In Dan Neil’s article “Company Town: Seduced by a Juicy Burger” published in the LA Times, he criticizes the fast food advertising industry in a sarcastic manner while wondering if the industry has gone too far. The article, written in 2009, is almost laughably outdated compared to today’s carnal advertisements. Today it seems unfeasible for companies not to objectify women in their commercials. This primitive approach fuels the fire in that women are nearly props more so than the product that they’re supposed to be selling. The particular focus of Neil’s article is a Carl’s Jr.’s commercial starring Padma Lakshmi. Lakshmi, a renowned author, chef, television host, and model is only utilized as one of those in the commercial. Rather
…show more content…
and Quiznos in the guilty line-up is Burger King. The commercial that Neil refers to has children’s cartoon character Spongebob’s Kids’ Meal being “oddly sexualized” (paragraph thirteen). This is an accurate description of the commercial in which “involves the King riffing to Sir Mix-a-Lot’s ‘Baby Got Back’ while a bunch of orthogonally rumped hotties dance around” (paragraph thirteen). The truly disturbing aspect of the ad, is that it’s key demographic is targeted towards children. Nevertheless, Neil believes that the younger generation has “had their normative values defined by life online, which is generally pretty risque” (paragraph …show more content…
Referring to the Burger King advertisement, Linn adds “it’s bad enough when companies use a beloved media character like Spongebob to promote junk food to children, but it’s utterly reprehensible when that character simultaneously promotes objectified, sexualized images of women” (paragraph fourteen). Regardless, it seems futile to try and use sex as a point of interest during a commercial directed towards kids. The underlying sexual message would just go over their hands and they would find the concept of the commercial funny instead. Neil believes that next to sex, humor is the advertising industry’s fall back as it’s “the only defense advertiser have against the commercial-skipping fast-forward button on the DVR” (paragraph sixteen). It makes one wonder why with humor being the next best thing, why not use that on a more suited audience like
and Quiznos in the guilty line-up is Burger King. The commercial that Neil refers to has children’s cartoon character Spongebob’s Kids’ Meal being “oddly sexualized” (paragraph thirteen). This is an accurate description of the commercial in which “involves the King riffing to Sir Mix-a-Lot’s ‘Baby Got Back’ while a bunch of orthogonally rumped hotties dance around” (paragraph thirteen). The truly disturbing aspect of the ad, is that it’s key demographic is targeted towards children. Nevertheless, Neil believes that the younger generation has “had their normative values defined by life online, which is generally pretty risque” (paragraph …show more content…
Referring to the Burger King advertisement, Linn adds “it’s bad enough when companies use a beloved media character like Spongebob to promote junk food to children, but it’s utterly reprehensible when that character simultaneously promotes objectified, sexualized images of women” (paragraph fourteen). Regardless, it seems futile to try and use sex as a point of interest during a commercial directed towards kids. The underlying sexual message would just go over their hands and they would find the concept of the commercial funny instead. Neil believes that next to sex, humor is the advertising industry’s fall back as it’s “the only defense advertiser have against the commercial-skipping fast-forward button on the DVR” (paragraph sixteen). It makes one wonder why with humor being the next best thing, why not use that on a more suited audience like