Here’s some serious ad to analyze 🙂
I guess the creator had a repressed desire for kicking asses.. tenderly 😛
Interaction Culture: The Class Blog
Official Class Blog of "I590: Interaction Culture" (Indiana University School of Informatics)
Interaction Culture: The Class Blog 
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 27, 2010 at 12:34 am
margaretfritz
I wonder why the creators of this ad decided to advertise their product in this manner, rather than describe the quality of the shoe’s craftsmanship, and the materials its been made from. They instead have attempted to create a kind of mood surrounding the shoe, or a personality for the shoe by placing the shoe within a fictitious narrative.
They are not describing the quality of the shoe. Or how it will improve anything related to shoes. The ad has nothing to do with shoe craftsmanship. The shoe has an immaterial sense that overpowers its materiality. The commercial isn’t about the shoe, but more about a mood surrounding the shoe.
Giving the shoe a personality might make it easier to socialize with the shoe. Or make the shoe an object of socialization.
I can imagine children watching this ad and saying something like “I’m going to go out and buy that shoe and then come back here find you and kick your ass.” Then the other friend would respond: “I’ll get it first and I’ll be waiting here for you then I’m going to kick your ass tenderly all night long.”
I wonder if the mood or personality they show within the ad is somehow contagious and that the viewers “catch” the mood of the ad, causing them to make the mood presented in the ad a part of their own interactions.
The ad tries to spark a mood. And they hope this spark drives sales.
September 27, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Anna
I think that this advertisement could be the opposite of expression theory. The creator is literally illustrating what they are saying. There is a shoe, and it wants to kick an ass.
But also there is almost a statement being made about shoe commercials. Many show people running, participating in some kind of sport, or just generally being cool. But this is the anti-shoe commercial. The badasses who wear these shoes wear them because they are ass kicking-ly superior. This add kind of makes when viewed in a social context.
September 28, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Corinthe
so I watched a couple more of their advertisements (not impressed) and seeing them all (giving this one more context) I have to agree with Anna here.
I was trying to figure out what kinds of people this ad was targeted at. I really think it is aimed at high school and undergraduate college [likely caucasian] males in the middle to upper-middle class.
I disagree that the people who wear them are already, as Anna put it, “badasses” but I think those who do wear them or want to wear them are striving to become or be seen as “badasses”. In my opinion they are mocking the “badasses” with the intent of making themselves get noticed because they aren’t the ones on the sports teams. I think its a distasteful way to claim attention.
September 28, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Corinthe
I decided to look into this Diesel company and – YIKES! No wonder! Now I certainly agree this is an attempt to make the less popular folks feel popular or noticed.
The website is extremely inappropriate (my opinion, of course). Its aimed at the kid who wears a nice black suit and tie with sneakers and a blues bros type on at graduation.
The website theme is “Be Stupid” for various reasons (with raunchy images) such as ‘being stupid will get you more sex, sex with your boss, attention from the government, women, etc.’ and ‘being stupid can get you killed, but at least you won’t die of boredom”
The website features nothing but caucasian folks photographed being provocative and raunchy.
so…why is it that caucasions are being stereotyped as stupid, unpopular, raunchy, sneaker-wearing people who only care are doing dumb things and having sex?
On the other hand, I’m a little confused if they really support “Be[ing] stupid” or if they are mocking those who make stupid decisons. The only positive message I saw there is an image of Haitian kids and donkeys with text saying “we are stupid enough to think we can end poverty” because Diesel founder donated $250,000 to “Only the Brave Foundation” started by Wyclef Jean after the earthquake in Haiti.
September 28, 2010 at 5:22 pm
jeffreybardzell
Wow, I just watched this. That is puerile, to be sure. And Margaret and Anna right that it says nothing about the shoes–it is all about lifestyle and connotations.
And Corinthe has tried to dig in and make sense of these connotations and found that extremely hard to do (and she’s right about that!). Clearly, there is a lot of parody of “stupidity” in all of this, making fun (but maybe also celebrating and valorizing) frat boy stupid culture. So one way to think about this is to ask how/why they are valorizing (a certain kind of) stupidity with regard to shoe commercials.
I think Anna’s idea of an anti-ad ad may help here. I don’t watch a lot of TV, but I remember a lot of sneaker commercials with Michael Jordan that glorified and almost deified him. That kind of approach almost makes shoes seem much more dignified and important than they are. So this ad deconstructs that bogus dignity, using a style that is reminiscent of Beavis and Butthead (more stupid white guy humor).
So to me, it is in some sense kind of like the Kotex “Reality” commercials, which mock the standard tampon ad euphemisms and in doing so, deconstructs them as perpetuating cultural anxieties about menstruation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpypeLL1dAs
That said, I think the Kotex ads have a socially redeeming undercurrent, that we need to “get real” about menstruation, and it’s hard to see anything especially socially redeeming in this shoe ad.
September 30, 2010 at 7:01 pm
margaretfritz
I don’t think anything that attempts to sell a consumerist product can be separated from the product it is attempting to sell. If someone makes an ad about shoes, it is attempting to sell those shoes. If it makes an ad about tampons, it is attempting to sell tampons. If an advertisement has a particular quality, story, or some nature to it, it has that nature, because it is attempting to make an appeal to an appropriate audience, to get that audience to consume it.
So if it appears as if an ad is attempting to fight against some perception, so as to create a greater social change (for example, the claims of kotex of breaking the cycle of tampon / menstruation perception), then they are designing themselves in this way for the purpose of appealing and selling to an audience. They are creating an appearance they believe to be most appropriate for the selling of their product, so they can be likened to something like a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” It might look like they are satirizing, mocking, or attempting to change something, but they are not of that nature; their nature is to get you to buy those tampons.
It might be true that a socially beneficent ad exists, but I would wonder about an ad that combines a consumerist product meant for consumption with an appearance of attempting to change some perceived societal flaw.
October 1, 2010 at 7:44 pm
jeffreybardzell
This is a thoughtful and provocative comment, Margaret. Are you saying that commerce and social progress are inherently incompatible?
I mean, as a rule I would probably agree with you most of the time, but it seems that some commercially available products when consumed actually contribute to society, no? Organic or locally grown vegetables, condoms, bus passes come to mind. What would you say about marketing those?