My classmate Tatiana Mawani recently blogged about the ethical issue of excessive marketing of unhealthy food, such as McDonald’s, to young children.

It shouldn’t surprise me that McDonald’s is exploiting such a vulnerable market in order to make a profit, and it shouldn’t surprise me that McDonald’s main business goal is not to focus on charitable ventures such as the Ronald McDonald House. After all, McDonald’s is a business, and presumably its business strategy is to make a profit. Nonetheless, many of the points Tatiana highlighted in her post, specifically some of the statistics she stated, came as a huge shock to me.

Perhaps the most astounding fact was that the entire fast food industry “collectively spends over $5 million dollars each day on advertising unhealthy food to children”. In my opinion, this figure seems exceedingly high, and I agree with Tatiana – this carries potentially dangerous implications for children’s health. How could the fast food industry spend such a colossal amount per day on advertising?

And then it clicked.

In addition to the traditional advertisements produced by fast food companies, such as the “Fry Kids” commercial Tatiana mentioned, most companies use other techniques to market their products to children; namely using toys to advertise.

Think back to when you were a kid – buying a Happy Meal from McDonalds wasn’t just about the meal. There was always a cool collectible toy which was only offered for a limited time, and buying enough meals meant you could collect the complete, coveted set. By offering toys and other promotions (such as McDonald’s partnership with the popular family game Monopoly) in conjunction with the food, McDonald’s was marketing to children without explicitly doing so.

The marketing strategies McDonald’s employs are undoubtedly effective – but in my opinion, several tactics are extremely unethical.

It’s no secret that sex sells.

Clothing retailer American Apparel (AA) has long been utilizing this technique for its advertising campaigns. The company is infamous for its overtly sexual print ads of models advertising lingerie and AA’s other items of clothing.

Although other lingerie retailers, like Victoria’s Secret, also produce ads with skin-baring models, AA is notorious for going even further. Certain ads are extremely provocative and depict partially or fully nude models. AA sometimes uses the same controversial, sexual approach even for clothes which aren’t lingerie, especially if the model is female.

Aside from the obvious problems arising from such racy ads (exposing children to inappropriate images, offending certain audiences), the ads also proliferate and perpetuate sexism. In an ad for a jacket or hoodie, a male model will usually be fully dressed, while a female model is more sexualized. In fact, some ads don’t even feature the model’s face, instead focusing entirely on the clothing item and surrounding skin. Female models are therefore objectified and dehumanized, viewed simply as sexual objects.

 

 

So how do the ads fit into AA’s marketing campaign? One of AA’s selling points is that its clothes are sweatshop free; it’s brand identity builds off this, so AA is portrayed as an honest company that believes in social responsibility and fair practices. The ads tie in with the brand’s image: models are either AA employees or “real people”. The ads are simple and honest: excessive Photoshopping is rare. It’s for this reason that AA ads, although controversial, are often applauded and awarded in the marketing field.

AA conveniently seems to forget its commitment to fair, ethical practices when it comes to the objectification of women. AA’s CEO knows, after all: sex(ism) sells.

References:

http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/awards.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/american-apparels-unisex-ads-2013-5