The intricacies of advertising in a post-Weinstein era
In our #metoo age, brands must work harder than ever before to successfully pass the gender litmus test, explains Bec Brideson.
In this post-Harvey era, gender truth bombs continue to drop with familiar shapes and accelerating frequency. The recent Golden Globes was a sea of black gowns and stirring speeches – Oprah especially sent a message that rippled around the world that our gender awakening is here to stay.
“I want all of the girls watching here now to know, that a new day is on the horizon.” @Oprah accepts the 2018 Cecil B. de Mille award. #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/hbquC1GBjm
— Golden Globe Awards (@goldenglobes) 8 January 2018
Recognition and support for enlightened and fair workplace behaviours is irreversibly getting the serious attention it deserves. The moral responsibility is acknowledged and understood and plans are already underway. So isn’t it time we turn our attention to Australian businesses and fast-forward our exploration of the ethical, social and economic obligations and yet-unexplored opportunities?
Thankfully the ‘pH’ test is here to help us. Which side of the business litmus will you register – pre-Harvey or post? There are businesses that will continue to uphold the pre-Harvey status quo and gamble on staying fixed while consumer bases and society values continue to evolve. And then there will be those that are actively deciding to usher in the necessary behaviour-change to reap the rewards that come from post-Harvey enlightenment.
Last Easter, Coles found themselves testing too acidic when they created a PR disaster with the campaign “I’m Free!” The ill-conceived execution of what was probably a great insight about in-store service instead became a demonstration of innuendo reminiscent of an outdated joke from British sitcom “Are You Being Served?” Even pre-Harvey, this registered as unacceptable.
Now, just imagine trying to present this idea in a post-Harvey world? It would be a foolish choice with Mrs Slocombe’s cat now well and truly out of the bag – forever.
All of these half-baked gender-roles are at best lazy creative vehicles and will now be high-risk business in a post-Harvey world.
Businesses and brands like Ultra Tune that continue to behave with blatant disregard for gender are also due for expiry. Whilst they have spent years surviving on outrage, “rubber girls” and the dumbing down of Australian consumers, it is unlikely we’ll see change.
Their overly corrosive pH suggests even a fresh progressive narrative now may fail to repair damage with women and woke men – especially after their latest campaign effort features convicted rapist and former boxer Mike Tyson.
Hopefuly there will come a day where advertising creatives refuse to write sexist sludge for Ultra Tune CEO Sean Buckley and take up a pledge similar to Nick Cummins’ “Say No to No.” If you disagree with saying no to sexism, Don Burke has a few empty seats next to him.
Brand activism is now reality with 60% of people in a recent Edelman study agreeing that brands “doing good” should be part of their DNA. Through an alignment of values, the visionary CEOs and CMOs amongst us can now consider gender as an intelligent tool to leverage in business.
If women will account for 75% of discretionary spend within the next decade then the gender-lens is becoming a must-have-now, not a maybe-we’ll-have-sometime-down-the-line. Discrimination and human rights have gone from black-box issues to transparent boxes business must embrace as core to their growth models.
Consumer and labour influence has shifted, dramatically and emphatically towards ‘female’. Women won’t just be expecting more from their employers, their peers and their leaders. They will be expecting even more from brands, and choosing those who truly get this power shift right.
This is your opening to embrace change by seeing gender as a strength and a powerful differentiator; not an irrelevant factor or a prickly complication. The sands are shifting underfoot, and this is your golden goose opportunity to commit a significant part of your business development, brainpower and resources towards the opportunity of gender.
The sides of history are being drawn and we have witnessed how this ‘pH’ world can revolutionise or rescind a leader’s reputation, brand power, business profit in an instant. We’re only a month into 2018 and the gender lens is already transforming the social contract, and eventually everything else.
It is time to become discerning because # or not – time is up.
Bec Brideson helps businesses and brands through better understanding the power of gender differences.
Bec,
I have given up commenting on your [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] articles, because [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]. But it is always entertaining watching radical leftists trying to justify to themselves why they work in the industry that greases the wheels of capitalism. It’s mental gymnastics worthy of a gold medal in the victimhood Olympics.
But I do have one question (if you’d find it in your heart to indulge a lowly commenter): if a woman only makes 77% of what a man does, how is it possible that they will account for 75% of discretionary spending? Does it mean they just live off the state and their men? And what do all the men spend their money on? Alimony and child support?
I know math isn’t a leftist’s greatest strength, but I’d like to hear the answer in your own words. Please don’t cop out and refer to the conspicuously PC report you linked to – that’s just the dying words of yet another corporation that has given in to bullies like yourself and try desperately to avoid death by Twitter-mob.
Cheerio!
If women account for 75 percent of discretionary spending it sounds like men are getting totally screwed.
Sounds more like women have been getting screwed for millennia, Bob 1. And you want to continue screwing them, eh?
The end outcome is that we’re all screwed. There are no winners in this.
Uplifting women also means uplifting men – it’s actually not a zero sum game, mate.
I feel like ‘What’s in it for brands?’ is maybe the wrong takeaway from all of this.
Hi Mumbrella.
I submitted a comment here yesterday that hasn’t been published yet. Can you please publish it?
Cheers,
TDA
Not Bec, but I have noticed that you continually harass and leave foul comments on any articles she writes. Not that they have any fortitude or virtue, your arguments are illogical and empty of intelligence.
Hey @Mumbrella’s editorial team – you’re not doing much about this. Tim and co – why is that? Do you advocate for the bullying of women’s voices by repeated potty-mouthed offenders? HE continually leaves gross abusive comments and you haven’t blocked his IP?)
Do you have a particular issue with Bec? Did you work with her? Do you know her? Did she perhaps rebuff you at a party or something? Or perhaps you have an issue with the Left, which is an ideology that you mysteriously don’t understand? In fact, that sort of black or white thinking presupposes that you really do think there is only a LEFT and RIGHT, a BAD and GOOD. Or that anyone can be defined by such simple boxes. I’m assuming you’re an adult but I could clearly be wrong. Perhaps something bad happened when you were a child? I think some therapy is in sore need.
If, as it seems, you have an issue with women voicing their opinions or women talking up their areas of expertise – perhaps you need to take a long slow look in the mirror. You have a rather large chip on your shoulder, dude and frankly, it’s pretty embarrassing especially with what’s going on in the world.
Also it’s laughable that you’ve ‘given up commenting’ but you’re still here. Doing what? Oh yeah, commenting. #obsessed
Ta!
Hi The Devil’s Arsehole,
I can only respond on behalf of Mumbrella here, not Bec or The Devil’s advocate.
I disagree that we are “not doing much about it”. I have had conversations directly with Bec in the past and will not reveal their contents in a comment thread.
I have also made it clear that this comment by The Devil’s advocate has been edited in line with Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy. The elements of the comment which targeted or insulted Bec or played the person not the ball, have been removed.
I considered not posting the comment at all as I know Bec has been targeted in the past – however what remains of the comment is largely seeking clarification and further information on the numbers. If Bec would like to respond to the questions posed, she can do so and shut the argument down. If she chooses not to, I have every confidence The Devil’s advocate will reappear on another of Mumbrella’s articles (not just Bec’s) questioning, probing, provoking and, in many instances, being edited in line with our guidelines.
For the record: We do not advocate for bullying of women’s voice by repeated potty-mouthed offenders.
I’ll leave the rest to Bec and TDA.
Thanks,
Vivienne – Mumbrella
What was perceived by Mumbrella as having crossed the line (and I’ll respectfully disagree) came from my frustration with Bec’s unwillingness to engage in debate about her articles. Other than that I have no issues with Bec. What I do have an issue with is the ideology for which she’s voluntarily become a prominent spokesperson.
It is this ideology that I’ve been criticising and will continue to critisise.
That said, if Bec feels that any of this is uncomfortable I’m open to adjusting my rethoric. But this needs to come from Bec herself, and not from some busybody whose taken it upon themselves to be perpetually offended on the behalf of others.
So here’s a fun-fact: this is the first time any of my comments have been moderated. Which means I’m doing a pretty good job of sticking to the issues.
The Devil’s Arsehole, on the other hand, seems quite obsessed with speculating about my life and my motives for voicing an opinion.
To call this harassment is patently absurd.
Would you say that disagreeing with, and challenging the opinions of, a man constitutes harassment? Of course not. In calling perfectly valid comments harassment only because the person in question is a woman is nothing short of sexist.
That’s right, The Devil’s Arsehole. You’re a sexist.
By holding women to a different standard then men you infantilise women in general and Bec in particular. If I was Bec I’d be offended by your comment. I’m sure she’s more than capable of handling comments like mine, and if not she has no business publishing articles like these.
It’s called public debate and is vital in a civilized society.
That you wish to shut it down by running to the moderator asking to block me shows your complete lack of interest in arriving at any kind of truth or solutions, and that all you care about is exercising your authoritarian impulses.
When one cannot control one’s emotions one starts controlling other people’s behaviour.
If history has taught us anything it’s that the left is terrified of the freedom of other people. The fact is that I cannot write this under my real name out of fear for losing my job. In a free society I cannot contribute with rational, objective, evidence-based arguments, shared by millions of people, because of authoritarians like you, The Devil’s Arsehole.
Bec can, and she’s made a career out of it. So who’s the powerful one?
My opponents assume that I have power just because I’m male and white. But if you for a moment leave aside your obsession with race and gender you’ll see that it is Bec – owner of a company, speaker at conferences and influencer of who-knows-how-many people – who is the powerful one and that I’m just a pathetic commentator.
Being judged by the content of one’s character is unfortunately still a dream, and one which people like you, The Devil’s Arsehole, is intent on crushing.
I’m a nobody speaking truth to power and you, The Devil’s Arsehole wants to shut me down.
And that’s why I’ll continue to criticise the leftist ideology that you apparently have such a great command of.
If all of this makes you mad (and boy I bet it makes you furious), here’s a tip: respond to my question and attack me where it really hurts, by beating me with your logic and rationale, your wit and your wisdom. If I’m as clueless and immature as you propose, this should be a walk in the park for you.
So let’s see if you’re up to the challenge. Or will it once again be…
GAME, SET AND MATCH, The Devil’s Advocate?
Maybe she’s just not that in to you?
That’s what I thought.
Judging from her name it seems The Devil’s Arsehole has a pretty good view of the tail between her legs.
Until next time somebody wants a lesson in reason and critical thinking…
Thanks Viv,
I have been advised to ignore trolls. All substantiation and supplied facts, figures and sources are linked in articles or have been supplied in response to TDA under past pieces – E&Y, BCG, McKinsey, Catalyst – he is still not satisfied with the global research and data. Bec