Who Decided all Super Bowl Ads Must Be Aimed at Men?

February 05, 2009

As I stated in last week's Super Bowl ad article, I might not be a huge football fan, but I do love to watch the Super Bowl. Yes, it's a huge testosterone festival. Yes, OBVIOUSLY, men enjoy it, and historically it's been a mainly male event.

But you know what? Women watch it too! An article at AdWeek states "According to Nielsen, the female audience of the Super Bowl has increased steadily over the last 10 years. Last year in fact, almost 38 percent of viewers were women over the age of 18, compared to about 43 percent men." That's a pretty even split, as far as I can tell. Only a five percent difference between the two halves of their audience with money to spend.

But Kristi Faulkner hit the nail on her head in her article titled it "40 Million Women Scorned," when she stated "Of the 95 national ads featured, women, girls, female animals or lipstick-wearing potato heads appeared in just 43. And that's not to say those 43 ads were created for women or designed to persuade them to spend any of the $7 trillion they do each year. In fact, women, for all intents and purposes, were ignored."

And that's just simply stupid. Not only that, but this year, I was just downright offended by some of the truly vulgar, and overtly sexual ads that were aired during the superbowl. In this specific marketplace, knowing that more than a third of their target audience will be female, advertisers must make greater strides to NOT ALIENATE this extremely powerful demographic.

Yes, I watched the Super Bowl. I Tivo'd it, in fact. I viewed the game itself in fast motion and slowed it down to watch the commercials. I wasn't keeping track, but Kristi did: "Twenty-two ads featured women and/or their breasts in starring roles. Twelve were truly insulting or demeaning."

While most of the 13 specifically automotive-focused ads (click to watch the collection here at AutomotiveTraveler.com) could be perceived as gender-neutral, a couple made me go "Ugh! What were they thinking?!" ESPECIALLY the Godaddy ads that were so focused on sex and unnaturally big breasted women, that I wondered why Danica Patrick would associate herself with them? The one with Danica in the shower just made me squirm in my seat, but the other one with the woman who is about to bare her "enhanced" breasts made me turn my head. In fact, I think Danica is doing a disservice to women in motorsports with the way she has sexualized her presentation of herself off the track. Nascar is a family oriented sport, with an audience that is approximately 40% female. If she's trying to increase her credibility as a driver, she's not doing it by turning herself into a sex object.

I thought the David Abernathy cars.com spot was cute, but I agree with Kristi when she wondered if the ad would have "been more effective if David Abernathy had been cast as a woman? Need we remind Mr. Cars.com that it's Ms. Abernathy who chooses 65 percent of cars purchased in this country?"

So here's the question: We all know that advertisers and consumers alike are facing the worst economic environment of our lifetimes. So if statistics show that more than half of the Super Bowl's viable demographic is female, and knowing that the automotive business has dropped so drastically in the last few months, why didn't these advertisers do a better job to appeal to this audience that influences 85 percent of all car sales, 90 percent of all technology purchases, and spends SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS each year?

Did you watch the Super Bowl? What did you think of the ads?

Jody DeVere
President and CEO
http://www.askpatty.com
http://www.carblabber.com