On-The-Fly, Unedited Submitted RAW

 

I will write this analysis in an artistic, subjective style. I will break traditional conventions by using the first person, by writing in a roundabout manner, straightforwardly writing like I think. This is because the Reebok ad profoundly annoys me. It deserves and shall get no reprieve. Whether this is due to my strong anti-feminism position, raving sexism or because of my abhorrence of marketing and capitalism, I leave up to the reader. To be quite honest, I do not yet know myself.

Firstly, let me say this; to truly understand the connotative and denotative meanings of this ad one would have had to have been a grown woman in the 80’s or the 90’s. I am neither, and submitting this subjective assignment to a professor who is both, wherein lies the danger. The picture shows an African-american woman practicing aerobics in what is presumably her apartment. She is dressed in trendy aerobic clothing and wears squeaking white sneakers, with the posture and facial expression of a determined and energetic hard worker. The television displaying the aerobics video is on the ground, her bed seems to be a simple mattress on the floor, her furniture is simple, her bookshelf stacked with books.

The first and most annoying thing about this advertisement is that it writes off men as a thing to be avoided first by generalizing that all men like their women soft and cuddly and therefore not successful in the career sense and secondly by reinforcing the cultural and ideological notion that successful women must be strong and tough and proud and fiercely independent. The second most annoying thing in this image is the fact that she is doing arobics,  fitness that involves no actual engagement with the outside world, a predecessor of WiiFit, and a strong precursor of the “You can do it from home” myth, which later evolves into the “you can do it easily” myth. I also cannot help but notice that Reebok plays on the stereotype of black people being physically fit while also insidiously suggesting that black people also can become successful through hard work. This is doubly insidious since it is telling consumers both that Reebok promotes racial equality but also distantly referencing the American reality that black people must fight to become successful, which is another way of saying that black people are often brought up in a defavorized environment.

The entire advertisement is really as effective as it is because of a myth that has become hugely prominent, that is the “key to success” myth. In this case; “Buy these shoes is the first step to becoming fit.” “Aerobics is what women who are fit do to keep in shape” “These are the clothes that an athletic person wears.” “This is what the room of an ambitious person looks like” “An successful person does not party.” ”A successful woman is a woman who is not fat, who works hard and never gives up” While this is partially true, it is also an early symptom of the other 21st century plague, the importance of physical appearance in success. In the end of the 20th century, women undoubtedly had it rough in the workplace. Strength and drive superior to that of men were undoubtedly needed to achieve the same level of success. In the 21’st century, beauty and youth is what is expected of women, not strength. This is a deplorable shift, admittedly, and has little to do with this shoes ad, but “I believe” that these two operate under the same basic line of thought.
But all advertisements are alike. All of them play on our definitions of things like “sportiness” to sell us recycled water, “success”, the success of self help guides, and the notion that one must choose between following the trends or adhering to their personal values. With time, following trends becomes a value in and of itself. And that is a major annoyance.

For the record, my understanding of ideology is that of a vast, culture-wide belief or mindset that contains the definitions of all the aspects of normality. It is akin to a spider’s web, tying everything together in the middle, and yet tying some things together and leaving some things apart. It is a way of thought, a way to perceive the world, and ties in to the situation of the cultures and or demographics it affects. A current day example is the opinion, shared by many youth, that the corporate world is thoroughly corrupt but essential, and that that is the paradox of our time. It is often, but not only all inclusive.

To close I would like to bring full attention to the extent of the marketing sham: The feet of people that do not wear fancy Reeboks (Reebok is actually derived from the Afrikaan word gazelle or antilope, by the way) actually develop more naturally, thus granting them a more performing  stride and a more”fit” body.

[edit] holy shit I'm super stupid why the hell did I submit this?? She's not gonna like it. Hell no. And what I meant to say (and forgot) is that people who don't wear shoes have more developed feet.