From: ohrd!jlevine@cs.toronto.edu (Jody Levine)
Subject: Re: equal opportunity cheesecake
Organization: Ontario Hydro - Research Division
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 16:06:41 GMT

(james.j.dutton) who does not know how to trim a copied article writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.153625.1807@ohrd.uucp> ohrd!jlevine@cs.toronto.edu (Jody Levine) writes:
>>only. The woman on a bike in a bikini and high heels tells me that I'm a 
>>stupid shit who doesn't know squat about riding and that my association 
>>with motorcycles can go no further than sweating on the seat. I have no 
> 
>Inferiority complex?

Advertising is about images and association. If I were a machine I would 
associate myself with the bike and feel that I should spend a lot of time
parked in a studio. As I am not, this implication is not important to me and
I don't even consider it. If *all* the bike ads had a picture of you having
your head crushed by someone wearing the company's logo would you feel good
about it? Extreme example, but I trust that this time the point is clear.
I associate myself with the attractive woman (I like to think :-) ) who,
clearly, does not participate in motorcycling but is a fashion accessory.
Those who do not associate themselves with that person may not see it that
way, which is why I am bothering to point it out.

>If they had adds w some guy in a g-string I don't think I'd care. I wouldn't 
>buy the bike(probably) 

Why wouldn't you buy the bike? Why would the ad not work for you? Would it
matter if that image, instead of being in one, isolated ad, were
representative of a widely spread notion of your subserviance to others, 
even if you did not believe in that notion yourself? (I'm on a roll now...)

>Kindly leave my scantily clad work of nature alone.

This would be ok if you're selling aftershave or G-strings (buy our product
and you'll win a...), but do you think that it makes good sense in a 
motorcycle ad?

>>has a clue? If not, is the purposeful exclusion of half the population from
>>motorcycling a wise marketing move?
> 
>I can see the madison ave guys now:"Hey herb lets insult half the population
>on this one".
>"You got it Festus".
>"Snork".

It's more like "who buys bikes; it's guys; lets give them hard-ons,"
when, I believe it should be "who might buy a bike; people who like the
thrill of speed and/or the freedom of the open air; let's do something that
appeals to them." In the first case, the ad is not directed at me, and
they're wrong, because *I do* buy bikes. In the second case, just about
everyone who rides a motorcycle would be covered. Sex is always effective,
but the whole target market should be involved.

Advertisers care about selling a product, and I am not interested in any 
influence beyond that. I just don't like these ads, and while some may say
that the social climate has influenced my feeling, the point is
irrelevant. These ads don't sell bikes to me, and I question whether 
a broader approach to selling motorcycling would be more effective. If 
babes do sell bikes best then the case is closed and let the trend 
continue. If not, then this is an example of how blindly sexist our 
society really is.

Oooh! I like that last line! flame-bait..flame-bait...flame-bait...flame-bait.

I've        bike                      like       | Jody Levine  DoD #275 kV
     got a       you can        if you      -PF  | Jody.P.Levine@hydro.on.ca
                         ride it                 | Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles