Ad Feminem

Breathy Yesssssss

A new radio commercial today, for the Cosmetic Surgery Center. With a breathy repetition of "Yessss" in between each announcement of the discount body special (new nose and breast aug for only $6500), this time the tactic was seduction.  That's not to say it's clear just who those breathy yesses were supposed to seduce.  It's tempting to assume that the demographic was the men who might pay for customized arm charm construction.  In contrast to the inane, hot and heavy voiceover, at first the language of the commercial seemed clearly aimed at potential female customers. But upon further consideration, if we examine the language as if it speaks to a male purchaser rather than a female recipient, its objectifying effect gets magnified.

Yessss. $6500, yessss. $6500 for new breasts and a new nose.  Yessss, $6500 for bigger, sexier breasts.  Call the Cosmetic Surgery Center now. 1-800-Hot-3939.  That's 1-800-HOT-3939.  Yessss. $2900 for breast augmentation!  Yessss, just $2900 for bigger, more beautiful breasts.

The effect of listening to this language is that one can start to imagine calling the number just to buy some disembodied breasts, as if could snatch up a pair of breasts without the bothersome body that’s usually attached to them. 

Additionally, this ad turns on a couple of hidden assumptions, both taking for granted and reinforcing the idea that the bigger the breasts, the sexier, more beautiful the breasts, and that fake is preferable to natural.  We may take it for granted at this point that augmented breasts are sexier than real breasts, but we shouldn’t.  This assumption is not necessarily a valid one – especially if you’ve spent any time hanging out in Los Angeles or strip clubs staring at improbably thin women sporting pairs of rock-solid, sternum-valley-separated bolt-ons.   If we assume that bigger (i.e. fake, in this context) are sexier, then we have to define what it means to be sexy.  Is conformity sexy?   Is consumerism sexy?  Though it’s not often I agree with them, even the mainstream women’s magazines pay lip service to the notion that confidence equals sex appeal (while, of course, simultaneously destroying the confidence of their readers by their relentless advertising and self-improvement campaigns, all of which have as their basis the notion that anyone is good enough just as she is). 
 
All of which leads us to the quandary that is the relationship between cosmetic surgery and confidence. 
Many cosmetic surgeons market their services as a way to gain self-confidence, and many patients claim feelings of improved self-confidence as a result of their surgeries.  Of course, possession of the kind of self-confidence which involves unaltered self-acceptance is hard to come by in a culture predicated on tearing those feelings down for profit.  In the end, this kind of self-possessed confidence (in which we already possess everything we need to feel confident, no purchase necessary) would prevent us from electing for cosmetic procedures in the first place.  

In “Weasel Words,” William Lutz’s classic essay on the language of advertising, Lutz points out that some of the most misleading language exists in the form of unfinished comparisons.  Ads routinely claim things like “700% quieter,” “50% more,” or “30% faster,” but don’t say quieter, more or faster than what exactly, leaving us to fill in that blank for ourselves.  Often we automatically fill in that blank so that we read the claim as 50% more than the previous serving size or 700% quieter than the competitor when really the claim is actually based on something else ridiculous – like a car is 700% quieter on the inside than the outside, not 700% quieter than the competing model or the box may have 50% more space in it though not actually 50% more product. 

In the Cosmetic Surgery Center ad, the phrase “more beautiful breasts” is an unfinished comparison.  More beautiful than what?  For the female listener, the automatic answer is “more beautiful breasts than mine;” for the male listener, it’s “more beautiful breasts than my [girlfriend/wife/lover] already has,” i.e. no matter what the current breasts look like, they’re not beautiful enough.  But what is the claim really based on?  With surgery, will your breasts become more beautiful than Victoria Beckham’s?  More beautiful than Pamela Anderson’s?  More beautiful than a porn star’s?  And if the language of the ad equates beauty with size, then what happens to the claim?  Will your post-surgery breasts be “more beautiful” (i.e. bigger) than the breasts of your 12-year-old neighbor?  Probably so – but you can see, if we look at it this way, the ad’s not actually promising anything at all.

Seduction suggests a certain powerlessness on the part of the person seduced, a succumbing to an overpowering force.  It can be a relief to be seduced, a momentary relief to abjure responsibility for fulfilling our own desires.  In the end, the ad suggests that what’s sexier and more beautiful than we already are is succumbing to the very insecurities it has sown.  It urges you to think of the operating table as a bed, diet and exercise as keys which never quite fit the lock on the bedroom door.  Yessss, says the woman in the ad, we’ll tell you what’s beautiful without telling you anything at all; we’ll open the door, lie you down on the bed, and have our way with you.  Don’t struggle against the door, she says; succumb.  What she doesn’t say is that every day our culture changes the locks.

Liposuction, Famine Victims and You

It's an arch comment, sure. Pradeep Mehta of the CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economy and the Environment, made it when suggesting that money spent in the U.S. on liposuction to remove the fatty deposits of excess consumption should instead go to aid the victims of famine.

Mehta was hitting back at U.S. claims that India's economic growth, like that of China, is to fault for the effects of resource depletion being felt around the world. That blame followed the news last week that big box stores had started rationing rice. Mehta also pointed our that if Americans ate at the rate of middle-class Indians, “many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates.”

Of course, many might argue instead that if the American middle class ate less, then it would instead convert the spare biomass into ethanol for its SUVs. But that's not the point. Instead, we do need to take a look at our willingness to blame others for our modern maladies, both real and perceived. Is our over-consumption the fault of the ads that surround us? Of the corporations that place them? Of the plastic surgeons who seek to benefit by sucking out the excess?

Just as America needs to look at its own problems before blaming India and China, individuals need to bring order to their own before blaming society. Each of us needs to resist the notion that we can only be more by owning more, that wrinkles equal sickness, that size zero should be our monolithic ideal.

So take a good long look at yourself. And love what you see. Then start thinking about what we can do collectively.

Physicians, Fix Your Ads

"Is your younger teenage daughter struggling with low self-esteem because her breasts aren’t developing fast enough?", asks Mountain View's Dr. Rosenberg in a self-penned advertorial pushing breast augmentations for girls He gives advice, much of it self-serving naturally, like the importance of a plastic surgeon being board certified. But beyond simply promoting the idea of breast augs for girls, he does fail to mention one thing. The FDA does not indicate the use of implants for kids, unless to correct congenital defects.

Cosmetic surgery practices regularly go "off-label" when it comes to FDA indications. Botox is regularly used beyond the "frown area" it is indicated for. Cocktails of drugs are injected in unapproved ways for fat loss "mesotherapy" or its tradenamed derivative LipoDissolve. Few practitioners publicize this. None mention it in their print advertising. And cosmetic surgery propaganda is clearly just that. Take this clinic's reassurance regarding the mesotherapy cocktail:

While all cocktail ingredients are individually FDA approved, the use of a combination of them is a so-called "off-label" procedure. Each practitioner is using slightly different mixtures. Our solution medications are purchased from highly reputable pharmacies. Off-label use of medication is common.

Would you have guessed from this information that mesotherapy has already been banned and Kansas, is likely to be banned in Nebraska and has already been regulated in Brasil?

 

If print advertising for pharmaceutical products must include all information we've become used to on indicated use and side effects, shouldn't regulations also apply to print advertising for procedures relying on Botox, Restylane and breast implants?

Yoho-ho and a Bottle of Sense

Dr. Robert Yoho's cosmetic surgery ad sits poised above Robertson Boulevard in Beverly Hills.  It's the sort of thing that, in the context of this blog, we're usually ready to criticize.  Besides cosmetic surgeons, what other type of doctors, we'd ask, would advertise?  While we might see ads for opthamologists and dentists - those who perform routine, non-major medical procedures, neither the oncologist nor the trauma surgeon nor the burn specialist could ethically hope for skyrocketing "business growth" as cosmetic surgeons do because that growth would mean a hope for more cancer, more  grotesque accidents, more fires. 

Dr. Yoho's is admittedly a tastefully done billboard, more overtly art than ad. On the other hand, it's possible to argue that the torso-only snapshot of the woman reduces her - as so much misogynist rhetoric does - to her component parts, a headless, limbless rubber love doll - sexual organs only, minus legs for mobility, a face with a mouth for speaking or a head with a brain.

But happily, after spending some time reading Dr. Yoho's website, this is one doctor we'd rather commend than condemn.  That's not to say that we've become comfortable with cosmetic surgery advertising or a culture obsessed with an unattainable ideal, which we decidedly have not.  At all.  However, Dr. Yoho, unlike so many of his colleagues, seems refreshingly frank.  While still marketing his services, Yoho has done so in a way which suggests less a fatuous drive for profit or a push for patients to make impulsive and/or excessive life-altering decisions than it suggests a concern for transparency, common sense and informed decision-making.  He says:

Because this is elective or voluntary surgery, the patient is responsible to a large extent for what gets done. But the doctor should refuse inappropriate requests and counsel the patient regarding potential problems. You must bear in mind two other factors when you're dealing with doctors. First, most surgeons love to do surgery of any kind. Second, although most doctors try to put the patient first, they have financial pressures. And patients are very trusting. So if the doctor leaves you with any negative feelings about your procedure, you should listen carefully. He's doing his job and he has your best interests at heart. I'll never forget what one of my mentors, Dr. Bill Cook, once said in a lecture: "Patients will trust you to do anything, so you've got to learn to say 'no.'"

When you go out to a nice restaurant, you don't eat everything on the menu. By the same token, at the doctor's office, you don't need to have every cosmetic surgery under the sun. You'll do better if you control yourself and exercise some common sense. Be careful out there.

What is sadly surprising is Dr. Yoho's concession regarding doctors' "financial pressures," i.e. their  prioritizing of profit over people - not something many will openly admit.  Some other things we like about Dr. Yoho:  his emphasis on diet and exercise and his admission that diet and other medical advances "may soon overshadow cosmetic surgery for their anti-aging effects" and "may have more effect on your shape than liposuction"; he also makes a point of saying that while the goal of cosmetic surgery is to improve your self-esteem, it won't change your life.  For once, here is rhetoric that does not conflate the body with the self.  Consistently, his clinic is called "New Body Cosmetic Surgery Medical Center," not "New You Cosmetic Surgery Medical Center."

If we must live a culture which blithely accepts cosmetic surgery and its advertisement, then better (in a lesser evil sort of way) that it's done like Dr. Yoho does it than the used-car hustler on the radio hawking discount boobs and a new life. 

[get this widget]

Marc Jacobs Channels ZZTop

Feministing had a post about this Marc Jacobs ad today, in which Victoria Beckham, with just her legs dangling out this shopping bag, is presented as a product in and of herself.  See their post and Cathy Horyn's New York Times article.  We just want to say... Yes.  Exactly.  This is what Ad Feminem has been saying all along.  Our culture has moved beyond using women's bodies to sell products to the point that women and their bodies are the products.  This ad illustrates the consequences perfectly:  once we become objects, we can be collected, possessed, discarded, replaced, shelved, shoved in a bag and stuffed in the back of a closet, or relegated to some other "proper" places in which we "belong." 

Horyn comes to the conclusion that Jacobs and Juergen Teller, the ad's photographer, have attempted to "force[s] a different question than the banality of 'Is she beautiful?'”  If, by presenting it in such a blatant way, the ad gets people to start asking about the consequences of objectification, then that's a great thing.  If, on the other hand, an ad like this just adds to the normalization of the message of women as products,  then, obviously, it's not so good. 

You tell us.  What effect do you think this ad has or will have on the discourse of women as products? 

[get this widget]

Happily Never

We know, we know. This Ellen Unwerth/Fallon ad for Equinox Fitness has been out since January already.  But here's the thing.  Everyone had a heart attack over the ad in the series which featured Catholic nuns gathered around a male figure model, but registered less fuss over this one in which women marked for cosmetic surgery are snubbed while the "naturally" fit woman gets the guy.

From Stuart Elliott at the New York Times:  According to Eric Sorensen, Fallon's copywriter, group creative director and co-campaign developer, "That dovetails with the company's goal of "taking a different approach to fitness..." by stressing "the life benefit of working out" rather than the short-term results (as appealing as they may be)...The campaign comes from the insight that there's a deeper reason people work out than to get into shape."

People work out so they can be attractive to the opposite sex; that's their "deeper insight"?

We're not sure that message of the naturally fit woman winning out over the surgically enhanced women is actually the loudest one in this ad.  Or even close to it.  Beyond the sorority-girl circling of fat and Sharpied liposuction lines on the models' skin, what is the difference between the physiques of these women?  The model in the middle could just as easily switch places with any of the other models in the ad, and the message would remain the same.  Further, there's nothing to indicate that the women in the middle hasn't had any procedures; for all we know, she's just post-op while the others are pre-op.  And while these women clearly don't need liposuction, the message the ad sends most loudly is that the thin women in bikinis and stilettos aren't thin enough.  The unhappy looks on their faces aren't necessarily or obviously about not getting the guy - everyone knows (if we're to believe the general worldview of Madison Avenue, music videos, Maxim, Cosmo, etc.) that models in bikinis and stilettos will always attract men.  More likely, these models look unhappy because, despite constant dieting and working out, they're still not thin enough - at least, according to ads like this one. 

 

Douglas Rushkoff Spins Around in His Desk Chair

While the absurd juxtapositions produced by key-word driven advertising are hilarious precisely because they point out the shortcomings of soulless, automated systems, when the same absurdities are produced by decidedly human systems, one has to wonder at the breakdown of communication.  We've posted before about the editorial oversight of the advertising placement in the LA Weekly, hoping that it might be deliberate and subversive.  The latest example though reads like a Rushkoffian cliche of media commenting on itself, which would be wonderful if only it seemed self-conscious.

Here's an excerpt from Lina Lecaro's March 11 contribution to the Weekly's "A Considerable Town" right next to the ads that ran beside it in the hard copy of the paper:

Wrinkle-Free Fresh Faces at Fashion Week

"At the GenArt 2008 'New Garde' event  Friday night, which kicked off L.A. Fashion Week, it was hard to ignore the evening’s sponsor — sort of the wrinkle-free elephant in the room. Amid the Art Deco splendor of the Park Plaza hotel, as dolled-up fashionistas fluttered about  the visual feast of designer vignettes, young models danced under Botox-branded umbrellas that couldn’t have been more, uh, in your face. Botox’s less-than-subtle branding was everywhere, but its pitch was unexpected. The umbrellas were emblazoned with a motto touting the drug’s use as a cure for excessive sweating: “It keeps you dry.” Oh, yes, that’s what this looks-conscious crowd would use it for. Uh-huh. Nobody seemed to acknowledge the irony that GenArt, champion of the most creative and individualistic style makers in Los Angeles, has associated itself with a product that’s turned many of the city’s most intriguing faces into expressionless clones."

Is the unacknowledged irony of Botox's sponsorship of GenArt 2008 any more farcical than the Weekly pointing out the irony while not acknowledging its own sponsorship by the Botox vendors on the facing page (three of them on that page alone)?  Tu quoque, Ms. Lecaro. We agree with you, but for the sake of credibility, the Weekly's editorial and ad departments should start reading each other's work.

Inconsistency

Take a close look at this ad as it appeared in the LA Weekly. We're confused. Is this one ad for the same clinic, or is it two? We're assuming it's meant to be just one ad for one clinic because if it's two, then the top advertiser forgot to include the name of the business and any contact information -- rather egregious errors as far as advertising goes... Then again, an orphaned ad that does nothing other than remind us once again that we're not perfect seems to perfectly sum up the situation.  A floating message from the faceless universe:  You're not good enough, and don't you forget it!

More likely, this is just one ad for the Cosmetic Rejuvenation Medical Center. But just in simple terms of ad design, where's the coherence?  Do the laser treatments cost $195 or do they cost $300? Is the color scheme seductive, dark and mysterious  or is it light, bright, bubbly and beachy?  We've said it before, but if these guys can't even make their ads consistent, who's to say they can do so with our body parts?

Physical Foreclosures

BreastAugUSA, cosmetic surgery finance group, urges their clients to spend well beyond their means, exhorting them to compromise their retirement plans or ask an employer for a loan.  How entertaining to imagine convincing an employer that with just a little of his or her help you could go and get that new designer vagina that's all the rage.  Their policy is worth reprinting here:

CASH PAYMENT
Still, you may not have the means to make cash payment, or may have timing issues that make the cash unavailable when you want to have surgery. If financing makes more sense for you for these or any other reason, we offer a patient financing plan that makes it possible for you to have your cosmetic procedure today. The truth is cash payment is the best payment option for your cosmetic surgery.
Cosmetic surgery is like any product or service; you get the best price the market has to offer when you make payment in cash. Many of our customers who choose to pay cash acquire their funds through one or a combination of the following.

-- Withdrawal from savings or investment accounts.
-- Loan from 401K plan.
-- Loan from life insurance policy.
-- Loan from friend or relative.
-- Advance or loan from employer.
-- Tax refund.
-- Pre-surgery installment plan. Our doctors offer this option, which is similar to a lay-away plan.
-- Credit cards. Our doctors accept credit cards as cash payment. Often, our customers secure low interest rates by moving their balances to new cards that offer special rates for balance transfers.

THE PMG PATIENT FUNDING PLAN

The truth is you probably have three questions about financing. The answers depend on two factors: your credit profile and your lender's commitment to making loans.

1. Can I get approved?
We approve more applications than any lender in the business ... bar none.
The PMG Patient Funding Plan is committed to making loans. We don't rely on a computer scoring model to make decisions, but carefully investigate each application with the intent of granting an approval.

2. What will my monthly payment be?
Your monthly payment is a function of the amount you borrow, the interest rate, and the length of the loan.

-- We help you find the best price available on your procedure, so you don't borrow more than
-- you have to.
-- We offer extended loan terms, normally, 36 or 48 months.
-- While the interest rate is largely determined by your credit profile, we work to secure the
-- best rate available.

3. How much cash will I have to put down?
In most financing transactions, the lender asks you to make a cash investment in your purchase. The amount of your out of pocket cash requirement depends on your credit profile and is generally between 10% and 25%.

In the end, what’s most distressing about this is the predatory nature of these lending practices.  If BreastAugUSA is reviewing all applications with “intent to approve” and encouraging clients to raid retirement accounts, life insurance policies and the wallets of relatives, one wonders how much these practices differ from the practices of lenders who pushed so many people into home loans they could not afford.  These loans may be on a different scale, but with foreclosures rampant and our economy in such difficulty, they’re no more ethical.  When people default on home loans, they lose their homes.   When they default on body loans, should they lose those too?

That question is far too literal, of course.  But it needs to be asked because it gets at the bigger issue underlying all of this, which has to do with the location of the “self.”  So much of the language of cosmetic surgery advertising uses words for bodies and body parts interchangeably with words for the self ("new you," "better you," "the person you've always wanted to be," etc.), and in asking such a literal question, we're only extrapolating that rhetoric to its next step.  Loans for houses, cars, jewelry, etc. are guaranteed by using the items themselves as collateral.  Default on the loan, say goodbye to the item.  Default on the loan for your breasts, say goodbye to... the new you?

Frustrating Juxtapositions

Ah, the irony of keyword-driven advertising.  How wonderful that just underneath Jodi Lipper and Cerina Vincent's body-positive article urging women to remember that confidence should not be dependent upon a surgeon's knife, there appear links to various cosmetic surgeons and cosmetic surgery financiers, including BreastAugUSA.  Just one click takes you to a slogan which says: "Confidence:  Enjoy the self-confidence that comes from looking your very best." Wait a moment and then another slogan appears:  "New You!  Take the first step in becoming the person you've always wanted to be. "  Another advertiser is DoctorsSayYes, with the slogan "Create a New You!"

Notice that the language shifts from looking your best to being your best, from getting a new body to getting a new you.  It is in the face of this kind of relentless cultural rhetoric, equating the acquisition of body parts with selfhood, that human lives are devalued.  If new selves are so easily obtained, it would seem they're just as easily discarded.