An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Thank You SNL
Thank you for finally taking on these idiotic ads !
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/broadview-security/1208834/
29 Responses to “Thank You SNL”
Just Great! Thank You
Those ads are irritating. The Broadview guy is always presented as a hero: he always has a heroic bearing, and he always says, heroically, something like: “I'm sending someone over now!” Doing a job with excellence is it's own kind of heroism. Yet these ads portray this phone guy up as if he is running into a burning building; as if he is a storybook hero.
And the whole concept of women living in nightmarish hell holes where they get attacked every day is not only annoying but also taking advantage of people's fears.
I find that criticism a bit weird…isn't all advertising based on exploitation of either fear or desire? Not sure why you'd find this example egregious. I'm usually the last one to call 'sexism' but this kind of struck me this way (your post and the comments by other guys, not the SNL skit) because I don't think any of you can claim to know why a young woman living alone would feel the need for a security system.
I don't know why I'm feeling the need to respond on that because I don't have anything personally at stake- I just found the reaction just as annoying as the ads themselves. If the ads overplay fears in order to sell their product, I feel you're underplaying the real concerns that women (especially single women living alone) have in the real world.
The SNL skit didn't bug me that way because they were just goofing on some aspects (that they always show these young single women living in very large homes, and that this particular ad was a clumsy attempt to show an example of potential dangers posed by acquaintances.)
One other aspect of the entire series of ads that I've noticed, which SNL appears to have chosen not to take on, is their overly PC (IMO) choice to always portray instances of crime by white men on white female victims. I'm glad the company doesn't exacerbate racial predjudices about crime (and they'd rightly be called out for that if they did) but I find it a bit ridiculous to go to the other extreme.
CStanley — I agree with you that there are interesting racial overtones to the way these commercials always play out. When it comes down to it, women of color and poor women in general are much more likely to be victims of violent crimes or robberies than are white women, but things like home protection or self-defence classes tend to be marketed to white, middle class women — in our culture, there just seems to be a tendency to think of white women as precious things that need protection, where as women of color are not.
edited by me
Male.
I'm not saying it's ineffective advertising. I'm saying it personally irritates me.
The Broadview employee on the phone is presented – via camera angle, lighting, plot, and acting skill – as a prince who is saving a princess. Irritating. The Broadview employee on the phone, if they do their job with excellence, is a hero. However, the Broadview employee could just as easily be a 90 pound woman in granny glasses; could just as easily be an awkward 18 year old holding down their first job. You get the picture, I hope. When you purchase Broadview's product, you are not buying a prince on a white steed with a sword who will ride to your home 10 seconds after a breakin. You are buying a (hopefully) dedicated yet likely nerdy employee who will call the police. In the break-in, you will still be shoved to the ground, some of your possessions will still be grabbed and stolen, and the police will still arrive with maybe an 8 minute response time. If your burglar is high on drugs (extremely likely), you might still be shot, knifed, or raped during the 8 minute interval. Broadview is (implicitly, via the power of suggestion, via the power of women's princess fantasy, and via the power of Hollywood magic) selling a white knight on a steed who arrives in 8 seconds at your front door, yet Broadview is actually providing a (hopefully) dedicated telephone employee who gets the police there in (hopefully) 8 minutes. You cannot, after the fact, go to the Broadview offices and be blessed by the white knight on a steed. The problem is, your white knight is a 45 year old woman who smokes and has a Twinkie problem. She does her job with heroic dedication, and I have tons of respect for that. But she is not the Fabio who is being sold in the commercials.
Now, were I Broadview's advertising firm, I might conceive of and recommend this exact commercial. It looks like a moneymaker. I don't condemn Broadview for making money or for advertising in a way which is unfair. I simply note that their advertising irritates me personally.
Bull. White women have the money to purchase the service. It's as simple as that. In the selection of white women as subject, there is zero racial animus in play; zero racial ignorance/prejudice on the part of Broadview or on the part of their advertising firm. They are advertising to their macro market; trying to get the most bang for their buck.
Thank you oh decider of all things for telling me what is and is not. What would I do without you?
In addition, you contradict yourself entirely. It's kind of hilarious that you don't realize how obviously in conflict these two ideas are:
“White women have the money to purchase the service” vs “zero racial prejudice on the part of Broadview or on the part of their advertising firm”
Um…yeah. Good try.
You would continue seeing race in all nooks and crannies of life, continue your self congratulatory, racist, obsessive fantasy that you are nobly saving black people who – according to the inescapable logical implication of your fantasy – are incapable of saving themselves. Your race obsession is not helping black people. You are burying any black person who is foolish enough to buy into your worldview.
Do you want me to explain this? I doubt it. But: white women truly do have the money, if for no other reason than that there are far more white women than black women. Second, do you, purveyor of the “black people are economic victims”, now propose that black women as a group have higher incomes and net worths than white women as a group? Third, don't you think Broadview knows who their clientele is? Do you think Broadview is so inept as to overlook that the majority of their clientele is black women? B/c I don't think that. If that were the case,
a) Broadview would have black women starring in their commercials, and
b) you would be saying Broadview is being racist b/c Broadview is intimating that most crime occurs in black neighborhoods.
Which, looking at “b”, I realize your race obsession puts Broadview in a lose/lose circumstance: no matter what the skin tone of their subject, you will accuse the company commercials of demonstrating racial ignorance.
Wow…you are…kind of off your rocker, aren't you? I wasn't even the first one to propose that there might be racial overtones, or at least racial implications of choosing to feature a white woman and white men in the commercial.
Look — I have no desire to get into a derailing flame war with you. You can choose to argue that there's no such thing as race, and that because I was one of TWO people on this thread who did see racial implications, that somehow I am a racist, or trying to coddle or save people of color, but really, you're just showing that you're incapable of stepping back and looking at things from a different perspective, or looking at broader implications of the cultural narratives into which this commercial neatly fits. I saw it there — if you didn't, that's really not my problem. Take your accusations and your jerkiness somewhere else. I've had plenty.
Interesting discussion. Roro, I was about to post a comment before reading through all of the thread, but now realize that gcotharn made the point in the last comment above this one- that is, that I feel it's just as likely that the company has avoided the use of black females playing the part of the victim in their commercials because the inferrence might be that black people live in dangerous neighborhoods.
And I don't see any conflict in the two statements that you pointed out because a company targeting an ad to one demographic (higher income females, which might coincide also with a particular race) does not equate to racial bias.
Regarding gcotharn's other comments about the white knight on a steed- I guess I've never noticed that the phone responders were particularly studly, and never have thought about the romantic angle at all. I suppose gc could be right, although I can't help but find that line of reasoning a bit offensive for what it implies about women motivated by romantic fantasy (then again, there is tons of advertising aimed at male fantasy too and I take it that men aren't insulted by that.) I guess what I don't really get is why this annoys you, gcotharn, but we all have our pet peeves I guess.
Hey CStanley — I'd agree with most of what you said. If you'll notice, I did not say that choosing a white female victim for the commercial was racist, or showed racial bias on the part of the company, merely that there were racial implications. Advertisers choose the races and genders of the actors in their commericals deliberately, and I find it interesting to think about what cultural narratives go along with those choices. You seem to find that interesting too. It just seems bizarre and weird for gcotharn to jump down my throat for mentioning it, insisting that there's no way that race plays any part in the choice of having a white female victim, while at the same time saying that race plays a part because white people have more money. I guess because he's the awesome arbiter of all things, he can say that women have a daddy complex or a princess/white knight fantasy to go along with their home protection, but if he didn't notice the racial implications, I must be imagining them. Thank goodness he's around to tell us all what's what, eh?
LOL, well, to be fair to gcotharn, I read your initial comment as having more criticism behind it than what you're now describing, so maybe the interpretation is in part due to the incomplete cues that we get from internet writing and the fact that a lot of people really do imagine and claim racism in things that are IMO innocent. But yes, I do find the narratives interesting to ponder.
My irritation probably does fall into the pet peeve category (certainly it is nothing Earth shaking), especially since I suspect the advertisements are quality advertising work which are effective moneymakers for Broadview.
Do you see, in the commercials, that the Fabio hero is not doing anything for the women which the unharmed women could not easily do for themselves? That being the case: exactly what service is the Fabio hero providing for the women? I believe the advertisers, were they speaking frankly, would say the service amounts to wish fulfillment fantasy for lonely women who pine for real life contact with a rescuing prince. That the prince is not actually saving them (as, in the commercial scenarios, the unharmed women can call 911 for themselves) does not matter so much as their imagined contact with a Prince (the imagined contact being the stuff of their fantasies).
Last: I don't see why my speculation about an advertising use of some women's prince on a white horse fantasies amounts to an insult to women in general. Do women amount to perfect beings who always act logically and reasonably? I think not! And it is no insult to women to point that out. On the contrary, I would argue that acknowledging imperfection humanizes women, and thus honors them.
As a side note: I'm a fan of your comments here at TMV. I have, many times, been tempted to say “nice job, CStanley”, and therefore am saying it now.
I'm a fan of your comments, Roro, insofar as they come from an intelligent and educated person, and often come from interesting perspective. I do obviously, vehemently, frequently disagree with your reasoning. You could take it as a compliment that, when responding to you, I do not pull punches. It is a compliment to you. Or, you could take it as an insult. Your choice.
As to the “racist” thing: in our previous conversation, you openly called yourself a racist. I ought not be excoriated for describing you as you describe yourself.
Finally, you say: “Take your accusations and your jerkiness somewhere else”. Notice that this is always the fallback position of the left: do our bidding. Sooner or later, the left always compels their enemies, by whatever force is at hand (be it legal, physical, or just verbal), to do their bidding. If the left has significant force at hand, the results are inevitably catastrophic, and I'll give an example: the French Marxist historian, Courtois, and a team of researchers, estimate that leftists murdered 100 Million people during the 20th Century. Just something to notice.
I see where you're coming from a bit more clearly now but I have to disagree a bit.
I see two points of value to the monitoring service that have nothing to do with the wish fulfillment/fantasy that you described. First, having the phone ring and the homeowner talking to someone on the line confirms to the intruder that the alarm actually is monitored and wired to call the police. Some people do in fact use 'fake' alarm systems. I actually lived in a rented home when I was young and single which had a fake alarm company sticker on the front window, when the home had no alarm system whatsoever- and I've known other people who had noisemaker alarms which are meant to scare off an intruder but sophisticated criminals probably know the difference and if highly motivated to commit a crime, they may not flee if they can tell that there is no call to the police. I guess a homeowner could fake the phone call bit and pretend that the police are on their way, or could pick up the phone to dial 911 and talk loud enough so that the intruder can hear the conversation, but I do think that having the phone ring would be a more effective deterrent.
And the second element is just that talking to another human being when in a crisis situation can have a calming and helpful effect. You can tell that 911 operators are trained to serve that function too when you listen to the tapes of their calls. Keeping a potential victim calm is in itself a service that many people would find useful, and in addition to just feeling that someone is 'there' for you, it can prevent a victim from panicking, help them perhaps be more mindful to make mental note of the intruder's physical description, etc.
Do women amount to perfect beings who always act logically and reasonably? I think not! And it is no insult to women to point that out. On the contrary, I would argue that acknowledging imperfection humanizes women, and thus honors them. LOL, fair enough, I guess.
As a side note: I'm a fan of your comments here at TMV. I have, many times, been tempted to say “nice job, CStanley”, and therefore am saying it now.
Thanks!
Really, really weird, dude. You compare my telling you not to be a jerk to murdering 100 million people, as if murder is some sort of hallmark of leftist thinking, after telling me that that should be taken as a compliment. I don't want you to do my bidding — it's quite bizarre that you got that from anything I said. Maybe *you* have a white knight complex? Your logic about calling me a racist because I will freely admit to having racist tendencies (like everyone else) falls flat because the kind of racist I am is not the kind of racist that you think I am. In any case, as I said before, I've had plenty of this. This thread is not about me, it's about a commercial. That you wanted to make it about me is kind of…creepy; I think I've used this adjective for you on past occasions as well.
Fair points, yet not nearly as fun as my Fabio advertising theory!
If you don't want me to do your bidding, then I must have misinterpreted when you said “Take your accusations and your jerkiness somewhere else”. My bad.
How one might interpret “don't be a jerk, and don't accuse me of things” to mean “do my bidding!” is totally beyond me.
DEAR COMMENTERS
hi there everyone. I'm not mom, but let's get back to the topic. Please dont attack other commenters. A comment has been removed. Sorry for the interruption in comments' flow that may caused.
Thanks
dr.e
Suddenly realized why the commercials irritate me: the commercials are selling masculine protection which Broadview does not provide. Broadview does not provide the traditional protection of a man who will place himself between a woman and danger. Broadview's market, single women, are concerned about being without traditional masculine protection. Broadview's Fabio hero encourages single women to believe a fantasy, i.e. to falsely believe Broadview Security will provide them with traditional masculine protection.
As a man who is willing to endanger myself in order to protect women, I find the commercials irritating. Not that it matters, or is even a very big deal, but I could make an argument that both the commercials and the women who fantasize are demeaning and insulting to … frankly … every brave person. Consider: women, if men are incapacitated or if children are in danger, will place themselves in harm's way in order to protect the men or the children. Broadview is implicitly equating a Fabio on a phone with a brave human being who is willing to risk physical harm at the point of attack. It's not the same. And, it's not a huge deal … but it is irritating that Broadview encourages fantasy thinking. It's irritating that some women cannot distinguish between a guy on a phone – who might be 1000 miles away – and real persons who are willing to risk their lives at the point of attack to save such silly women.
Example:
Brinks Home Security, now Broadview Security, fails to provide manly protection to a damsel in distress, yet you would never know it by watching the commercial. Notice (at :42) how the Broadview call center is literally “manned”, i.e. is 100% inhabited by virile and active men who display decisive body language for the camera. There is neither a woman nor a frumpy yet competent person in sight. What is the implication? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28o21UFsmO0
I am the offender.
My first instinct is to point out the double standard: I was nabbed for responding to Roro's original attack upon me for being, I don't know, something or other – for having pretense of omniscience, or authority, or something. Roro's attack is still sitting there in the open, plain as day, yet I was nabbed. Possibly I was nabbed for effectiveness? Roro has other schoolyard taunt type attacks sitting further down the thread. I'm confident she was an effective 4th grade taunter. Yet, I was nabbed, and her taunts – however juvenile – still technically constitute attacks and still definitely reside in the open on this comment thread. Double standard.
And my second instinct is to point out the double standard on this blog: both the bloggers and the commenters frequently attack conservatives for being either ignorant, filled with hatred, or filled with greed and/or selfishness. Such commenters' major arguments in support of their opinions rarely address issues, but rather amount to evidence-free accusations about those who disagree with their opinions. I'll give an example: there is barely a blogger or a commenter on this blog who will not openly, proudly, and heedlessly accuse an opponent of gay marriage of being homophobic. Such type of carefree accusation and attack goes on every day on this blog, and is neither noted nor remedied. And why would such attacks not be personal? Why would someone saying, in so many words: conservatives are ignorant, hate-filled, greedy not be taken personally? However, let a conservative respond in kind, let a conservative stand up and fight back and fight our own fights (as we prefer to do), and said conservative's comment is likely to be excised from the thread.
My third instinct is to take a breath and appreciate this blog. As much as a double standard is consistently in evidence: what, really, can and ought be done about it which is not already being done? As I look at it, I've enjoyed commenting here partly b/c the personal attacks and name calling are less in evidence here than at any left side blog I've ever visited. So, actually, kudos. The name calling and attacks from the left are so ingrained, so pervasive, that it's probably impossible to stop them: they can only be reduced in number, and you guys at TMV have reduced the number of attacks, and – on third instinct(!) – I heartily commend you for that.
Further, I notice the banning of my comment is an opportunity for me to raise my game, i.e. to communicate more effectively and gracefully. I do argue that my alleged “personal attack” on Roro was an in-context explication of factors which influenced her misguided opinion that Broadview acted in racially ignorant and/or inappropriate fashion. However, I now have opportunity to raise my game in future: to communicate more effectively and gracefully.
In particular, my use of “racist” was sloppy and was not representative of the standards to which I aspire. There are excuses: I was writing fast in midday, and Roro and I have history with the term “racist” – and with her particular definition of “racist”. Still, I desire to do better, and will in future! I predict I shall never be banned again! I shall walk the line like Johnny Cash!
And, again, kudos for running a blog with the least personal attacks of any left side blog I have seen. It's impossible to get them all. Can't be done. Upon reflection: you guys do an outstanding job.
Final note: I prefer that you not excise any of Roro's comments in this blogpost. I prefer that her comments stand on their own merit, and that the comment thread remain coherent. Thanks for your consideration of this matter.
Dr E — I appreciate your infinite patience; I'm not sure why, but I seem to bring out the worst in people on this blog. (Incredibly, it's exactly the opposite in real life…)
dear GCotharn. You're not an offender by my sights, just new to the site, and passionate. Your comment to me is duly noted, and I appreciate your laying out the mini-evolution of your process of thinking. I think that can be valuable to many too.
Thanks for your comment about running a clean blog. It takes a lot of work, but gets a little dusty around the edges sometimes esp with new commenters who are unfamiliar with commenters' rules at TMV …which are short, clear, and good boundaries for maintaining civility in the midst of different people's intense views and the facts at hand.
Johnny Cash was 'the man in black' from humble roots and with a broken golden heart. You could hardly pick better.
Thanks.
dr.e
Dear Roro: all is well, and thank you for noting my trying to keep tmv under a steady wing. Appreciate when people notice what I give my time to.
Like all our cobloggers except one, dear Robt Stein who is former head of Conde Nast and about 83, I think (But surely with a mind like his, he still works too) we all have our day jobs and our families to take care of, often too, our frail elders and various issues for ourselves, including health challenges. I think sometimes the stresses of being pulled in many directions can cause just human nature to over-do it a bit in what is said aloud.
But, I'm a champion Roro of the opposite. For all 'over-doing' of various sorts, I am dedicated to the idea, most often, of encouraging 'do-overs.' I have my limits, and TMV definitely has its boundaries set out in commenter's rules, and I think all these premises can go together most of the time.
At TMV, they send me to moderate solely, possibly because I work post-trauma and critical incident sites, and the knife and gun club at ERs. I hope that made you laugh Roro.
What's that poem, 'if you can be calm in the midst' of what? the world flying apart? I work with many for 40 years now, whose worlds have truly been suddenly strafed in one way or another… thereby helping keep peace in a realistic way at TMV amongst truly intelligent, often insightful and ever passionate commenters, is an honor in its own way… does that make sense?
I can readily believe you bring out the best in many. I think I can see much in people's comments about each person's 'back story.' In people who are sometimes a little barbed in comments, almost always, I see in such commenter, a great heart that often anguish-wishes for something better for others and self. And the tone and timbre of comments can reflect those matters of wanting better for this world, for self and others, yet remain civil.
Thank you Roro
dr.e