: “The women, styled in Lane Bryant’s exclusive bra collection Cacique, define ‘sexy’ in numerous ways during the ad. They’re also using social media to further challenge conventional beauty standards.”
I like the participle phrase in the first sentence where it is just straight-up adverting for a company. This is marketing in the 21st century. Paid adverts are old hat. Now the ads are a part of the stories themselves. Can’t censor that with AdBlock! Anyway, to the larger point, this ad does not have the power to “define ‘sexy’”. That’s way too loaded a concept to alter in 30 seconds, particularly a message that isn’t even targeted to men, i.e. the ones who are pretty much completely in charge of defining what a “sexy” woman is. The notion that a hashtag campaign can redefine “sexy” is beyond absurd. So are they aiming for women who are delusional enough to think that they can? Well, I’m going to give people credit and assume most women watching this are not delusional; I don’t think that’s what the ad is trying to manipulate. What it is playing on is insecurity. You ask any straight man who’s not sitting right next to a female he’s trying to impress if he’d rather sleep with a Victoria’s Secret model or one of the gals from the Lane Bryant ad and the answer is obvious. You know the answer, and Lane Bryant /knows/ you know the answer. That level of sexiness is unattainable. And that makes you anxious. So they give you a different aspirational goal that seems more attainable, and call it “sexy”–which is the label you’re aspiring to that you’ll never reach, but they let you lie to yourself and think it’s possible. To reiterate: sexiness isn’t being redefined—it can’t be, not by women, anyway—it’s being /reinforced/. The idea of sexiness still has power. It’s still agreed upon as something to pursue. Lane Bryant, like many American apparel stores, is hoping to harness your insecurities and direct you to them. It won’t actually help, but you’ll try anyway. That’s why this ad will be effective—at selling you shit. It will change nothing. Thinking it will is going to do more harm than good.
Adult insecurities are one thing, but what scares me is what these reactions will do to our children—won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!?. The accolades pouring through for this campaign are a bad influence on the kids. For the love of God, we cannot tell the children that we are finding empowerment and how we define our self-worth from fucking advertisements. “The media is controlling what we think!” Because you’re letting it? I get that media saturation is insanely hard to fight against, but the least you could do is not embrace it with open arms. If you want the media to be less influential, you have to stop giving it power. Easier said than done, for sure, I know. But if Victoria’s Secret’s version of sexy is unsettling, jumping to another clothing brand to protect you isn’t going to change anything, it’s going to do the opposite.
The “ImNoAngel” hashtag is straight-up an ad for a clothing company. It just boggles my mind how this would be considered anything but terrifying in any other situation. This HuffPo “article” is basically an advertisement. The video at the top is a series of softballs to the CEO of the company. What the fuck do you think she’s going to say? How would this be acceptable if it were some other kind of product? “We sat down with PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi to ask her about the debate surrounding the term ‘refreshment’. Many people have expressed enthusiasm over the new Pepsi hashtag #crsiprefreshingPepsiCola.” Hell, Nooyi is an influential female. And her company has an indirect contribution to the demand for plus-sized women’s clothing. Maybe they should interview her. #brandsynergy
As a post script, it also amuses me that Lane Bryant and Victoria’s Secret are both subsidiaries of Limited Brands. Les Wexner gets a check either way. This isn’t meant to be a trenchant observation, merely a factoid to smirk at.